Additional point about whether their first amendment rights as a party were violated by the action here. but trump goes on to make these additional arguments, including whether or not he engaged in insurrection. the colorado republican party did not raise that question. and, so their petition, the only position presented to the supreme court, would not be asking the court to actually review the determination of the colorado supreme court, affirming the ruling of the district court that trump did engage in insurrection. now, i suspect the court ruled on will not grant certain that question, that they will probably resolve this question on the issue of whether he s an officer under section three, and whether or not the section is self executing. but if they were to rule against trump on those two legal questions, and then they actually would have to reach the question of whether he engaged in insurrection. i suspect that he raised those issues on appeal because he also wants to be cont
The appeal that they made? well, anderson, one of the first things that the president s lawyers take on is the idea that he is an insurrectionist, which is something that the colorado supreme court had ruled. they say he is not, that the january 6th attack was not an insurrection, and that the former president did not engage in insurrection. they also say that the congress, not state courts, should be the ones that determine the eligibility for the presidency. they also say that the 14th amendment, the letter, if you read the 14th amendment, section three, it doesn t mention the office of the presidency and it doesn t apply, they say, to the former president. i will read you a little more of what they argue. they say that this colorado ruling, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the united states the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. and obviously, that is what is at stake here, anderso
Picking apart individual statements or lines from the president. what i think they try to do is reach some point of unimin in the or near unanimity over some of these questions over, for instance, is the president an officer of the united states? is the president does he take the same oath as other people, therefore is he exempt from the provisions in the 14th amendment that would apply here? because of how fraught and complicated politically sensitive this insurrection question is, and very difficult legally to sort out, i think they just avoid it altogether. and frankly, it s probably more in the presidents interest, the courts interest, to say, look, forget insurrection, he s a candidate for office. and people who are speaking in the context of the political process generally are afforded more latitude to speak. maggie, when you look back at that speech, he talks about fighting, fight like hell, he use that term a lot. he does that. he uses the words that can be interpreted in m
Compare january 6th to the civil war, or he didn t raise an army. i ve heard all sorts of arguments. yes, they say this wasn t an insurrection. an insurrection only stance if you are waging war against the united states, and even if it was an insurrection, donald trump did not engage in it, which is the word in the 14th amendment, because all he did was give a speech, and that was protected by the first amendment. so, some of the same arguments that we ve heard before. one of the arguments i ve heard is that due process requires that he be found beyond reasonable doubt to have engaged in insurrection. and that is certainly not the case, if he doesn t make that argument, i think that in most civil matters, preponderance of the evidence is the standard that can be used. and other evidence can be used. as the colorado supreme court did, to the january six house committee hearings, it seems to be perfectly appropriate for determining whether there was or wasn t an insurrection. there w
Big on original textualism. and so, what was the common public understanding at that time of the 14th amendment? and there are certainly some debates at that time that s up, we want to make sure this doesn t apply just to our current situation with a civil war, but all instructions that may come in the future. it s a hard question, but i don t think donald trump s brief tackles it with the seriousness it is deserving. let s just put some meat on those bones. when this amendment was written out and ratified after the civil war, there was a pretty clear idea of what rebellion looked like, because it had been in a civil war. is donald trump s team leaning into the fact that you can t compare january 6th visit to the civil war, or he didn t raise an army. i ve heard all sorts of arguments. yes, they say this wasn t an insurrection. and insurrection only stance if you are waging war against the united states, and even if it was an insurrection, donald trump did not engage in it, which i