Trump’s eligibility for 2024: a constitutional and moral dilemma
Trump’s legal team has appealed the lawsuit, claiming that the wording of the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidential candidates, and that Trump did not technically swear an oath to “uphold” the Constitution. Instead, during his inauguration in January 2017, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his term as president. Trump’s lawyers also argued that the presidency is not an office “under the United States” and that the president is not an “officer of the United States”, as the 14th Amendment requires. The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump’s appeal, which will be reviewed next month.
This case raises important questions about the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment, as well as the accountability and responsibility of political leaders who threaten the democracy and the rule of law. In a recent segment of the MSNBC show Deadline White House, hosted by Alicia Menendez, three legal experts shared their opinions on the case and its implications: Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney, Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security, and Lisa Rubin, an MSNBC legal analyst. They all agreed that Trump’s arguments are “absurd”, “ridiculous” and “baseless”, and that he clearly violated the 14th Amendment by inciting the attack on the Capitol, which aimed to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election. They explained that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent former rebels from returning to power, but that it also applies to any cases of insurrection or rebellion against the federal government. They stressed that Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, even if he used different words, and that he breached that oath by undermining the peaceful transfer of power and the will of the people. They asserted that the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency, which is the highest public office in the country, and that Trump should be disqualified from running again. They hoped that the Colorado Supreme Court would reject Trump’s appeal and send a strong message about the accountability of leaders who endanger the democracy.
In my opinion, the legal experts are right to challenge Trump’s eligibility for 2024, based on the 14th Amendment and the evidence of his role in the Capitol riot. Trump’s attempt to evade the consequences of his actions by twisting the words and the spirit of the Constitution is not only dishonest, but also dangerous. It sets a precedent for future presidents who might abuse their power and incite violence against the government, without facing any legal or moral repercussions. It also undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral system, which is the foundation of the democratic process. By allowing Trump to run for office again, the Colorado Supreme Court would be rewarding his misconduct and encouraging his followers to continue their efforts to subvert the democracy. It would also be ignoring the historical and constitutional context of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to protect the nation from the threat of domestic enemies who seek to overthrow the government by force. The 14th Amendment is not a mere technicality, but a vital safeguard for the preservation of the republic and the values it stands for. Therefore, I believe that Trump’s eligibility for 2024 should be denied, not only as a matter of law, but also as a matter of principle.
