The improbable journey of the third section of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution ended this Monday in Washington, where the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Donald Trump has the right to appear on the ballots for the Colorado primaries, scheduled for March 5 . Colorado is one of 15 States that vote on Super Tuesday.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, and not the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering that former President Trump was excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot,” says the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Denver had resolved in December that the so-called “disqualification clause” of the fundamental text could be applied to the former president, due to the acts, classified as “insurrection”, that he carried out in the weeks before and during January 6 2021, the day in which a mob of his followers stormed the Capitol after a rally in Washington in which Trump harangued them to march towards the headquarters of the US Congress, where congressmen and senators were meeting that day to certify the electoral victory of Joe Biden in the previous November elections. The Republican candidate refused to accept that result and still (along with a third of the electorate) does not accept it.
Colorado, where the lawsuit was filed by a group of voters, was later joined by the State of Maine, and, last week and by surprise, a judge from Illinois, who ruled that Trump could not participate in the primaries of the next 19 of March. Both decisions were, however, on hold pending the sentencing this Monday in Washington. In practice, all of these initiatives are rejected this Monday along with that of Colorado. In recent months, more than thirty similar lawsuits had been filed throughout the country.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court (three liberals and six conservatives, three of whom Trump appointed while he was in the White House), heard the arguments of both parties on February 8 and already seemed determined to agree with the lawyers of the Supreme Court. former president.
The entire discussion revolved around the interpretation of a couple of phrases from the Constitution, 95 words in total, very rarely used, on which the Supreme Court had never ruled. This is the third section of the fourteenth amendment, an addendum to the fundamental text approved in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War (1861-1865). It served to grant full rights to enslaved people and to place a containment dam to prevent the Confederate rebels from being able to hold public office again and blow up the system from within.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
SuscrÃbete
The text has two parts. The first says: “He may not be a senator or representative in Congress, nor an elector to elect president and vice president, nor may he hold any civil or military position under the authority of the United States or any State, who, having sworn previously supported the Constitution of the United States as a member of Congress, as an officer of the United States or as a member of the Legislative Assembly of any State or as an executive or judicial officer thereof has taken part in any insurrection or rebellion against the United States or has given aid or facilities for the country's enemies. The second continues: “However, Congress, through the vote of two-thirds of each House, will be able to remedy this inability.”
In that oral hearing, doubts were raised about whether this text explicitly refers to the position of presidents, and whether it is a provision that applies automatically or whether Congress has to put it into operation. Trump's lawyers argue that the speech to his supporters on January 6 is protected by free speech. The accused maintains that his disqualification would have amounted to an act of political persecution.
It is the second time in less than a week that the Supreme Court has given the former president a boost in his plans to return to the White House four years later. Last Wednesday, the court decided that it would answer the question of whether Trump was granted presidential immunity when he tried to reverse the electoral result of the 2020 elections, which implies a new postponement in the start of the trial that continues against the magnate in Washington for the events that led to the assault on the Capitol. The hearing to hear the oral arguments of both parties has been set for April 22. It is foreseeable that weeks will pass until the nine magistrates issue their resolution, perhaps in June. Only then, and only if they do not agree with Trump and if they deny his immunity, can the start date of the electoral interference trial be set. That could mean a delay until September or October.
The legal theory of disqualification began to take shape last August with the dissemination prior to publication of a 126-page scientific article for the legal review of the University of Pennsylvania. Graduated The extension and force of the third section, It was signed by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two renowned conservative academics, who argue that the disqualification clause is alive and that there is no doubt that Trump's actions fit its description. This Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against them.
(Breaking news. There will be an update soon.)
Follow all the information on the elections in the United States on our weekly newsletter.