James Mitchell认为科罗拉多州最高法院认定特朗普根据第十四修正案第三条被禁止担任总统的裁决是错误的,应该被推翻。他认为特朗普不属于第十四修正案第三条中“美国官员”的范畴,因为他并非被任命的官员;即使候选人被第十四修正案第三条认定为不具备担任总统的资格,该条款也不能用于将其排除在选票之外,因为国会可以在候选人当选后、就职前解除其资格;任何州都不能因为第十四修正案第三条而将任何联邦候选人排除在选票之外,任何这样做的州都在违反《任期限制法案》的判决,即改变了宪法规定的联邦公职资格;科罗拉多州最高法院的裁决与要求国会议员在选举日之前居住在该州的州居住法没有区别,因为宪法只要求国会议员在当选时居住在其代表的州。在这两种情况下,州都在提前设定了满足宪法规定的资格的截止日期;如果最高法院维持下级法院的裁决,不仅会违反《任期限制法案》,还会剥夺数千万美国人的投票权。他还就第十四修正案第三条是否具有自我执行力、州务卿是否有权拒绝承认自己参与了叛乱的候选人登记参选等问题进行了详细论述,并以州居住法为例进行了类比说明。
大法官就第十四修正案第三条的自我执行力、各州执行该条的权力、以及总统是否属于“美国官员”等问题向James Mitchell进行了质询。大法官还就格里芬案的先例性、以及国会在此案之后采取的行动对原告论点的支持程度进行了探讨。此外,大法官还就原告论点的后果、以及原告论点与其他宪法条款(例如弹劾条款)之间的关系进行了质询。
This segment delves into the unprecedented case before the Supreme Court concerning the potential disqualification of former President Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot. The arguments revolve around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which addresses insurrection and disqualification from office. The heart of the debate lies in whether this section is self-executing, allowing states to enforce it, or if it requires congressional action. The implications of state-level enforcement on national elections and the historical context of the 14th Amendment, particularly concerning Confederate insurrectionists, are also scrutinized.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the unprecedented case that could threaten former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the primary ballot in Colorado. Listen to the full hearing here.