Trump claims he is not a public official under the Constitution
Many conservative judges in the Supreme Court strictly apply the phrase, several precedents
Anti-Trump faction expects ruling to restrict candidacy based on conservative legal principles
CNN reported on the 1st (local time) that progressives who want the U.S. Supreme Court to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for president are paying attention to the past positions expressed by conservative Supreme Court justices, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia. did.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hold its first trial on the 8th to consider Trump’s eligibility to run. The anti-Trump camp predicts that although the Supreme Court is composed of six conservative judges, including three appointed by Trump, and three progressive judges, it can neutralize Trump’s argument even if it follows conservative legal interpretations.
Trump has argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars those involved in insurrection from holding public office, does not apply to the president, saying the president is not a “public official” and refers to people appointed by the president.
In this regard, the late Justice Scalia ruled in a 2014 trial between loggers and soda distributors that “public officials” in the United States are appointed by the president unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, a precedent refuting Trump’s argument. is attracting attention. Chief Justice John Roberts also agreed with the ruling at the time.
On the 31st, progressives and a number of former Republican officials submitted an opinion to the Supreme Court refuting Trump’s claims, citing the late Justice Scalia’s ruling.
In an opinion submitted to the Supreme Court, the Constitution Enforcement Center, a progressive legal group, quoted the late Justice Scalia and said that “the text of the revised Constitution must be interpreted literally” and that historically, “officials at all levels of government include the President of the United States.” “It will happen,” he emphasized.
Michael Ruttig, a former conservative appellate judge who has publicly criticized Trump, also submitted an opinion to the Supreme Court this week citing Justice Scalia.
On the other hand, Professor Joshua Blackman of South Texas Law School in Houston, who is looking forward to appearing before the Supreme Court next week and presenting his position on behalf of Trump, emphasizes that it is wrong to see the late Justice Scalia as emphasizing a strict interpretation of constitutional provisions.
However, the anti-Trump camp sees past rulings by conservative judges, in addition to the Scalia ruling, as neutralizing Trump’s arguments.
A representative example is the ruling made by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch while he was a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. He had ruled that states can exclude candidates from running if they are not permitted by the Constitution to hold public office.
Issues raised when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month disqualifying Trump from running as the state’s Republican presidential candidate are also cited as an unfavorable case for Trump. The Colorado Republican Party had argued in the trial that Congress should decide the validity of the 14th Amendment.
In relation to this, in a Supreme Court trial held on the 16th of last month, in relation to the issue of whether the state can become a direct party to the lawsuit when seizing personal property, conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito opposed the argument that Congress should enact the law first. expressed his position.
Justice Alito said at the time, “The argument that the effect (of the constitutional provision) should be limited in that way appears to be unfounded.”
Source: Donga
Mark Jones is a world traveler and journalist for News Rebeat. With a curious mind and a love of adventure, Mark brings a unique perspective to the latest global events and provides in-depth and thought-provoking coverage of the world at large.