Conservative ex-judge sends brief to Supreme Court begging not to fear Trump'

January 6, 2021, marked a day when Donald Trump "engaged in" insurrection to cling to power, and, therefore, he should be barred from holding office.

Former U.S. appeals court judge and prominent conservative J. Michael Luttig's amicus brief to the Supreme Court leveled a barrage of reasons why former President Donald Trump deserves to be stricken from seeking to become the country's 47th president.

"Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President,” according to the friend-of-the-court brief and first reported by CNN. “In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3 (of the Constitution).”

Also Read: Overcoming the Fox News-Musk-Trump propaganda machine

The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral argument on Feb. 8.

Luttig writes Trump "engaged in the insurrection," he "incited the threat and use of violent force as his last opportunity to stop the peaceful transfer of executive power."

The former judge, who once presided over the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, examined Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which states: "No person shall... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion..."

Luttig suggested in the brief that Trump was “President of the United States" on that deadly day, but in his argument that he remain on the ballot, he "never disputes that the President is an 'officer.'"

He continued: "Mr. Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President. In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3."

Moreover, Luttig suspects the Constitution's framers didn't add Section 3 to be window dressing, but rather to give the citizens "the ability to make an informed decision and ultimately-eligible Presidents of the ability to govern effectively from the outset."

Luttig laid it on thick in a warning to the highest court in the land to take their role seriously and not bow to any particular popular side.

"Not much would remain of our Constitution if this Court narrowly enforced the Constitution’s provisions when they potentially frustrate large numbers of voters," according to the brief.