Trump's Colorado ballot eligibility defense is headed down the wrong path: legal scholar

Reacting to the progress so far in a Colorado courtroom where the first real test over whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot next year, retired conservative Judge Michael Luttig suggested the former president's lawyers have failed to confront a pivotal point in the 14th Amendment.

Appearing on MSNBC on Sunday morning with host Ali Velshi, Luttig — who has been one of the leading proponents for banning Trump over his actions up to, on and after the Jan. 6 insurrection — claimed there is just as strong case to ban the former president after the Colorado testimony because the former president's lawyers are misreading a key detail in the constitutional amendment.

"Section Three of the 14th Amendment very simply says that any person who has previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the United States, should to be disqualified from holding any office under the United States'" the retired jurist reminded the MSNBC host.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

"I've read some of the transcripts, I've read reporting about the arguments that have been made this week in both Colorado and Minnesota — even more specifically, I've read some of the questioning by the judges from the bench," he continued. "It seems to me that, frankly, all parties to these different litigations in the various states, to this point, have misunderstood Section Three of the 14th Amendment."

"As I've said, it disqualifies one who is engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States of America, it does not, by its terms, disqualify one who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States," he asserted, "There is a world of constitutional difference between those two."

"It is, of course, to the former president's advantage for his lawyers to argue that Section Three disqualifies anyone who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, with the authority of the United States; that's not what Section Three actually says," he elaborated. "But in both litigations, Ali, both parties have focused on almost exclusively whether the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, constituted an insurrection or rebellion against the United States."

"Unfortunately, at least as far as I have seen, the challenges to the president's qualifications to hold a future office have essentially bought into that wrong argument by the former president's lawyers," he continued. "They, for their part, have tried to establish that the former president did not incite or participate and an insurrection against the United States. The compelling case under Section Three for the former president's disqualification is this: his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that he had lost his election, constituted a rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, the executive investing clause of the United States Constitution, this very simply prescribes that the term of the president of the United States extends for four years, and four years only, unless he is elected, or reelected, by the American people."

Watch below or at the link:

MSNBC 11 05 2023 10 29 08youtu.be