At the Supreme Court, the debate over Trump’s exclusion from the Republican primaries appears to be turning to his advantage.

Two sentences, 109 words written in 1868 and lots of ambiguity. Thus Section 3 of 14^E Amendment to the United States Constitution, which the Supreme Court examined in a historic hearing on Thursday, February 8. At the end of the debate, the nine justices will have to decide whether Donald Trump, the favorite of the Republican primaries, should be disqualified because of his willingness and his involvement in preventing a peaceful transition of power during the election of Joe Biden in 2020. Attack of January 6, 2021. In truth, the suspense is low. This hypothesis seems unlikely, as the judges, in their questions and comments, expressed strong doubts even beyond the divide between conservatives and liberals.

During the two-hour debate, it became clear that the justices were not convinced by the legality of the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court in December to exclude Donald Trump from the race for the Republican nomination in this state. A week later, Maine’s secretary of state followed suit, after dozens of similar requests across the country were denied by local authorities.

Much of the debate before the Court centered on three issues: the content of Article 3 of the 14^E Possible consequences of amendment, state privilege and disqualification. On the other hand, the nature of the events of January 6 was barely mentioned, apart from a shocking exchange between Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Donald Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell. The latter has halfway gone down paths his clients never wanted to take. “It was a riot. It was not a rebellion. The incidents were shameful, criminal, violent, all those things. But they cannot be described as rebellion in the sense in which that term is used in Article 3.

indefinite article

Article 3 of 14, written after the American Civil War^E The amendment was intended to prevent former confederates from returning to positions of responsibility. The text states that a person has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution “as an officer of the United States” Cannot be a member of Congress, serve as an elector, or hold any office, civil or military, if he or she has committed rebellion or insurrection.

By its imprecise wording, Section 3 opens up a wide area of ​​debate. Is the President an officer of the United States among others? Who has the authority to enforce this text? And then, is January 6 a coup, and in this case, can we agree on the direct responsibility of Donald Trump?

You have 60% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.