Former President Donald Trump's disqualification from voting in several states depends on whether the U.S. Supreme Court considers the president to be an “officer of the United States” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. there is a possibility.

Mr. Trump, Most likely candidate He is competing for the Republican presidential nomination after the Supreme Court and Maine Secretary of State Shena Bellows ruled in Colorado and Maine, respectively, that he was ineligible to serve in Congress under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. and was disqualified from participating in the preliminary vote. T

A provision in the Constitution passed after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding federal office. read: “No person… shall hold any office under the United States, civil or military… as an officer of the United States… who has previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States shall be a rebel.” or engage in rebellion against the same, or give aid or comfort to its enemies.” (Related: California Secretary of State keeps Trump on the ballot as Democrats seek to remove him)

Trump has since appealed both rulings, and the Colorado case granted It was certified by the Supreme Court on Friday. One of the questions President Trump posed in court. Application for ruling The question is whether he, as president, was an “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the amendment, although no other text specifies that the president or vice president are such officers. Opinions among legal experts are sharply divided on this issue.

Today, a lawsuit was filed in Illinois citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to bar President Trump from voting.

He is already banned from Maine and Colorado.

There's no doubt SCOTUS will make the final decision, but here's what you need to know about the underlying arguments. pic.twitter.com/SntuiwJrWt

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 5, 2024

“The answer is yes,” Lawrence Tribe, professor emeritus of law at Harvard University's Karl M. Loeb College, told the Daily Caller News Foundation when asked whether the president is an official of the United States.Tribe introduced his DCNF to others Explanation In it, he opined that the prohibition on constitutional amendments targeted “all officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.”

The president's oath of office requires him to “preserve, protect, and defend” the U.S. Constitution. “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will do everything in my power to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” read Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

However, other scholars and experts disagree. “If you look at the state of Colorado opinion, it says anyone who holds an office is an official.” [of the United States]. That's not right,” Richard Epstein, Lawrence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, told DCNF. “What you have to do is look at the appointment clause under Article II. You are,” he added. A completely different interpretation will probably develop in the future. ”

“Appointment Clause” refers to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Specify The president has the power to “appoint ambassadors, other ministers and consuls, justices of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Mr. Epstein argues that the language of his appointment clause prevents the president from being considered an official of the United States. This is because officials must be appointed by the president, not the president himself.

“What's clearly happening is that the president is a person who holds an office, but he's not an officer. Officers are people who are appointed under the Appointments Clause,” Epstein said. “It doesn't make sense to say he's controlled by it.”

This argument was echoed by Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

“I do not believe Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the president (or vice president, for that matter),” he told DCNF.

“[T]”The framers of Article III intentionally omitted the president and vice president…It makes no sense for the framers to include the electors for those offices but not the offices themselves,” McCarthy explained. , pointed out that the amendment referred to “electors.”[s] It says “of the President and Vice President,” but excludes any reference to the office of president or vice president. “The default position in law is that when an important constitutional right is at issue, the provision must be very clear before concluding that it calls for the denial of that right.” When it comes to jobs, Article 3 does not pass that test.”

However, other scholars suggest that there is no clear answer to the question of whether the president is an “officer of the United States.” Jeremy Rabkin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia School of Law, told DCNF:[t]I believe that there is no case law that provides authoritative guidance on these issues. ”

But Rabkin said he was “skeptical” that the amendment included the president. “Art. II, Section 1 (last paragraph) establishes the oath that the President must take upon assuming office. Art. VI, Par. 3, then reads: “… Executive Officers of the United States.'' This is a somewhat different oath, and it seems to be taken for granted that this provision does not apply to the president, but perhaps There are several possible reasons. [he’s] Not a “U.S. official,'' Rabkin wrote.

Rabkin also addressed the question of whether Trump had committed an act of “insurrection” as defined by the amendment, about which he was equally skeptical. “[I]Rebellion has a somewhat technical meaning; [the] The use of force to oust an existing government.it's not easy to get pregnant [of] “The president, already a constitutional official with the authority to use force, is leading an 'insurrection' against the government (or himself?),” Rabkin wrote, adding, “The January 6 Capitol riot was a riot. I'm also skeptical that that was the case,” he added. It was a “rebellion” because there seemed to be no serious plan to oust the US government with an alternative or serious plan. ”

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case. trump vs andersonBoth Colorado and Maine have suspended their decisions pending judicial proceedings, and the first major event of the year, the Iowa Republican caucus, will be held on January 15th.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.