An Amicus Brief re Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court by 14Th Amendment experts
This Court should reverse on both grounds.
First, Griffin's Case settled the meaning of Section 3, is consistent with the longstanding sword-shield dichotomy in federal courts' jurisprudence, and reflects a core premise of reconstruction: Congress, and not the distrusted States, was empowered to enforce Section 3.
Second, the four provisions of the Constitution of 1788 that use the phrase "Officers of the United States" do not refer to the President. And the Framers of Section 3 used that older, extant, limited language, in particular the Oaths Clause, and in doing so carried forward the meaning of "Officers of the United States" from that "old soil." In 1788, 1868, and today, "Officer of the United States" in the Constitution extends exclusively to appointed positions and not to elected positions.
In conclusion: Neither this brief nor any other submission in Trump v. Anderson provides a plausible originalist argument that Section Three prevents the people from choosing their president. (1)
(1) https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/29/section-three-and-the-first-insurrection-that-wasnt/
https://x.com/moxlosllc/status/1745430379173925266?s=46&t=Y4fVsDnz2q8uZ3VNKeco4A
No comments:
Post a Comment