In the first hearing of the case on whether former US President Donald Trump can participate in the elections, most of the US Supreme Court members who heard the parties found the arguments of the state of Colorado, which ruled that Trump could not appear on the ballots on the grounds that he committed the crime of “insurrection”, insufficient.
The US Supreme Court held the first hearing and heard oral arguments from the parties in a landmark case on whether Trump can run for president.
The 9-judge court heard from Colorado state officials and Trump’s lawyers, who ruled that Trump committed the crime of “insurrection” for his role in the January 6, 2021 raid on Congress and that he cannot run for office under Article 14, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the article in question cannot be applied by a state to the president or a presidential candidate, that the person referred to in this article is not directly the president, and that even if a decision is to be made on this issue, the real authority here is in the US Congress, not in the states.
Trump’s lawyers argued that his role in the Congressional raid was not an “insurrection” and that it was a misinterpretation of the clause for states to use it to block a presidential candidate.
On the other hand, legal experts representing the state of Colorado argued that the 14th Amendment, paragraph 3 of the Constitution is clear and that Trump and his supporters are in an act of insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution by storming Congress.
State officials said that states have a say on this issue, just as they have a say on the basic requirements for a person to become President of the United States.
– Tough questions from court members to Colorado lawyers
Many of the members of the court who heard the parties posed difficult questions to the Colorado lawyers on why the relevant article of the Constitution could apply to Trump.
Justice Elena Kagan, from the liberal wing of the Court, said that states have limited power to determine whether a presidential candidate falls within the clause of the Constitution and whether that person participated in the rebellion.
Justice Samuel Alito, from the conservative wing of the Court, emphasized that if one state’s ruling on this issue is applied to presidential candidates, other states could turn it into a political apparatus and “decide for or against a presidential candidate and decide the fate of the elections”, which is a dangerous situation for the country.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, said that Colorado’s legal experts had failed to substantiate the charges of sedition and insurrection against Trump and that the state could not take such a step without further judicial process.
Due to the ongoing presidential process, the US Supreme Court is expected to reconvene shortly to consider the case and announce its decision.
In the news reflected in the American media, the first hearing resulted in a result in Trump’s favor and the case is expected to result in a decision that Trump cannot be prevented from participating in the elections.
