The United States is facing a significant juncture. Last week, Colorado disqualified Trump from running, sparking outrage across the continent.
The clause on which the justices who decided to disqualify him was based is found in the 14th Amendment. According to Article III of the amendment, a person who previously served in an official capacity and took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and who took part in the rebellion while in office, would be prevented from serving as a member of Congress, senator or president.
Most people think the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this decision and overturn it. Some think so because they believe the disqualification is wrong, and some because they argue that a court – a third of whose members are Trump's own appointees – will not prevent him from running. Both are wrong.
First, the court can refrain from hearing it, as it did when Trump appealed the election results in various states in November 2020. In addition, judges are not obligated to the person who appointed them, but to interpret the constitution in the most reliable and correct way from their point of view, which is the purpose of their job. And conservative judges tend to rule according to conservative legal interpretation approaches. One of these approaches is called "originalism," according to which judges must interpret the Constitution and its content against the background of the time in which it was written and as its authors understood it in their time. Ironically and interestingly, that's exactly what Colorado's Democratic judges did here. In an article in The Atlantic published the day after the ruling, constitutional law professor Kim Whaley explained how it conforms to all the principles of conservative legal interpretation.
In other words, conservative justices, including those appointed by Trump himself, will find it very difficult to overturn this ruling and say it is wrong. At most, they will be able to argue that the justification for the disqualification is valid and exists, but Trump has not yet been convicted in the legal proceedings against him, so we must wait until that happens.
If Trump is not disqualified from running again, it means that the U.S. Constitution has stopped doing its job, and a dark shadow will be cast over America's founding ethos
So the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have two options: One is to let the mechanism of the Constitution continue the action it started and remove from the Constitution those who threaten to harm it. The second is to postpone the constitutional crisis until Trump is likely to be convicted in an ongoing trial.
Sooner or later, Trump should be disqualified from the presidential race, because the alternative is bitter and very serious. If Trump is not disqualified from running again, it means that the U.S. Constitution has stopped doing its job, and a dark shadow will cast over America's founding ethos.
If the American nation wants life, it must show itself and the world that the Constitution is still alive, existing, and effective—and that is indisputable. Therefore, Trump should be disqualified from the race.
It could also provide important lessons for both hawkish camps in the U.S. On the progressive side, it will be a lesson in stopping belittling old institutions and founding ethos out of misunderstanding. For the right, however, it will be an important and critical lesson on the essential difference between dangerous revolutionary populism and conservatism – with the Constitution having the upper hand.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us