Fwd: [DFAD] Follow-Up and Key Messaging on Colorado Case to Disqualify Trump
Charlie Cooper
From: Diamond Brown <dbr...@citizensforethics.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 8:01 AM
Subject: [DFAD] Follow-Up and Key Messaging on Colorado Case to Disqualify Trump
To: <democracypost...@googlegroups.com>
Good morning,
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you to those who attended our recent briefing discussing the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments, scheduled for February 8th, concerning the landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In light of the historic nature of this challenge and the novel legal issues surrounding it, we wanted to share a few key points of context about the case, the 14th Amendment’s history and the implications of disqualification, as well as dispel some myths about the case. These points are essential for our communication and advocacy efforts as we navigate this unprecedented legal challenge:
Trump received due process before he was disqualified: The extensive evidence presented during the five-day trial, including several witness testimonies, documents, and video footage, overwhelmingly supports Trump's disqualification for engaging in insurrection. This process was thorough, fair, and allowed for robust representation from both sides.
Section 3 is a pro-democratic measure: The framers of the 14th Amendment knew how important it was to protect our democracy from oathbreakers who sought to overthrow it. They wisely created a mechanism to protect it that envisioned the possibility of future insurrections and the need to protect against insurrectionists seeking office. Trump's actions constituted an attack on our democracy and the threat of future attacks underscores the necessity and relevance of Section 3 to protect our democracy.
What's at stake? The potential consequences of allowing Trump to appear on the ballot—risking another insurrection or constitutional violation—are grave. We trust that the Supreme Court will consider these stakes seriously.
Section 3 is no different than other qualifications for office: Disqualification under Section 3 is a constitutional mechanism, on par with other qualifications for office and is not outweighed by other constitutional provisions. This section disqualifies Donald Trump in the same manner the Constitution would disqualify Barack Obama, due to term limits, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, due to his birthplace, from presidential eligibility.
Trump was already defeated at the ballot box once. He refused to concede and incited a violent insurrection: The 2020 election outcome was clear, Trump lost and responded by inciting a violent insurrection. With the election approaching, it is critical that the Supreme Court acts quickly to provide voters with the clarity they deserve. This decision's implications are too significant to be left undecided as the nation prepares to go to the polls.
Criminal charges--for insurrection or otherwise--are not a prerequisite for disqualification: In fact, CREW’s research found that no one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors, whether in the Reconstruction era or in modern times.
We also want to highlight the breadth of amicus briefs that have been submitted in support of our case - many of which come from partners in this coalition. While amicus briefs in support of Donald Trump almost exclusively came from partisans, briefs in support of the Colorado voters spanned the ideological spectrum and included former government officials from both parties, law professors, historians, experts in political violence, police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th, and a diverse array of nonprofit organizations. We’d also like to specifically draw this group’s attention to a brief submitted by racial justice scholar Professor Carol Anderson that criticized Trump’s comparison of January 6th to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests as baseless and offensive. For more information, CREW has a roundup of some of the briefs that have been submitted on our website.
As we prepare for the oral arguments, we appreciate your partnership and encourage you to emphasize these points to underscore the legal and constitutional basis for our position. We will be sending additional information - including social media guidance and information about our plans after oral argument - next week.
I look forward to our continued collaboration as we advocate for a swift and just resolution by the Supreme Court.
Warm Regards,
Diamond
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DFAD" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to democracypostadvers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/democracypostadversitygroup/CAEobRt0ESwZfcdVPz8VyE8YnrKRE5Q1sC3njeg36NnRQ1b%3DPrw%40mail.gmail.com.