A legal filing made this week by attorneys representing failed one-term, twice-impeached, and multiply-indicted ex-president Donald Trump to keep him on the 2024 ballot in Colorado contains odd language that could allow him to run for the presidency but automatically disqualify him from serving even if he wins, according to former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.
During an appearance on MSNBC this morning, McQuade was asked by host Mika Brzezinski:
“What are your thoughts on whether the Supreme Court actually takes it, the timing of it, and also how the Trump team created their petition, what they led with versus what Donald Trump is accused of, therefore making him ineligible to be on the ballot?”
“Yes, I think the court will have to take up the case. Whether it decides it on the merits, I think, is another question,” McQuade responded. “I do agree with one of the things he wrote in his brief, which is, this is a matter of significant importance that must be decided urgently. I think that as we see all of these other primaries starting to play out across the country, starting this month, I think it is very important that this issue be resolved.”
She added: “The lead argument that he makes here is one I haven’t heard before. You know, he’s got all the greatest hits in there: the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the U.S. president, this wasn’t an insurrection. Even if it was, he didn’t engage in it, all the things we might expect.”
“One he led with that is interesting to me is that the 14th Amendment only bars someone from holding office, not running for office,” McQuade noted. “Therefore, he should be permitted to run, be elected, and only on January 20th of 2025, should it be said, ‘Sorry, folks, he can’t serve.'”
After laughing, McQuade continued, “You know, that sounds like a textualist argument, and maybe the court bites on it, but imagine the absurdity? He can’t serve, so his vice president is the president of the United States. Maybe that’s how we’ll see the court play out.”
“I do think the court is likely to take an off-ramp. A more likely off-ramp, I think, is one that says this is not a justiciable argument, that is, this is a matter for Congress, not the courts to decide. So that might be one that they bite on.”
<
