Immediately, a state District Court docket in Colorado rejected a Part 3 problem to President Trump’s eligibility. The courtroom discovered that President Trump engaged in rebellion, however held that the presidency shouldn’t be an “Officer of the United States” for functions of Part 3. That is the argument that Seth Barrett Tillman and I’ve superior. The complete opinion is over 100 pages lengthy. The evaluation of the officer subject begins on web page 95. Right here is an excerpt, staring on p. 99:
311. However, Intervenors argue that 5 constitutional provisions present that the President shouldn’t be an “officer of the United States.”
• The Appointments Clause in Article II, Part 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of america. Particularly, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. artwork. II, § 2, cl. 2.
• The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Part 4 separates the President and Vice President from the class of “civil Officers of the United States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S. CONST. artwork. II, § 4.
• The Commissions Clause in Article II, Part 3 specifies that the President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. artwork. II, § 3.
• Within the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated checklist of individuals the clause requires to take an oath to assist the Structure. The checklist consists of “[t]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. artwork. VI, cl. 3.
• Article VI supplies additional assist for distinguishing the President from “Officers of the United States” as a result of the oath taken by the President beneath Article II, Part 1, Clause 8 shouldn’t be the identical because the oath prescribed for officers of america beneath Article VI, Clause 3.
312. The Court docket agrees with Intervenors that every one 5 of these Constitutional provisions lead in direction of the identical conclusion—that the drafters of the Part Three of the Fourteenth Modification didn’t intend to incorporate the President as “an officer of the United States.”
313. Right here, after contemplating the arguments on either side, the Court docket is persuaded that “officers of the United States” didn’t embrace the President of america. Whereas the Court docket agrees that there are persuasive arguments on either side, the Court docket holds that the absence of the President from the checklist of positions to which the Modification applies mixed with the truth that Part Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Structure whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Structure, [FN19] it seems to the Court docket that for no matter cause the drafters of Part Three didn’t intend to incorporate an individual who had solely taken the Presidential Oath. [FN20]
[FN19] The Court docket agrees with Petitioners that an oath to protect, shield and defend the Structure encompasses the identical duties as an oath to assist the Structure. The Court docket, nonetheless, agrees with Intervenors that given there have been two oaths within the Structure on the time, the truth that Part Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers means that that’s the class of officers to whom Part Three applies.
[FN20] Whether or not this omission was intentional, or an oversight shouldn’t be for this Court docket to determine. It could very effectively have been an oversight as a result of to the Court docket’s information Trump is the primary President of america who had not beforehand taken an oath of workplace.
314. To be clear, a part of the Court docket’s determination is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which might disqualify a presidential candidate with out a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Part Three. As Legal professional Common Stanbery once more famous when construing the Reconstruction Acts, “those who are expressly brought within its operation cannot be saved from its operation. Where, from the generality of terms of description, or for any other reason, a reasonable doubt arises, that doubt is to be resolved against the operation of the law and in favor of the voter.” The Reconstruction Acts, 12 U.S. Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 160 (1867) (emphasis added).[FN21] Right here, the report demonstrates an considerable quantity of pressure between the competing interpretations, and an absence of definitive steerage within the textual content or historic sources.
[FN21] The Court docket is aware that Stanbery was contemplating disenfranchisement, not qualification for workplace, and that he was decoding a statute he thought-about “penal and punitive” in nature; the Court docket nonetheless finds that the precept articulated, that the regulation ought err on the facet of democratic norms besides the place a opposite indication is evident, is suitable and relevant to the circumstances.
315. Consequently, the Court docket holds that Part Three of the Fourteenth Modification doesn’t apply to Trump.
This argument tracks very intently the arguments that Seth and I’ve superior for a while. We sit up for reviewing the opinion extra rigorously.