Under the ongoing ballot cases, legal authority Shan Wu has offered insights into the U.S. Supreme Court’s course of action. Amidst considerations of former President Donald Trump potentially facing disqualification as per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows advocated barring him, a stance supported by the Colorado Supreme Court. As highlighted by a recent report from the Daily Beast on Saturday, December 30, 2023, Wu has posited that the divergence in state decisions regarding Trump’s eligibility illustrates the functioning of federalism. Despite mounting calls for SCOTUS intervention, Wu suggests the Court’s discretionary power might steer it away from undertaking the ultimate appeal, seeking to avert a recurrence of controversial interference akin to the 2000 presidential election.
Nonetheless, the allure of a case that could impact the 2024 presidency might present an irresistible temptation for the justices to engage. Should SCOTUS opt to address these cases, Wu recommends a focused approach, confining decisions to constitutional interpretation. At the core lies a pivotal question: whether the President qualifies as an “officer” of the United States. Wu contends that characterizing the President as an officer better aligns with the Constitution, avoiding potential interpretations that might grant excessive power to Trump.
Another critical facet for SCOTUS to consider involves the procedure essential for disqualifying Trump under the 14th Amendment. Wu dismisses arguments necessitating a criminal conviction for insurrection, underscoring the self-executing nature of the provision. He asserts that the process established by states, such as Maine’s determination, should be deemed appropriate, contending that disqualification doesn’t equate to a punitive measure, thus bypassing the necessity for criminal law protections.
This stance, Wu argues, is in line with the conservative originalist perspective, given that the disqualification clause, in its plain language, doesn’t reference criminal charges or convictions. He cautions SCOTUS against redefining terms like “aid and comfort,” emphasizing their straightforward meanings. Notably, many legal scholars, including Wu, interpret Trump’s actions and statements on January 6th as clear instances of providing aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution by expressing support and affection for rioters.
Within the realm of intricate constitutional inquiries, Wu’s viewpoint advises SCOTUS to approach these cases judiciously, aiming to preserve the Constitution’s integrity and refrain from unwarranted intrusion into state-driven election procedures.
