On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a Colorado case on whether former President Trump’s deep involvement in the deadly events of January 6, 2021 should disqualify him from running for office again.

Unfortunately, I think it’s a good bet that the court’s conservative majority will side with Trump

,

and leave his name on the ballot. It is the least fraught way out for the court, which is embroiled in scandals of its own making and is undoubtedly loath to add more fuel to the raging American partisan fire during the elections.

I’ve had mixed feelings about this case since the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump was cleared

his state

The vote would violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which, in short, prohibits anyone who has engaged in or supported an insurrection against the U.S. government from holding office.

Many of Trump’s legal allies have argued that Section 3 does not apply

he, Trump,

for example, by claiming that the President is not an officer of the United States, or that Section 3 only prohibits a candidate from

to cling

office, no

seeking

It. But like the motley group of voters in Colorado who brought the case against Trump, you

D

have to engage in pedantic puns

not

Apply Section 3 to Trump.

Former President Trump,

driven by narcissism and power, has shown little respect for the rule of law, the Constitution or the Constitution

the American

people. And yet part of me thinks that keeping him on the ballot would be the healthiest solution for the country.

Trump

should

to be beaten by President Biden

in November,

and then

dwindle

away. On the other hand, he already

What

by blatantly lying to his supporters, he has made his loss a cause celebre and an ongoing national nightmare.

Not to mention a running one

form of government

A lesson for most of us, who can be forgiven for not knowing what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is until now

even

say.

Let’s face it, Yale historian David Blight told NPR last week. Section 3 had all but disappeared from history and suddenly rose from the dead.

Blight, along with Civil War historians Jill Lepore, Drew Gilpin Faust, and John Fabian Witt, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Colorado case, arguing that Section 3 applies to Trump and disqualifies him from ever running for office again set.

No one thinks it’s a good idea to apply Section 3 in this case, Lepore told NPR. There is no joy to be had, no triumph to be had if Trump is taken off the ballot. But this is what the Constitution says. And this is a court that has pledged to adhere to the original intent, meaning and public understanding of the Constitution.

Introduced in 1866 to address widespread and often violent discrimination against formerly enslaved Americans, the 14th Amendment promises all citizens equal protection under the law.

At the time,

as

the historians write in their letter that the deep national wounds inflicted by the Civil War were still raw. Americans on the winning side were in no mood to fully forgive and forget, and the idea that some secessionists could be elected to Congress after betraying power

union

was disturbing, if not disgusting.

It could be a traitor

search right away

Jefferson Davis, the first and only President of the Confederate States of America and former member of the Senate and House of Representatives from Mississippi, is running for office?

It was, Lepore told NPR

an incredible fear for Jefferson Davis in particular, that he would run for president.

Section 3, the disqualification clause, was intended to prevent this. As Blight noted, over time the section became something of a historical relic. And then the unthinkable happened.

An American president who lost his re-election campaign tried to overturn the results of a fair election and stay in power against the will of the people.

tate and federal criminal charges.

In Georgia, Trump has been charged with 13 felony counts of unlawfully conspiring to alter the election results while participating in a criminal enterprise. Federal prosecutors have charged him with conspiring to defraud the government

etc

disenfranchise voters and obstruct an official proceeding over his role in the January 6 uprising.

All along, Trump has maintained that a president can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

That is not the case, a federal appeals court ruled unanimously on Tuesday. Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he was president no longer protects him from this prosecution, the court wrote of the federal case against Trump, which has said he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

,

whose ultra-conservative majority has repeatedly stated that it embraces originalism, will have to do so

decide both the voting question in Colorado and the limits of presidential immunity.

Want to

the judges

Elect Trump, or the rule of law?

@robinkabcarian