By Vy Tran
DENVER, CO — U.S. District Judge Sarah B. Wallace pre-Thanksgiving week ruled U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, did engage in the act of insurrection, but also rejected the challenge to keep him off the state’s primary ballot.
There are mixed reactions among American constituents upon hearing these rulings. Trump declared Colorado’s ruling as “a gigantic court victory,” according to The Hill.
“The court finds that… Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech,” Judge Wallace wrote in her 102-page decision.
The decision is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment.
WHYY PBC noted the Minnesota Supreme Court said Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have sole choice over who appears, while a Michigan judge ruled Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section 3 applies to Trump.
The Hill reported debates about the application of Amendment 14, which stipulates: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office… under the United States… who, having previously taken an oath… as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution… shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
Judge Wallace decided: “Part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three.”
Section 3’s phrasing is unclear about whether or not the President is considered a federal “officer,” or whether or not a president-turned-presidential-candidate is also included in the section, added The Hill, which said the judge also held the presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and that Trump never vowed to “support” it, as Section 3 requires.
Judge Wallace’s decision is controversial, The Hill wrote, because the aforementioned State Supreme Courts deferred the decision on Trump’s actions of “insurrection” up to Congress.
“Congress [should] decide whether Trump is disqualified under the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars from office a person who ‘engaged in insurrection’… and whether or not someone participated in it rather than ‘one single judicial officer,’” the Michigan court ruled.
On the other hand, Judge Wallace and the Colorado court ruled under the U.S. law “finding of fact” that “violent far right extremists understood that Trump’s calls to ‘fight’… were… literal calls to violence by these groups, while Trump’s statements negating that sentiment… existed to… create plausible deniability.”
The court also noted “Trump’s history with political extremists.
“Trump knew his violent supporters understood his statements this way, and… were intended to incite violence,” Judge Wallace determined. “Trump knew he had lost the election. (His video that day) endorsed the actions of the mob in trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It did not condemn the mob but instead…praised them.”
The long-standing issue of the legal interpretation of the Constitution has persisted for centuries, The Hill reported, noting the 1819 seminal case of McCulloch v. Maryland, when Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed courts “must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.” 
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
