Trump submitted a brief to the Supreme Court claiming he never served as an “officer of the United States”
Photo: Manuel Balce Centa/AP
In a recent development, former President Donald Trump submitted a detailed brief to the U.S. Supreme Court as part of his ongoing efforts to avoid disqualification from future presidential elections. The brief, prepared by his legal team, presents a series of arguments centered around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the definition of an “officer of the United States.”
Trump’s attorneys argue that the former president, as per their interpretation, should be considered immune from prosecution. They contend that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” which is at the heart of the disqualification debate, does not apply to the presidency, As reported by Raw Story on Wednesday, January 17, 2024.
The legal team’s stance is that the presidency does not fall under the category of “officer of the United States” as defined in the Constitution. This interpretation is crucial to their argument, as it forms the basis of their claim that Trump cannot be disqualified under this clause.
The filing emphasizes that even if the Supreme Court were to consider the president as an “officer of the United States,” Trump did not engage in activities that could be legally defined as “insurrection.” This claim is pivotal to their argument, as the insurrection clause specifically addresses those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Furthermore, the brief delves into the specifics of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section stipulates that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or provided aid to its enemies, is eligible to serve as a Senator, Representative, elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office.
Trump’s legal team interprets this to mean that the clause only restricts individuals from holding office, not from seeking or winning elections. In essence, the brief argues that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause cannot be used to prevent Trump or any other individual from accessing the ballot.
The focus of their argument is that the clause is a barrier only to holding office post-election, not to the electoral process itself. This interpretation is aimed at clarifying and reinforcing Trump’s eligibility to run for office, seeking to put an end to what they describe as “unconstitutional disqualification efforts.”
