The Colorado Supreme Court decision was a judicial masterpiece of in constitutional interpretation, that the opinion and the decision are unassailable and irrefutable.
Wow.
So that's a retired judge on Jake Tapper's show on CNN yesterday calling the Colorado decision a masterpiece of constitutional.
Law, irrefutable, unassailable.
Wow.
In other words, anybody with eyes could see that they made the right decision. What are the problems I have with that? And I'm not I have no legal background whatsoever. But Georgia, North Carolina, and Minnesota, for instance, that's just three states who have looked at this and said, nah, so are all those people dopes?
They're just all idiots.
There in Minnesota, all their judges just they can't see what's obviously true. How can you ever say that about anything that's a controversial decision.
It was a four to three decision, even for the Colorado Supreme Court.
So you're saying the three that voted against our morons shouldn't be within a mile of the law because it's unassailable, it's obvious what is true.
Thank God for the four that can see with their own eyes. I just I don't get it.
I'm fine with this is murky, but I lean toward this, but don't pretend that it's obviously one thing. All right, Well, I'm glad we're talking to somebody else who can break a perspective. Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law attorney at junct professor at Cornell Law School, frequently seeing on Fox News and Fox Business Channel, joins us today, Randy, how are you today?
I am well, thank you for having me on.
So unassailable and obviously the right decision.
Well, it kind of reminds me of a meeting I was in the other day where a lawyer looked at me and started out her argument with it with all due respect, and I immediately said, don't ever say that to me, because that is code speak for you are a moron when anyone, and I don't care whether it's a retired judge, whether you are on CNN or you are on Newsmax or you are on with Armstrong, when you start your argument with it's unassailable, it's irrefutable, it
is a masterpiece. It is the Mona Lisa of legal opinions. That is code speak for this is completely political, It is completely partisan, and it is anybody but Donald Trump who should be in office.
That's good. I'm glad you said that. I will keep my eye out for that. I have always had a problem with that phrase, with all due respect, because it's usually followed by something that is incredibly disrespectful.
As soon as you say it to me, I stop you. And I've learned that the heart way because as a young lawyer, I once said that to a judge and the judge literally went to throw the gavel at me.
Let Alone the.
Book, you don't say that to someone unless you are suggesting to them that they.
Are more on Well, so I've been harping on this today because I think it's a really big deal. The Washington Post editorial board said, no, we can't let a Colorado court, you know, a handful of judges in Colorado decide who gets to be president or not.
That's not the way our systems should work.
They're more arguing it from a let's let the voters decide than the legal merits.
Well, from the legal merits.
What do you think the Supreme Court is going to do with this, assuming they take it up.
Well, the fundamental question, as I see it, is really twofold because when you look at section three of Article fourteen, and that is the words, those are the words that we're all hanging on to. It's clear that when that amendment was drawn back in what eighteen sixty eight or so, not a lot of thought was given to the possibility that it could be a presidential candidate running for office.
Because the amendment says nothing about whether or not you have to be convicted from a criminal standpoint, found libel from a civil standpoint, or found to have actually done it by some court, by some tribunal, by somebody. All it says is if you engage in insurrection, Well, the problem is who determines whether or not you've engaged in it. The easy answer would be, well, you've been convicted of it.
The easy answer would be you were called in for a congressional hearing and you were found to have engaged in an active insurrection. We put it to the vote of all of the citizens of the United States by referendum, and the citizens of the United States decided by a majority or by some other percentage that you engaged in an act of insurrection. So the fundamental question that the Supreme Court has to grapple with is who decides whether
or not you've engaged in it. What does it mean to engage in an active insurrection?
Right?
So, I've taken in a lot of legal podcasts in the last twenty four hours on this and heard a lot of different opinions, and I hope I don't get two in the weeds on this, but I heard the argument made that this is one of those things that's self activating.
I guess that's the term.
In other words, you know, are there things in the constitution, like if you want to be president you have to be a natural born citizen.
That's self activating.
A court doesn't need to find it, there doesn't need to be a conviction or anything like that. It's just this is what it is. And you're not, you know, you don't meet the standards. And they're saying that this is that sort of thing that you incited an insurrection. But it doesn't seem like it can because, like you said, there's a gray area on what an insurrection is about.
Now, when you talk about those things that you call self activating, that means they are objectives, they are set in stone, that is something that's irrefutable. For example, when you look at the qualifications to be president. Let's look at it backwards and say, Okay, what are those things that disqualify you from being president? Well, one of them is if you're not born in the country.
So that's easy.
You're either born here or you're not. You have to be thirty five years old. Well, you either are thirty five or you're not. We don't need to have a legal debate over that. But you cannot compare the question of whether or not you engaged in an active insurrection to be the same as are you at least thirty five years old? Were you born in the United States? I mean that that to me is silly and it's intellectually dishonest.
That's interesting.
I wish I remember the name of the lawyer that I heard making that argument on a podcast, because he's a highly placed, well respected guy. But I felt the same way about it as you did, and I have no legal background whatsoever. So ultimately, before I get you off the phone, what do you think the Supreme Court is going to do? Do you think it'll be a nine to zero close call, it will be overturned? What do you think the result is going to be.
I think they're going to punt on this. I haven't quite decided how they're going to punt on it, but I think they will punt, and it will end up being something that a Supreme court, a lower Supreme court
should not be permitted to determine. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hold today or anytime soon, that Donald Trump can be held off of a state ballot as a result of having engaged in an active insurrection, Because if the Supreme Court were to do that, that now becomes president president for all of these other Blue states that want and would love nothing more than to keep Trump off
of the ballot. So I think from a presidential standpoint, from an optical standpoint, from the standpoint of not having this country tear it apart, tear itself apart further, and maybe start pushing us even closer to a civil war, there is no way, in my humble opinion, that the Supreme Court will say, you know something, if you want to keep Trump off the ballot because you believe he engaged in an act of insurrection, knock yourself out.
Wow, that is really interesting. Thanks for your time today.
Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law.
Attorney Armstrong and Getty