This is the follow-up episode to Historians vs. Trump, which was published on Feb. 5 featuring an interview with Princeton historian Sean Wilentz.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to restore Donald J. Trump to the ballot in Colorado angered some historians and constitutional scholars who contend the justices mangled the history and meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
It was clear from the oral arguments before the high court that none of the nine justices was convinced a state had the authority to disqualify a national candidate from the ballot. Still, some experts say the conservative majority went too far in ruling that only Congress has such authority and must also pass legislation to enforce Section 3, which was supposed to be self-enforcing.
In this episode of History As It Happens, University of Maryland constitutional scholar Mark Graber, whose most recent book explores the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment, says the decision in Trump vs. Anderson was wrong.
“What is wrong with the decision is what is wrong with the pattern in Supreme Court decisions… The Supreme Court has consistently said that states can run federal elections unless Congress says otherwise. Why was that rule discarded in this case but not discarded in other cases that serve conservative interests,” Mr. Graber said.
Among the issues discussed in this episode: whether the office of the president is covered under Section 3; the meaning of a “self-enforcing” amendment; and the historical basis for disqualifying office-seekers who violated their oath and wish to overturn the existing political or legal order.
History As It Happens is available at washingtontimes.com or wherever you find your podcasts.
