'Erred badly': Top historian says SCOTUS made a big mistake in Trump immunity ruling

05.03.2024 23:27

Raw Story

Allan Lichtman is among the 25 historians who submitted an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Colorado Supreme Court decision barring Donald Trump from the state's election ballot under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

According to Section 3, an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is ineligible for certain government positions. And in the amicus brief, the historians argued that Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results fit the definition of "insurrection."

But the justices were not persuaded. On Monday, the court unanimously struck down the Colorado ruling as wrongly decided and restored Trump to the Colorado ballot.

Lichtman had argued that, “For historians, contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed and voted for the 14th Amendment … demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

The court disagreed, writing in its opinion, “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the constitution to enforce section three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.”

Lichtman said Tuesday that the ruling goes against how the 14th Amendment, which was put in place after the U.S. Civil War, has been used in the past.

“Not a single one of the thousands of ex-Confederates who were disqualified under section three of the 14th Amendment were disqualified under an act of Congress,” he said.

“They were automatically disqualified.”

The historian told reporters, "The Supreme Court erred badly, based on our amicus brief and our review of history, in claiming that a candidate for federal office can only be disqualified by an act of Congress."

Over the years, Lichtman has used a system for predicting the outcomes of presidential races that he calls "Keys to the White House." Lichtman's system has 13 "keys" — that is, factors that determine a candidate's chances of winning — and they range from "long-term economy" and "short-term economy" to "policy change," "scandal" and "incumbency."

In February, Lichtman said that, under his system, Biden had five "keys to the White House" compared to three "keys" for Trump — and the remaining five were up for grabs.

Some polls released in early March have found that in a hypothetical Trump/President Joe Biden rematch, Trump enjoys small single-digit leads — including 2 percent in a Wall Street Journal poll and 4 percent in a CBS News poll.

But Lichtman's research is showing Biden to be quite competitive. And the president has narrow 1 percent leads over Trump in polls released by I&I/Tipp on March 4 and Morning Consult on March 5.