The Colorado Supreme Court heard oral argument in Griswold v. Anderson on December 6. This case involved Colorado voters asking the Court to remove Trump from the primary ballot. The trial court supported our stance that the President is not an “Officer of the United States,” making him not subject to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We did not file an amicus brief with the trial court, but we did with the Colorado Supreme Court.
The argument lasted over two hours, with about 1/3 of the time dedicated to the officer issue. The Justices raised many questions and issues during the argument. In particular, they probed the meaning of “insurrection” and the interplay between the First Amendment and Section 3. However, the questions posed to both sides about the officer issue demonstrate why this issue requires careful legal judgment and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The Constitution of 1788 uses the phrase “Officers of the United States” in four provisions. Each of these provisions was discussed during the oral argument. The Justices inquired about the meaning of “officer of the United States” in various contexts and whether the President can be considered one. They also considered the Appointments Clause and how it relates to the issue.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s oral argument also involved a discussion of whether the President is an officer of the United States. The President is not an officer of any state or foreign country, which suggests that he is an officer of the United States. This argument is consistent with our publications and the position taken by Scott Gessler, Esq., the attorney for former-President Trump.
The Constitution refers to the Presidency as an “Office,” but does it refer to the President as an “Officer of the United States”? During oral argument, Justice Gabriel asked for a provision in the Constitution that defines the presidency as an “officer of the United States” or an “office under the United States.” No such provision exists. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants argued that the Incompatibility Clause suggests that the President is an officer of the United States, but this argument was based on flawed assumptions.
Overall, the oral argument in Griswold v. Anderson raises important questions about the status of the President as an officer of the United States, and these questions require careful legal judgment.