DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN KICKED OFF THE BALLOT IN BOTH MAINE AND COLORADO.

THOSE UNPRECEDENTED RULINGS ARE ON HOLD FOR NOW WITH TRUMP INDICATING HE PLANS TO APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

AT ISSUE IS WHETHER TRUMP IS DISQUALIFIED FROM MAKING ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL RUN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT FOR ENGAGING IN INSURRECTION.

HERE'S THOMAS 7 YELLOW WHO SAYS HE PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR TRUMP EXPLAINING WHY HE CHALLENGE THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S ELIGIBILITY TO BE ON THE BALLOT IN MAINE.

>> SOME RECENT QUALIFY THEY SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT.

THE SECOND THING, IF THEY WANT TO WRITE HIS NAME AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, GO AHEAD.

BUT FACT IS THAT MAN INCITED A RIOT ON JANUARY 6.

THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT ME TO THE TABLE.

>> JOINING US NOW TO HELP UNPACK ALL THIS ARE HAROLD KRANTZ, CONSTITUTIONAL SPECIALIST AND PROFESSOR AT CHICAGO CAN COLLEGE OF LAW WHERE HE ALSO PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS DEAN OF THE LAW SCHOOL.

AND JOINING US VIA ZOOM, DAVID FRANKLIN LAW PROFESSOR AND CONSTITUTIONAL SPECIALIST AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY.

FRANKLIN PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS ILLINOIS SOLICITOR GENERAL.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR JOINING US.

AND WELCOME BACK.

DAVID, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU, PLEASE.

OFFICIALS IN COLORADO AND MAINE NOW SAY FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS INELIGIBLE TO RUN.

THEY CITE THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO US?

>> SO THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS MADE PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION JUST AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.

AND IT CONTAINS LOTS OF PROVISIONS THAT FOLKS ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH, LIKE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND SO FORTH.

BUT THESE CASES INVOLVE SECTION 3 PREVIOUSLY LITTLE STUDIED A PART OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

WHAT IT SAYS THAT IF SOMEONE HAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN AN AS OFFICER OF UNITED STATES AND THEN ENGAGES IN INSURRECTION.

THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO IN.

OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED AND SO THE ARGUMENT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS IS QUITE TRUMP ON AROUND JANUARY 6, 2021 ENGAGED INSURRECTION.

AND AS SUCH HE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING AS PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE DISQUALIFIED FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, IT MAY BE A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD ARGUMENT, BUT CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS CONSENSUS.

YOU KNOW, OTHER STATES HAVE KEPT HIM ON THE BALLOT.

DAVID, DO YOU THINK THE ARGUMENTS TO KICK TRUMP OFF HAVE MERIT?

>> YEAH.

ACTUALLY, THE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION QUITE STRONG.

>> JANUARY 6TH WAS AN INSURRECTION BY ANY SENSIBLE DEFINITION.

TRUMP ENGAGED IN IT BY CALLING FOR IT BY HELPING TO ORCHESTRATE A BEHIND THE SCENES, FRANKLY, BY NOT STOPPING IT ONCE IT STARTED THE 14TH AMENDMENT COVERS THE PRESIDENCY SO ALL OF THOSE ARGUMENTS, THEY'RE NOT OPENING SHOT, SLIM DUMP ONES, BUT THEY'RE ALL QUITE STRONG.

DIFFICULTY IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISN'T JUST MIRO LEGAL ARGUMENTATION THE WAY BABY TAX LAW OR CONTRACT LAW IS THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF HIGH POLITICS TO CONSTITUTIONAL.

AND I THINK IT'S ALMOST INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD DISQUALIFY FROM THE BALLOT.

A CANDIDATE LIKE TRUMP WHO FOR BETTER OR WORSE HAS TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WANT TO VOTE FOR HIM IN.

THERE ARE FRANKLY TENS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, UNFORTUNATELY WHO BELIEVE THAT THE 2020 ELECTION STOLEN AND PERHAPS EVEN THE JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTION WAS JUSTIFIABLE.

SO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK IT'S QUITE UNLIKELY THAT THE STRONG LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR DISQUALIFICATION CARRY THE DAY.

>> HOW HOW ABOUT THAT?

DO YOU THINK THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE MERIT TO THEM?

I THINK I MIGHT HAVE BY.

DON'T THINK IT'S AS OPEN AND SHUT AS DAVID WOULD SUGGEST.

AND THE DIFFICULTY IS THINK ABOUT ARE THE WORDS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

HE CAN DISQUALIFY SOMEONE FOR INSURRECTION OR GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

WHO DECIDES THAT?

IF YOU ASK ABOUT TAKING SOMETHING OFF THE BALLOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.

35 21 POINT UNITED STATES THAT'S RELATIVELY OBJECTIVE.

NOT ALWAYS RELATIVELY PROTECTED.

WE CAN SEE SECRETARIES OF STATES FROM COLORADO WERE MADE OR OTHER STATES MAKING THAT DECISION AND A HALF TO CUT PEOPLE OFF THE BALLOT BECAUSE OF THE WRONG AGE TO THE REPORT.

UNITED STATES BUT TO SAY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN COMFORT TO AID TO THE ENEMY.

THAT'S SO SUBJECTIVE.

AND THAT COULD BE IN TERMS OF WHAT PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS DONE TO BORDER OR WHAT OTHER CONGRESSMEN DONE IN THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH TURKEY IRAN OR RUSSIA.

AND SO WHO MAKES CALL AS WE WANT THE PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE ON HIS FACE NO MECHANISM TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A DUE PROCESS LIKE WE'RE FAIR WAY TO ASCERTAIN.

DID SOMEONE INSURRECTION PRESIDENT TRUMP PROBABLY DID.

BUT WHO'S MAKING A JUDGMENT HOW OR WHO GAVE COMFORTING ENEMIES AND DOES THAT YOU KNOW, TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE EXPECTS, YOU KNOW, HE PLANS TO APPEAL THIS TO, YOU KNOW, STATE COURTS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

>> WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENTS TO EXPECT HIS ATTORNEYS TO MAKE THEY HAVE A MIXTURE OF SORT OF LANGUAGE ORGANS FROM 14TH AMENDMENT, SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT CONSIDERED >> OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

IT'S PLAUSIBLE.

IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE WANTED JEFFERSON DAVIS TO BECOME ELECTED PRESIDENT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR AND COURSE JEFFERSON DAVIS WAS HEAD OF SO THOSE THOSE KIND OF ARGUMENTS ARGUES THAT ONLY CONGRESS CAN SET IN MOTION PROCESS BY WHICH SOMEONE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED.

AND HAS BEEN SOME HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR THAT AS WELL.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER KIND OF ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE GIVING RISE TO.

BUT THE END OF THE DAY, I DO AGREE WITH DAVID THAT THIS WHOLE SET OF ARGUES PUTS THE SUPREME COURT IN A BIND BECAUSE I THINK THE COURT WILL SAY THAT THE ONE THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE VOTE AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE ARGUMENTS AND MAINE AND COLORADO IS ON THE FACES OF AND NOT A COMPLETE TRIAL.

THEY'RE TAKING AWAY THAT DECISION FROM PEOPLE.

DAVID, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THIS DOES GO TO THE SUPREME COURT, DO YOU EXPECT A RULING ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MIGHT THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WE SEE DECIDED MORE LONG PROCEDURAL GROUNDS?

>> IT'S ALWAYS HARD TO PREDICT.

I THINK THAT CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WILL WORK AS HARD AS HE CAN TO GET UNANIMITY OR CLOSE TO IT ON THE COURT.

I MEAN, THAT SUGGEST A NARROW VIEW THAT SUGGESTS TO ME.

BUT THE COURT ISN'T GOING TO WANT TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER JANUARY 6 WAS AN INSURRECTION OR ON WHETHER TRUMP ENGAGED IN IT.

I HOW PUT HIS FINGER ON THE MOST LIKELY OFF-RAMP.

BUT THE COURT CAN TAKE, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT EVEN JANUARY 6 WAS AN INTERACTION THAT TRUMP ENGAGED THE PROCESS, THAT HE GOT COLORADO, THE PROCESS THAT HE GOT WASN'T SUFFICIENT.

WHETHER THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FULL CRIMINAL TRIAL WHETHER CONGRESS HAS TO PASS A SPECIAL STATUTE, JUST SORT OF FOR SECTION 3.

THOSE ARE THE DETAILS THAT DON'T HAVE TO WORK OUT.

BUT I EXPECT SOME KIND OF PROCESS ORIENTED >> WE'VE GOT ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT.

HOW CRIME, YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE COMING UP FAST, READY OR NOT.

DO EXPECT A QUICK DECISION ON THIS NOW.

EXPECT A QUICK DECISION, BUT DON'T FORGET THAT, YOU KNOW, PRIMARIES ARE STARTING NEXT WEEK AND THIS DECISION, EVEN IF IT'S.

ON SPEEDWAY, HAMPSON MAY TAKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

SO THERE STILL COULD BE SOME DISLOCATION ABOUT THE SOCIETY.

I THINK THOSE STATES WILL NOT TAKE HIM OFF THE BALLOT TO SUPREME COURT GETS A CHANCE TO MAKE A DECISION, RIGHT?

CERTAINLY GOING TO BE ABOUT