Oh man, having just heard what happened at the Supreme Court listening to every word of the case and dissecting it I Have to say this case comes down to eight different parts in this video. I'm going to provide you a brief summary of each of the parts and I'm going to give you my opinion on which side that issue benefits. Issue Number one: Officer versus Office Of: Now That's really confusing if it's your first time hearing it. but apparently the court is really caught up on the difference between the phrase office of and officer.

See, an officer is someone who is appointed. somebody holding the office of presidency is elected. Therefore, they are impeachable rather than removable or fireable. That distinction is really important because the second part of Section 3 of the 14th refers to as an officer of the United States.

Now, they specifically use the word officer rather than the office of president or whatever that favors Trump and the court really resonated with this distinction. So issue number one out of eight favors. Trump The office of President does not appear in section three at all. Very interesting.

Number two Issue around: Federal Rights versus State Rights. Boy, this reminds me of like being in middle school and studying this kind of stuff in you know, history, classes, or politics classes. But this really comes down to a debate between the 14th Amendment and the 10th. Amendment.

One of the justices went as far as saying that states are not explicitly granted the right to enforce the 14th. In fact, the 14th Amendment was created in part to remove states rights. That was a paraphrase of one of the justices actually arguing that the 14th exists to limit the power of states rights. Now remember the 10th Amendment comes in.

It says that any power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution basically goes to the states or therefore the people. This one I'm going to be because of the 10th, Say it's probably about a toss up to maybe a 6040 towards Trump. The court was really attentive to State versus Federal and one of the reasons I say this probably tilts towards Trump is because the court makes it very clear I what's going to happen if we have unmanaged elections Where basically we just say yeah, any state can just decide whom they want on the ballot and if they want to kick somebody off, then basically elections turn into this fight over who's left on ballot. After certain States decide to kick certain people off and they called that unmanageable or potentially a disaster.

Thought that was very clearly a concern of the court that leans towards Trump's favor. That the court will probably based on issue number one and issue number two side with Trump on this one. Number three, A president must meet certain requirements to actually be president. Number one, be a natural born citizen.

Number two be 35 years of age. Number three have lived in the United States for the last 14 years. Okay, great, what's not a requirement? Having not committed an Insurrection In the event Section 3 applies to the President, committing an Insurrection would be a disqualification from holding the office. see section three specifically says no person shall hold any office.

It does not say no person shall run for office. See to run for office, you must meet those requirements. To hold the office. You must not be an insurrectionist if it applies to President, And so you can see how complicated this gets.

So to simplify that, we know that not being an insurrectionist is not a requirement, and the court seems to agree with that. In fact, when the Colorado Secretary of State is bluntly asked quote it seems you're trying to add a requirement for office. Colorado Said yes. That did not resonate with the court at all.

So the court clearly wants this to stay as written, a potential disqualification for those offices. But then the court has this big discussion over, but wait a minute. Where does it say anything about the president? It says Electors of the President which could be a way of arguing that hey, if you're an insurrectionist, you can't be an elector. And of course we have to have the separate Conversation Over Well, who is an insurrectionist and who determines what an Insurrection is? So that's that's a whole separate issue.

But the words as written are very clear that Officers Representatives Senators and electors. that's not somebody running for office or somebody who is sort of like elected as president, right? These are the electors who cast those ballots. Remember j6 The electors counting the elector votes certifying the election. Those folks, The potential for rogue electors.

They're not allowed to be insurrectionists. Why would the specific office of president be excluded from that? Now, we'll talk about that a little bit more in just a moment. But let's be clear: the difference between requirement and disqualification not only matters because it's up to Congress to basically decide hey, uh, we could override this disqualification with a two-thirds vote, which probably wouldn't happen anyway, but it really matters and really strengthens the Trump Case by saying hey, look, the law says if you're an insurrectionist, you can't hold office if it applies to president and we're just trying to run for office. The court did resonate with that one.

so I have to say that did favor Trump Also, then we get to issue number four, which this one's probably. this one probably doesn't matter too much, but I think the SE Secretary of State of Colorado made a mistake here. She suggests that being on the ballot also affects someone's First Amendment right? Like your right of expression to run for office I Don't think the court appreciated that one that was like a landmine that she stepped on. but I Don't think it actually matters much in this because there's plenty else.

That would probably just be a little contributing factor. Another thing that came up was democracy. In fact, one of the lines from the justices was in thinking about figuring out section three: Should we should think about democracy? The right of people to let other people decide right? The right of people to let the people decide so to speak. So the position of Colorado has the effect of disenfranchising Voters Oof Now that's a way of saying like, hey, the people have the right to make a decision here Colorado argues no, What we're doing is we're trying to safeguard democracy and the court slaps back and says, hey, why didn't they specifically mention the president Then again, they mention electors of and representatives and Senators but why didn't they pick the president? Would they just make a mistake and slip on that Or should it be the right of the people to choose somebody as president even if they were an insurrectionist? For example, go back to the Confederacy What if somebody was an insurrectionist during the Confederacy Of course we ended up getting amnesty through Johnson In other words, but what if somebody was in the past an insurrectionist, but then the majority of people in America voted for that insurrectionist to be president.

Maybe that was by design a negotiation with the South To say look, even though some of y'all were insurrectionists, we still want to give you a chance to run for president and ultimately we'll let the people decide. That was also really interesting I put this one at about a 6040 also tilting towards Trump here I can kind of see arguments on on both sides I mean all of this I see arguments on both sides I Want to be clear, but it's it's been leaning Trump so far on a lot of these Issue Number six: The court brought up Section 2383 2383 basically prohibits anyone uh, who is deemed an insurrectionist uh, by basically disqualifying insurrectionist from office. And so the court literally ask hey, if y'all wanted to disqualify Trump from running from office or for office, why didn't you use Section 2383? You didn't file a complaint, a criminal complaint under Section 2383 against Trump why not? wasn't good for Colorado Colorado didn't really have an answer under that one. Uh, other than saying well, insurrectionists often go unpunished.

Okay, Issue number seven: Colorado Really heavily focused on they actually specifically said hey, the focus of this case is on what Donald Trump said his statements Problem for Trump or for Colorado was the court didn't really consider whether or not Trump was an insurrectionist at all. They didn't seem to care. Now of course, a lot of people on uh, who hate Trump or don't want to see a Trump Presidency are going to go. Of course the courts rigged, whatever that's that's going to happen of course.

But it's really interesting because you have a court that is framing the entire argument of this case on everything but determining whether or not Donald Trump is an insurrectionist? They're basically looking at the the text and saying, does the text even apply to the president And so far with the issues we've gone through, the answer is no because of the office of President not showing up in the text Federal versus State's right requirements versus disqualification, the issue of democracy and Essi election, the issue of Section 2383, the issue. Uh, and then, well, that's where we are now. issue number seven, which is then debating Insurrection. But again, the court doesn't really care about those because they focused on the other six.

And then they also briefly brought up Issue Number Eight Which is, well, what happens if you have somebody. Let's say who's a judge and they were an insurrectionist in the Confederacy. This came up in the Griffin Case And now all of a sudden they get fired under section three, disqualified from their from their judicial post. Well, does that all of a sudden mean that all of the cases they tried before get undone? Does all of Donald Trump's work get undone? And what is that going to mean is that chaos for democracy? These are all issues that came up from the judges here.

The Griffin Case did create a precedent in 1869, and it actually set a precedent of putting the burden on Congress to decide, which was one of the strongest ways that Trump's attorney ended up defending Trump by suggesting hey, look at the Griffin Case This puts the burden on Congress This makes this a federal issue, not a st's issue. We have precedent for this. Courts seem to resonate with that now. Ultimately, in 1869, this was so messy.

There was just an amnesty given to try to like blanket over this issue, which people had talked about Donald Trump receiving amnesty previously. That obviously didn't end up happening. But when you look at this case on balance all eight of these core issues, this Supreme Court did not seem interested at all in evaluating whether or not Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. I Don't think a decision from the Supreme Court is going to say anything about whether or not Donald Trump is or was an insurrectionist.

They're simply going to apply section three of the Constitution and their strongest Arguments for basically denying the Colorado case, leaving Donald Trump on the ballot or that the text itself does not specify the office of or president. Those things are not on there. you have an office off of the United States but remember, officer is different from Office of you. also have the president of 1969 applying this to Congress.

So it's up to Congress to decide there is an impeachment process for that uh or or a way to Bar a president through Congress. But then again, that would require Congress actually being capable of doing anything. And and that is generally not going to happen. Uh, Then of course you have a very strong argument of Section Three is all about disqual qualifying somebody from holding office versus running for So who says he can't be on the ballot? This could just come up after it.

Like let's say, Donald Trump gets elected, Does it then become an issue? Potentially I Think the Supreme Court will clean that up when they issue their statement, but it could. Uh, you've got some other contributing circumstances that sort of hurt. Colorado Like the Free Speech argument First Amendment You've got the safeguards of democracy. Hey, who says that the people can't choose an ins tionist to be their president? Maybe maybe that's the change they want.

Maybe that's the change they want to vote for. It's kind of an interesting arit and that's why I really enjoy listening to these Supreme Court cases because I'm like You like the initial reaction right? Let's try to zoom out of the void and go like oh my gosh, Who who would And and by no means are we implying somebody is or isn't an insurrectionist, right? But just if you were asked 10 years ago, hey, do you want somebody who's an insurrectionist to be president? The initial reaction out of all of us is probably oh no, No, of course not. But what if you're part of a big movement and you believe that you're making the country a better place and other people say, well, you're an insurrectionist, You're like, no, we're just like we're a strong party who has a certain belief should Americans not be able to vote for that person? Maybe that's why this was removed from the language or or the word president was removed from the language. Remember, only Elector of President is in there an Elector of Vice President that the court specifically hit on that.

which is very interesting because the language is compromised. it's compromised. Between the North and the South, that's the history that this goes into and so you consider, which is also really wild. That, like you know, the South used to be very Democratic right? Uh, this.

You sort of had this great flip-flop between Democrats and Republicans and how the part's aligned. But anyway, things change over time. But but the point here is in that case, if the Insurrection is actually what the people want, who said say they can't have the freedom to choose an insurrectionist, it's like it's like a kind of a mindblowing concept to think about. But then when we really zoom out and we go, huh, yeah? I Mean if if let's let's say the election was a 60% Landslide for an insurrectionist.

Uh, assuming somebody was guaranteed an insurrectionist like somebody's like and the court actually specifically mention this, they're like, what if somebody's like, hey, I am an insurrectionist I would like to run for office like they are admitting they are an insurrectionist Does that bar them from running for president? And it's a really neat argument. So my goal in this video was to be as politically neutral as possible. It took a long time to study all of this. Uh, so if you like this, consider subscribing.

Let me know what you think, let me know if I was too unneutral. I'm a little worried that uh, you know people who are maybe are are a little bit more on the left side or a lot more on the left side are going to think that this is just a Pure Pro Trump video And it's difficult because having listened to all the words I'm why not advertise these things that you told us here I Feel like nobody else knows about this? We'll We'll try a little advertising and see how it goes. Congratulations man, you have done so much People love you people look up to you Kevin Paffrath there financial analyst and YouTuber meet Kevin Always great to get your take.