♪ host: it is thursday, february, 2024.

all eyes will be on the united states supreme court for a case of cap sweeping ramifications for the election. justice and will hear arguments in trump v anderson to see if states can disqualify the president from ballots. until the court is in session we will hear from you. if you support disqualifying former president trump from the ballot, it is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose disqualification (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text. (202) 748-8003. include your name and where you are from. otherwise catch up with us on social media. on x it is @cspanwj stop go ahead and start calling in. this is the headline from the

front page of today's washington post. the sub headline the stakes are high for the u.s. and the court. writing it is an unprecedented case that gives the supreme court justices the central role in charting the course of a presidential election for the first time in a quarter-century. more on the case throughout today's program. as we talk about it we want to hear from you. on phone lines, if you support disqualification, (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose, (202) 748-8001 bap trump v anderson is the name of the case centered on two -- the meaning of section three of the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. you'll be hearing a lot about section three today.

"no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector of a president or vice president or hold any office, civil or military, in the united states or any state, who having previously an oath as a member of congress or an officer of the united statesr as a member of any state legislature or executive or judicial officer to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same and given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." section three of the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868. it is that section of the 14th amendment that has been the focus of several of these challenges to allowing donald trump's name to appear on state ballots. it was the colorado case that moved through the high court in colorado and the supreme court now taking up the challenge from

that case. we are talking about it this morning and we are hearing from you. phone lines if you support disqualification, if you oppose disqualification. we hear from mary in michigan. you are up first. caller: good morning. i am opposed to disqualifying president trump because he was the president of the united states. host: go on. caller: the reason is he is the office, he is not one of the officers underneath. he was the existing president at the time they were saying. i believe it was a coup with the democrats trying to take it away from the public. host: this is james in maryland.

you are next. caller: at this point i think it is best they disqualify him. we all know what happened. i know people love trump so much they did not care. the bad thing that would happen as they allow him to go ahead and he gets elected, and later on because he has problems with top-secret papers he is disqualified after he is elected and he cannot be sworn in. if that happens i am sure many people -- a lot of them seem to be out of their mind and a little bit racist. they will react worse than what they did january last time. with that being said, i voted for biden last time. i am not comfortable voting for him this time because of israel. i'm not going to vote for trump. so i'm stuck between a person,

one i think is racist, and another out his touch and maybe has something going on with israel nobody wants to go about . there's a strong possibility those who did vote for biden would not vote for him. and then trump may be wins. then as he wins and becomes disqualified, then we have a bigger problem. that is all i have to say for now. host: around disqualifying donald trump from the colorado republican primary ballot. i want to show you this map from the washington times. the case following colorado's highest court, excluding donald trump from colorado's primary ballot. this map showing the number of states that have taken up this

14th amendment issue of donald trump being on the ballot in the wake of his actions on january 6, 2021. the orange states on this map are states where cases are pending regarding donald trump's ballot access and the blue states on this map are states where the case to remove donald trump has been dismissed. you can see states across the country taking the issue up. the colorado case is the one that has made it to the supreme court today and that is what we will be hearing oral arguments about. trump v anderson is the name of the case. aaron in michigan, you are next -- daren in michigan, you are next. what you think of this case? caller: i think -- trying to get

rid of our democracy. they know he is going to win. they've already proven how many fraudulent votes they found in georgia and everything. i cannot believe you have this democratic party and people that support it -- they are for taking away our democracy. i do not understand it. if you confront these people all they want to say is trump did this. they blame him for everything. they are trying to blame him for the war. israel. everything. everything is blame trump. this is the agenda nancy pelosi put out during covid. january 6, it has all been proven. they have the records and the

recordings. people need to wake up and see this is what they are trying to do. take up your democracy. -- take away your democracy. they are trying to take away -- they are trying to make it a communist country. host: there were a lot of cases following the 2020 election about that issue dismissed. why do you say they were proven? caller: they came out with how many votes they had in georgia that were fraudulent. they got accurate numbers. i do not see how people cannot say it is not proven. when you have hard proof how can you deny it? host: what cases are you pointing to? there are a lot of cases that try to prove that it was not proven? caller: georgia was one. they have proven, i cannot give

you the numbers off and, but they have people they collected in the graveyards. people that died. people that moved. people that moved out of state that voted in previous elections, they just used their past voter history and said they voted for biden this time. host: that is daren in michigan. roger is next in maryland. caller: good morning. i am of the belief the supreme court should exclude the president because he participated in the insurrection. i witnessed it firsthand. i am law enforcement. i work in washington, d.c.

people talk about it but we saw it and i saw the people suffered because of that and i saw what it did to this country. i think he committed treason. i think he committed insurrection. i wish the supreme court will exclude him but i do not think they will because almost half of them were appointed by him. host: that is roger in maryland. when the supreme court hears arguments in this case it will be a case led by two men, one acting on behalf of the voters of colorado who brought this case, and those arguing for the former president. a picture of both of those men. jonathan mitchell on the right, donald trump's lead attorney in the case, the former solicitor general of texas who helped create the states six-week abortion ban that put enforcement and the hand of private citizen and a clerk for

justice antonin scalia who argued five cases for the supreme court. then there is jp murray, colorado trial lawyer making his first supreme court argument when he represents the colorado voters today. he clerked for justice elena kagan on the supreme court and justice neil gorsuch when he was a denver-based u.s. circuit court of appeals. those are the men who will be leading the arguments. colorado solicitor general also granted 10 minutes to represent the colorado secretary of state in this case. you will be hearing all of this if you stick around on c-span after 10:00 eastern. cameras not allowed in the courtroom, but we will show you images of those who are speaking and let you hear the live oral arguments that are streamed live on the supreme court's website. these are the images you are seeing on your screen is the media gathering outside the supreme court.

plenty of people there who have been waiting hours and days to try to be one of those who get into the supreme court to be in attendance to listen to the or arguments. -- to listen to the oral arguments. we will hopefully be chatting with some of those folks later in our program. until now chatting with our viewers. this is john in ohio. caller: good morning. i oppose because donald trump has not been charged with insurrection. he has not been convicted of insurrection. for that matter i do not think anybody has been charged with insurrection. the court in colorado made this assertion without donald trump being able to defend himself.

i think the supreme court will be in donald trump's favor. thank you for letting me speak. host: to louisiana. this is thomas. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: my point is this. he took the oath of office? is that correct? host: he takes the oath of office january 20. caller: it does not say anything in there of him being convicted of insurrection. it says he has to cause insurrection. i cannot hear you. host: the wording of the 14th amendment is "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states." caller: and that is exactly what

he done. he told them to fight like hell. he was not protecting the citizens of the united states of america. is that correct? host: you tell me what you think? caller: i think he should not be able to run. i think you should be put in jail for being a traitor to the united states of america. treason is just the beginning of it. steel classified documents. -- stealing classified documents. taking them to mar-a-lago. he can get away with anything just because he has money. host: this is ernest on the west coast. up early in l.a. morning.

what are your thoughts on this case? caller: first of all -- host: are you still with us? we will work on ernest. to andrew in louisiana. caller: my understanding on donald trump's if people cannot see with their own eyes and their own years -- and their own ears that this man is all about himself. he does not care about anyone in the united states. he is using the platform of president to bring the united states down to the level we have never been in the history of the united states. if we let him back in he will destroy us. my thing is to never let him or anyone of his caliber ever get there ever again. period. that is -- host: that is andrew

in louisiana. when you hear about the colorado voters who brought this challenge, two republicans and an independent voter who sue to keep donald trump off the states primary ballot. the state is officially known as trump fee anderson. that anderson is norma anderson. politico it with a profile piece of norma anderson. "donald trump's biggest obstacle to winning the president is not nikki haley or joe biden, a little-known 91-year-old former republican legislator from colorado. her name is norma anderson." the is the anderson in trump fee anderson. -- in trump v. anderson. she said in an interview she immediately agreed to participate when she was recruited by an attorney working with a liberal government watchdog group.

when asked, when duty calls you do it, she told political -- she told politico. my reason is to save democracy because donald trump will destroy our democracy. that was norma anderson in an interview with politico. this is glenn in virginia. host: i think your point about norma anderson dispels this thinking that is a democrat coup against trump. i think trump should be disqualified. i do not think the supreme court will go that route. i think it is too political for them to weigh in on edit steps in the way to take care of what needs to be done. there are too many people who want a dictator. you can tell by the callers who are pro-trump. it is mind-boggling how they feel this way. it is pretty upsetting.

i do not think there is anything we can do about it at the supreme court level. host: what you expect from the supreme court? a narrow ruling that dodges this question or a narrow ruling that decides on behalf of the former president? caller: i am not a lawyer. i have no idea how they will go. i would suspect they will straddle the line a little bit. i would be very surprised if they say you cannot run, even though i think the arguments from the various republican federalist folks who put forth a strong argument for disqualification, i do not think they will accept it. host: that is glenn in virginia. this is the editorial board of the wall street journal today, sing the best course of action

would be for the justice to settle this case on a narrow legal issue and not enter into the political fight this has become over whether january 6 was in insurrection. the justices do not need to go there. if they find section three of the 14th amendment does not cover the president. one of the ways to do that, they write, is the president is not an officer of the united states as defined by the constitution, referring back to when that term is used in the constitution and when it is not and when the president is directly referenced when "officer of the united states" is used. in his briefing, former president trump's lawyers briefing on this issue, that is one of the main lines of argument they put forth, that this term does not apply to the president of the united states. st. george, utah. go ahead. caller: i would say what we are

doing -- people need to get their heads on straight and realize the system works. trust the system, go with the plan. we will be benefited from that. host: explained what you mean when you say the system works. the electoral process we have now? you are saying do not keep him off the ballot? caller: absolutely. trust the system. the judicial decrees will work itself out. let's all get our heads on straight. if we do not have trust in the system, what do we have? we need to trust the system and go with what works. host: you think people in this country trust with system and you think people in the country trust the supreme court? caller: i think people do not

trust the system. i do not think they trust the system. if we are going to have a country we have to trust the system that will play out the right way. i am opposed to the removal of trump from the ballot because all need to trust in the system that it will work out the right way and stop leveraging the system against itself. host: that is ben in the beehive state. a few of your comments from social media and our text messaging service. from fayetteville, georgia. "section three of the 14th amendment had in mind men who took up armsinst the nation in the civil war. use that in the context of january 6 is ludicrous, especially since no one, including the former president, has been charged with insurrection."

one more text. mike from bismarck stating "the republicans alws y let the states handle everything and now colorado has handled it and now republicans are saying that the supreme court handle this." stephen in brooklyn. you are next. caller: good morning. i am an african-american veteran. to piggyback on what you said, we do not trust the system anymore. the system can be bought. i believe the system can be bought. the reason i oppose disqualification is because i believe you did not charge them with a crime, you still up not charged him with a crime. i am a firm believer that even if they do disqualify him, he will still win. i believe he is still going to win. if they go through with this and they take him off the ballot, i

believe he is still going to win. host: this point that they have not charged and convicted him of insurrection. another caller pointed this out and this is an ongoing legal argument. the text of section three says " shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion," not shall have been charged and convicted. host: i believe -- caller: i do believe he engaged in it by his speech. i do not believe he could influence 35 or 40 americans to do something like that. i believe his speech influenced it but they had this in mind already. trump lit the fire. that word engaged is so strong. host: probably something we will be hearing more about today when

arguments in trump v anderson. it is 10:00 eastern. we'll be showing you images of the folks speaking as they do so on c-span at 10:00 when it begins. you can also watch on c-span.org and the free c-span now app. if you have to had to work and cannot watch at 10:00, we will be rearing those arguments at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and you can head to c-span.org to watch them in their entirety as we bring all of our programming to you in its entirety. this is eve in michigan. good morning. caller: i want you to remember i was last person in 2023 to call you and i was still talking about donald trump. he should be disqualified. even if he is not disqualified, he will not win this election. i want the people to hear me.

he will not win this election if they put him on the ballot. i do not believe he is on the ballot in michigan. host: you do not think he should be on the primary ballot is what you are saying? caller: he should not be. host: michigan is one of the cases where a case was brought to remove him from the ballot and the case was dismissed. caller: it was dismissed. at the same time, he should not be on the ballot. this man has done things throughout his life that should have not put him in office in the first place and the person that has watched him from a teenager up, the thing about it is people do not know this man did not qualified to begin with after he made fun of a disabled person. haven't they learned as a kid growing up, their parents told them to never make fun and talk about a person who is disabled. he had done all of that but

people still elected him. he had an insurrection and they are still talking about putting him in office. where does this end? host: that is eve in michigan. coming up at 7:30 on the east coast. oral arguments begin at 10:00 eastern. to get a sense of the scene, we take you to a reporter who has been meeting with some of the folks in line. >> there are a lot of people out here and i'm with three of them who are hoping to get seats. what is your name and where you from? >> my name is miriam and i'm from cleveland, ohio. >> susan from cincinnati. >> bric from cleveland. >> why are you out here? >> we are here to be part of history.

we are here to experience the process of something that is unprecedented and can have tremendous ramifications either way after the decision. we have the opportunity and we were not going to miss it. >> you came in from cleveland. you travel from out-of-state. you should have a pretty good chance of getting in. what time did you get here to stand in line? >> we got here about 12:30 in the morning tuesday morning. it has been a long haul. >> and you've been talking with a lot of other people in line. what is the consensus? why are people so interested in this case? >> there is a lot of partisans, but there is also a lot of interest in the process and this particular case has a lot of interesting aspects. it puts the justices in interesting ideological

positions on parts of the constitution that has not been argued before. then throw in the political ramifications and there is a lot here. >> have any of you ever been out here before for one of these cases? >> i was here in 2018 for a gerrymandering case. very interesting process to watch. >> once you are in today what are you hoping to see? >> we are very interested to see what types of questions are asked by the judges and to see how that is giving an indication for how the wheels in their brains might be turning as they are asking their questions. >> thank you so much. we have one more person. >> i am from claremont, north

carolina. about an hour away from charlotte. >> why are you here? >> i am a law student so i'm interested in the process as a whole, not just from the case standpoint. i know it will be a big decision and the legal and clinical spheres so i'm excited to be here and experience firsthand to see the dynamics of the questions between the justice and the council and the dynamics between the justices. they talk to each other through questions and i'm excited to see how this pans out. >> have you been to a case before? >> never. i have never been to in oral argument. i've never been in the courtroom. >> are you getting extra credit for being here? >> i am not. i reached out to some of my professors and i took pictures in front of the court with the textbook they wrote.

i think they can understand and excuse my absence for being here. >> what area of law are you looking at? >> i am looking at juvenile law, criminal law, but i'm also interested in constitutional law. appeals work. i think this is a great opportunity for me to experience all that stuff, especially the appellate side and the constitutional side. >> do think this is something the courts should be deciding? >> i have to defer to the justices. they know best. i think there is something they will have to do about the case. i do not think punting it down to a different route will be the best option, i think they want to answer a question on the merits of the case. there are so many trials. i think the supreme court will have to take some action. it is a matter of when they do it. >> thank you so much for your time. host: the intersection of 1st

street and east capitol street on capitol hill. we will head back up there a few more times throughout our program to give you a sense of the scene. still two and a half hours before arguments begin in this case. all eyes on the supreme court. live oral arguments at 10:00 eastern on c-span. taking your phone calls this morning, getting your thoughts. our phone line split differently on this case about ballot eligibility stemming from a colorado case and a challenge by voters in colorado to the former president eligibility to be on the colorado primary ballot. if you think the president should be disqualified, it is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose disqualifying him, (202) 748-8001. john has been waiting in owings mills, maryland. good morning. caller: i am a disabled veteran.

i understand what the oath is. the president took the oath so the 14th amendment says he should be disqualified for engaging in insurrection. therefore he should not be allowed to be eligible for president. he should automatically be disqualified from the ballot. host: what you think about this argument that donald trump's lawyers and supporters have put forward that disqualifying him from the ballot the anti-democratic in itself? caller: the point being is if we do not follow through, if we do not hold up the laws and the constitution, then what is going to happen is we open the door for people like donald trump, that when they get into office, if they do not choose not to accept the case and they come up

for the next election and they did side -- they decide they do not want to accept they lost and they want to rally the people to stand up and fight and engage in civil war, then we are saying this is what you can do. there are no laws that say i cannot do this as president. if i lay down the law, this is what will keep us a democratic country. if you remove that from everyone else will be able to do what they want to do. host: you bring up the issue of presidential immunity. a circuit court in d.c. making a unanimous decision the president to not have blanket immunity for his actions when he was president. that case was decided earlier this week also expected to eventually end up where we are today at the supreme court. for today it is ballot access and ballot eligibility from a colorado case. six colorado voters challenging

donald trump's eligibility to be on the state primary ballot. this made its way through the colorado state court and the colorado supreme court in december. it was donald trump's attorney scott gessler who argued this idea that disqualifying donald trump from the ballot would be anti-democratic. here is some of what he had to say. >> if the entire nation chooses someone to be president, can that be in insurrection or is that democratic choice? the president is a little bit different. everyone in the country should have an opportunity to vote for that person. >> i do not think anyone here is suggesting and i do not think the petitioners have been arguing that the election of a person as president is insurrection. i think what the insurrection might have been is a different question. i am not sure where you're going with that argument. >> i am going with the broader

context of the president is different. if everyone in the country chooses a particular person as president. >> if everyone chose an insurrectionist? jefferson davis. if jefferson davis ran a wily go -- ran a while ago and the electors who were not insurrectionist chose to put them into the presidency that would be fine and consistent the purposes of section three? >> that would be the role of democracy at work. >> there are limits. the president cannot be under 35% were not born in the country. if you take your argument to the limit -- the president cannot be under 35 or cannot be born in the country. if you take your argument to the limit we could elect governor schwarzenegger or my 27-year-old

kid. >> i do not think it goes that far. it is the text of section three. there are these qualifications. no one argues that. when we are interpreting section three of the 14th amendment and we look at the history behind that, and the language they used , to satisfy the conditions of section three, you have to be in office under the united states. you have to hold the office under the united states, and you have to be an officer under the united states, and you have to take an oath. you have to have all four of those items in place. anyone of them, section three does not apply. host: you are seeing december before colorado's highest court, that court ruling donald trump should be removed from the states primary ballot. that ruling now appealed to the supreme court.

this state is an issue of ballot access for donald trump making its way through plenty of state courts and state houses. it with the secretary of state of maine old donald trump should be disqualified from maine's ballot although that held off until the colorado issue is settled. this was last month on msnbc. the main secretary of state explaining that ruling to disqualify donald trump. [video clip] >> my decision is a legal decision under the constitution that i swore to uphold. in my decision, it is 34 pages, people can read it on the website, i make it clear the decision would have been clearer should there have been a conviction or a guilty or not guilty verdict in a criminal court of law. that is not what section three

of the 14th amendment says. it says "engaged in insurrection." the events of january 6 were tragic, they were an attack not only on the capital but on members of congress, on the former vice president, and resulted in seven deaths. it was an attack on the peaceful transfer of power and on the rule of law. the weight of that evidence demonstrated that mr. trump, these events happened at the behest of the outgoing president and with the knowledge and support of the outgoing president. the u.s. constitution does not tolerate an assault on the peaceful transfer of power. furthermore, my job is secretary of state as delegated to me by the maine legislature is to ensure all of the qualifications.

i cannot place an 18-year-old on the ballot or a noncitizen running for president or someone who has violated the 22nd amendment. i cannot place barack obama or george w. bush on the ballot. i must ensure all candidates meet the qualification for the ballot. the qualifications are not a menu. they are the requirements under our founding documents. host: this issue now before the united states supreme court. oral argument set to begin in a little over two hours this morning. trump v. anderson is the official name of the case. media gathering in the hopes -- and those waiting in line in the hopes of becoming one of those who will watch inside the supreme court chambers just across from the united states capital on 1st street. this is loretta in cleveland,

ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, america. i don't think trump should be allowed on the ballot in any state. any state. first of all, insurrection is not a part of the president's job description. just because you're the president of the base does not mean you get to heist it anytime you feel like it. secondly, the part where they're trying to say he is not an officer. ok, he is not an officer, but it does say anyone in the executive branch. and third, he did engage in insurrection. he engaged by sitting there and letting it happen and not doing

anything to protect the people. he is wrong there also. then he gave aid and comfort. he said it is time to go home. i love you. remember that. then he came back and he started calling them hostages. then he had them record a song that he started playing at the rallies. trump should not be allowed on any ballot in america. host: that is loretta in ohio. this is kevin in michigan. caller: thanks a lot for taking my call. to the last caller, a lot of very uneducated people out there. my question is insurrection. the way i am seeing it, if you go out and have a rally, tell

people to peacefully protest, and they do not, you are in trouble for an insurrection. to me that makes lunatic sense. nancy pelosi says trump will never be president again. i want to know more about that. i want someone to ask her what did she mean by never again? i think there's something going on there. are they going to try to do something to him? all i have to say is this is not going to end well. host: that is michigan. this is illinois. stephen, your next. caller: i think the colorado court got it night -- i think the colorado court got it right. they passed the law because people were electing secessionists. the democratic process was electing secessionists and they said we cannot have people like

jefferson davis become president , we just lost half a million men in this country for a war. we will pass a law and take it out of the democratic process. if you were a secessionist you cannot be elected regardless of the pressure from your voters to vote you in. they were voting in secessionists and they passed a law to stop it. the supreme court is deciding, just like the colorado supreme court, they decided trump as a secessionist. the supreme court will do the same thing. they passed a law and took it out of the democratic process. it is not about letting them reelect a confederate. that is why they passed the law. the trump argument to colorado -- the justice hit it on the head. it does not make any sense to say they can reelect the people who started the civil war. they did not want the people who started the civil war to get reelected. a couple of things. if they had not passed this amendment and stop the secessionists from being

elected, jim crow might not have happened. who knows what happens when you do this and stop the democratic process. this is a simple thing. whether he is a secessionist or not. colorado says he is. the supreme court will decide that. they passed a law to stop the democratic process. the democratic process is not part of this anymore. host: that is stephen in illinois. the 14th amendment ratified in 1868. 155 years ago. a new mexico judge disqualified a county commissioner and the cowboys for trump co-founder cory griffin from holding office for engaging insurrection at the u.s. capitol on january 6, 2021, also using section three of the 14th amendment. mr. griffin has appealed that decision to the supreme court. today it is donald trump's appeal the supreme court is taking up.

plenty of people have been gathered at the court for hours and days. for more of the scene we go back to tammy. >> i have four law students with me right now who have been up here for quite a while. what are your names question mark >> i am trey, georgetown law. >> i am garrett, also from georgetown law. >> i am from american university. >> i am also from american university. >> how long have you been in line? >> since 2:00 p.m. yesterday. >> what is your interest in this case? >> coming to law school opportunities like this are part of the appeal, to witness history. >> are you looking for anything in particular? >> i do not know how it will turn out but i am looking forward to seeing the justices react to the questions being asked and their questions to the

council and how the council react and the judge's interpretation of what is going on. >> you think this is something the supreme court should be deciding? >> absolutely. this is one of the major issues of our constitution. it is one of the major issues of our history. i think having it fractured across the country is something that is damaging to democracy and unsustainable and ultimately we need a strong precedent and direction that will let people move forward with the election. >> do you think this precedent could open the gate for other challenges like this in the future? >> it certainly could and it depends how they rule. if they come down for anderson, certainly, if for trump, that maybe not. >> do you have confidence in the supreme court and the decisions they make? >> i think the supreme court is

the supreme law of the land and whatever decision they come down with, you have to abide by it, no matter what. >> i would absolutely agree with that. what the supreme court decides today will decide the issue for now and the rest of time. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. host: showing you the scene outside the united states supreme court on 1st street and east capitol street. we will take you back there a few more times. we continue to hear from you. phone line split this way. if you think the former president should be disqualified from the ballot in 2024, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose disqualification, (202) 748-8001. having this conversation throughout our washington journal program. mike is in north carolina. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i think trump should be on the

ballots. biden is always saying trump is a threat to democracy. the whole democratic party is a threat to democracy. let the voters decide. one of the reasons they're going for this is because after the 2020 election and the state governments putting in laws to help during the voting that were not ratified by the states own house and senate, they are trying every which way they can to stop donald trump from running. they should just let the voters decide. the mouth breathers on cnn, msnbc, they always leave out the quote when trump was talking, "march peacefully and patriotically." they always omit that from their testimony. trump cannot be responsible for what people do.

trump was still talking when people on -- when people were on their way to the capital. it is just like maxine waters and nancy pelosi and even kamala harris saying we will fight during the blm riots. should all of them be responsible for all of the burning and looting and murders? there was only one person killed at that capital. her name was ashli babbitt. the person talking from maine said seven people died? that is a total lie and everybody knows it. just because you have a heart attack three days later does not mean you had that happen at the capital. that is a medical thing. host: to texas. good morning. caller: you disappointed me this

morning. you keep reading the third part of the 14th amendment. it has not been proven that he committed insurrection. it has not been proven. you cannot just walk up and call someone a murderer without a fair trial. thus far he has not received any fair trial. the colorado supreme court, they are hacks. they were trying to get donald trump -- the "republican" who brought the suit. it is anti-democratic to summarily remove the man from the ballot. during the "insurrection" he was still the president. he was still the president.

was he trying to steal the government from himself? that is ridiculous. host: you think you will get fair treatment at the supreme court? caller: i think if the supreme court does not go 9-0, it will prove that ignorance has totally taken over this country, just like when marsha blackburn asked ketanji brown jackson what is a woman, and the woman could not say what it was. if it is not 9-0, ignorance will have proven to take it. one more thing. you need somebody like julie kelly, people like that to come on your show so they can give counter facts or counter arguments to the silly facts you

have, when you have people like ken whately and ellie missed out and all the people like that. that needs to happen. host: our next hour we will give you two law professors. josh blackman of south texas college of law in houston. this is homer in louisiana. good morning. caller: i am a daily listener. i don't understand why he did not fight this hard to go in the service. we went in about the same time. i am 81 years old. why he didn't raise all this cane and go into the service. he can get up there and wave a bunch of flags around. let him run. he has not won a popular vote yet. i am waiting to see that. host: you say let him run?

caller: i believe in democracy. that is why went to the service. i did eight years. i think when a boy is 13 he has to experience the world a little bit. i come from a town with two stoplights so i got a chance to go to germany and switzerland. he should have went to that. he should have fought in the service instead of making excuses. i still went. host: that is homer in louisiana. this is mark in maryland. you are next. caller: a couple of the last

callers have stolen a little bit of my thunder. it seems like the more educated tend to call in towards the end of the hour. there seems to be a cognitive dissonance going on with all of these callers. i do not know how many times it needs to be said, but i guess i will have to add on. no one was charged with insurrection. yet people keep calling in saying he is an insurrectionist. the last caller was saying he did not even win the popular vote. people seem to need a civics lesson. we do not elect presidents by popular vote. c-span perpetuates this. i do not understand why you guys do this. you run this on one of your bumpers between breaks. this is what democracy looks like. has it occurred to any of these people calling in talking about

our democracy that we are not a democracy at all, not even a little bit. we are a constitutional republic. the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents. the founding fathers were adamant we not be a democracy because that turns into tierney. -- that turns into tyranny. host: that is mark in maryland. jim in texas is next. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: when was the last time anyone heard parents telling their kids to grow up to be president. i think the trump administration destroyed that. i think we have jumped the gun on the supreme court thing. with everything that has gone on , i do not think the past president qualifies for security

clearance to be able to hold the job. there is no way he can put his hand on a document. personally, i hope they disqualify him. you have a good day. host: minnesota, just a couple minutes left. caller: morning. personally, i do think president trump is ineligible because it goes to the supreme court -- personally, i do think president trump is ineligible. but because it goes to the supreme court with three justices he put in there, i trust the system and hope we get out of there ok. host: what does it mean to get

out of it ok? caller: it is a major issue, what is going on. that is my opinion of what i have seen the last four or five years. we are on the doorstep to tyranny or whatever. maybe it is too early in the morning to stay rational. it is what i have seen. host: have we ever been on the doorstep of tierney before? -- have we ever been on the doorstep of tyranny before? >> i was book -- caller: i was born in germany in 1952 and grew up there. they went over the doorstep there. that is where i get my opinion from. host: are we close to that? caller: at least we go to the supreme court, which is good.

we see what happens. there are three judges he put in. then again, the former attorney general was put in by him. those are all too many things that has to go to somebody who studied this for 10 or 15 years. i am not competent enough. it is just my opinion. host: we will chat with folks who studied this for 10 or 15 years or longer in our next segment. let me try to get a couple more calls in. this is anthony in louisiana. good morning. caller: good. i am a little bit nervous. i have three points. i pray that the supreme court remember the days when blacks did not have the right to vote

or women. [indiscernible] host: you are going a bit in and out but i think we got your point. this is jackie in north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. merrick garland, the office of the attorney general blinked. i agree with the other callers that talked about the need for 1300 people who had been charged and not convicted of any insurrection, so how can you do it to a former president? shame on merrick garland. host: one more call. new caller: it aiding and abetting the individuals rebelling against the government. that's what he did come he sat there for three hours and didn't do a thing and could've stopped

it by telling the national guard that i am the president, stop this and everybody will run away because they don't want to get shot. he did not do that. he aided and abetted a government rebellion. if you read the text, that's the facts of the constitution. host: last caller in this segment but plenty of more this morning on the "washington journal." up next, we will dive further into the legal and constitutional issues at play in his today's historic supreme court case. we will be right back. ♪

>> at 8 p.m.astern, the bloomberg national correspondent with his book the rebels where he describes economic populism on the left in the future of the democratic party. at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwords, coleman hughes with his book the end of race politics in which he argues that the u.s. should move towara colorblind approach to politics and race. he is interviewed by the atlantic staff writer and author. watch book tv every sunday on c-span and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online any time at book tv.org.

>> at 7 p.m. eastern, we can still -- we continue with the series free to choose by milton friedman and his wife rose friedman. this episode is titled created equal and looks at equality in america. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, thoughts -- boston college nursing professor on the individuals and events that shaped american and global public health systems. at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, look at 200 years of the 1823 monroe doctrine and white to find president james monroe's legacy. at 10:50 p.m. eastern on historic campaign speeches, look at a 2008 speech by north carolina senator john edwards at a campaign rally at of that nevada presidential caucuses followed by the 2012 republican presidential candidate mitt romney's speech following the nevada caucuses. explore the american story, what's american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a or watch online anytime at guide c-span.org/history.

announcer: friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of providing a one-stop shop to discover where the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪

>> every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. "washington journal" continues.. host: a roundtable discussion now on today's supreme court oral arguments on donald trump's eligibility to appear on presidential balance and we are joined by two law professors. josh blackman is here in the studio from the north texas college of law. also our next guest is joined by zoom so thank you to both. starting with you, what would -- where you stand on the case? guest: i saw the brief. i think the court should not disqualify mr. trump in the ballot. host: why? guest: the first reason is technical. section three of the 14th amendment only applies to a person who took it certain type

of oath in certain positions. the languages you must take an oath to the constitution as an officer of the united states. if you are an officer of the united states and for nearly a decade, officer of the united states refers we -- an appointed position, not people who were elected. section three has no bearing on this case at all. host: is it the position you expect the trump council to take today during arguments? guest: jumps counsel -- trump counsel, it will be the primary way to win this case. host: where you stand in this case? guest: i believe the supreme court should affirm the decision of the colorado supreme court which they are reviewing which says trump should indeed be disqualified because he engaged in insurrection by instigating and trying to exploit the attack on the capital on january 6,

2021. i also believe he is in fact an officer of the united states or was when he was the president under section three of the 14th amendment and the other hypertechnical argument that his counsel has advanced are flawed and should be rejected. host: explain hypertechnical arguments. guest: there is a whole bunch of ways that trump's counsel is trying to win this case, all of which are for the most part highly counterintuitive and hypertechnical. they are the kind of things that make people dislike lawyers which doesn't by itself means they are wrong but it should make us suspicious of those kind of argument. they have the argument which was mentioned that the person who holds the highest office in the federal government is somehow not an officer of the united states, the kind of argument that only a hypertechnical lawyer can offer. they also have the argument that section three cannot be enforced unless congress annex additional legislation to try to enforce it

even though nothing in the text of the 14th amendment indicates that is the case. they have a number of other technical arguments such as the argument that i address in my amicus brief which is the claim that before trump or anybody can be disqualified for engaging in insurrection, they first have to be convicted under a criminal charge despite the fact that all of the former confederates were disqualified in the immediate aftermath of the amendment and none of them had been convicted of any crimes related to their involvement in the civil war. host: who has the tougher job today? is it donald trump's counsel or the council arguing on behalf of the voters of colorado? guest: in order for the voters to win, if the court agrees with trump on any one issue, he's on the ballot. if the court says the present is not an officer and did not engage in insurrection in the

courts -- and if they use any of those defenses, trump wins. in order to disqualify on the ballot, you have to run the table. the court could say the colorado court made a mistake. host: who's got the tougher job today? guest: i think they are tough and different ways. it's true that trump had several different possible ways to win and his opponents have to defeat all of them. on the other hand, the arguments are badly flawed in various ways, some of them extremely so and all of them with minor exceptions with a set of very dangerous precedents if they were adopted by the court. you have one side that does have an advantage in that they have multiple ways to win and they have an advantage that for political reasons, they might

allow trump to be removed from the ballot. on the other hand, our site has the advantage in all the other sides argument are highly counterintuitive and badly flawed. host: let's let the viewers join the program. you can tell is whether you think the former president should or should not be disqualified. if you think he should, call (202) 748-8000, if you say he shouldn't be disqualified, (202) 748-8001. both you gentlemen mentioned you filed briefs in this case. why and who is allowed to file a brief and how many briefs are there in this case? guest: the phrase is amicus brief, you are a friend of the court. for anyone in the world to file a brief, you don't have to get permission anymore. i filed a brief with mike colleagues in writing. we want to bring to the courts attention how this argument should be presented.

many of the organs trump is made comes from our articles and scholarships. we will see what happens today. guest: why is you file a brief? guest: for two reasons come as an academic, i have a long-standing interest in the structure of democracy and constitutional limitations on democracy including those that try to protect democracy sometimes against the voters themselves, events test against voter ignorance and other problems. i thought this argument that there must be a criminal conviction first has come up a lot in the public debate and it's come up in the brief but it's also pretty weak area i thought i could make a contribution by filing the one amicus brief that is focused on this question. host: two law professors with us this morning. we are taking your phone calls and linda is up first out of

columbus, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i feel we need to follow the constitution and straighten out a lot of things that are happening in america that are negative. these judges need to get together and do the law as it is written and follow the law. trump needs to go home. his time is up. guest: mr. blackman, we need to follow the law as it's written? why was section three of the 14th amendment written back in 1868 guest: guest:? i believe we should follow the law. section three arose from the civil war. at the civil war, their questions of how to handle confederates and there were different proposals. one proposal would've said we would disenchant size -- disenfranchised presence of they didn't vote. some said they couldn't hold any government positions. we ultimately came to a

compromise that certain confederate officials could not hold certain government positions but it doesn't apply to everyone all contexts. the challenge is to figure out what the law means. sometimes it may not be the most intuitive people interpreting this but there is a lot here to advance. host: those who wrote the 14th amendment in section three typically, would they have been ok with the former confederate running for president? guest: could a former confederate run for president? i think there is some argument that people would not want jefferson davis as president. we are making a different argument that the person took one oath as president of the united states is an officer of the united states. he could've held a government position whether he was a general or member of congress. there is no reason to even think about a person running for president. it wasn't on their minds at all.

guest: true, i think the supreme court has said several times including the well-known opinion by justice kelly b tiscali of that when we interpret the words of the constitution, we should interpret them as understood by ordinary people at the time. when an ordinary person sees a phrase like officer of the united states, they will think that surely includes the person who holds the highest and most powerful office in the land. in addition, it doesn't make any sense to say if you are a low federal bureaucrat or low-level military officer and you engage in insurrection that you are under section three. but if you are a president and engage in insurrection, you get a free pass. you get an exemption and that is highly counterintuitive. it doesn't make any sense and is not the kind of thing an ordinary person would think upon reading the amendment either in 1868 at the time it was ratified or today.

it is only the kind of hypertechnical argument that it's not generally accessible under ordinary meeting and also makes little sense in terms of what this amendment is supposed to do. yes, at that time, the former president's generally had held other government offices. that couldn't necessarily be counted on and they were prominent people who could run for office or had run for office even though they had not previously held another sufficiently important office to be disqualified. host: who decides who the in ordinary person is? guest: that's a good question. the constitutional theorists have different views on this. i think the usual assumption is that an ordinary person is simply an ordinary member of the general public at the time if you had put before him or her the text of section three, they

would think it includes the highest office in the land or not and the answer i think is that they would think that because surely the person who holds the single most powerful office is an officer of the united states and surely they also would not think it makes any sense to give an insurrectionist former president a free pass while you disqualify some local level clerk or do the same thing by engaging in insurrection. host: leavenworth, indiana is next, william. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. this is my eighth attempt to get on. as far as trump goes, his actions speak louder than words with all the criminal indictments against him, that should tell you something. i have had it with the elected dictatorship we been suffering with with the two-party system for years. when it comes to the supreme court, i don't see a lot of

faith in that with corrupt justices like robert and thomas refusing to recuse themselves in this case. i have so much more but very little time, thank you for yours. host: thanks for staying on the line for us. guest: i have faith in supreme court, i'm an outlier in washington. they take this case seriously. i also think that when you talk about constitution, you have to look at what people wrote it for. the constitution was ratified in 1788. if you look at some of the provisions, the phrase officer of the united states is used the president shall appoint the officers of the united states. the commissions clause commissions officers of the united states. the impeachment clause separates out the president saying officer of the united states and the

oath that the president has a separate oath, he doesn't take an oath as an officer of the united states. i agree that these are legal arguments and perhaps the man on the street may not look at it this way. i could expended to them easily. a related point is that there is actually not a record of 14th amendment the debate about office of the united states. office under the united states is another phrase which is involving someone from the presidency. there is no debate to think about one office as president. they held no government position and if they join the confederacy, they would not be precluded from being president. host: to the callers point about justices should or shouldn't have recuse themselves in this case, do you have any thoughts

on that? guest: i see no reason why chief justice job it -- robert should refuse. there is an argument that justice thomas should recuse on the basis that his wife was a prominent supporter of trump and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. that said, past justices have sat on cases where their spouses had been involved in some sort of political activism related to it and ultimately, there is little in the way of a vast really about when supreme court justices should recuse. on the officer of the united states issue, i think these hypertechnical points about the 1780's which are questionable. they don't determine the ordinary meaning of section three in 1868 80 years later. they certainly wouldn't leave ordinary reader to accept the absurd conclusion that an insurrectionist former president gets off scot-free while an

insurrectionist lower-level official is disqualify. it's very obvious that an insurrectionist former president especially if he engages in the insurrection while president is much more of a menace than somebody who was a low level official within it. host: coming back to refusal, do you think clarence thomas should have recused himself in the case? guest: no, the allegations that justice thomas's wife, i think she was at the ellipse speech on january 6 but did not go to the capital. i think she sent emails to the state legislature -- to the legislature to vote and she detected some people in the white house about the election. people can address the government for the grievances. i don't see help every political action jimmy takes should tie into her husband.

i don't see the basis for recusal. i think people are make tester trying to make justice thomas look bad. host: we will go to houston, carl, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm not an attorney. i remember when states like texas and southern states argued about states rights. now, state says we don't want this guy who committed insurrection on our ballot but yet they want to do away with states rights. what about states rights? host: do you want to start on this one? guest: there is an element of both federal and states rights here. what we are talking about is an interpretation of the federal constitution and the federal constitution does limit the states in this area. they are not allowed to have certain kinds of officeholders

if those people had previously engaged in insurrection and previously held offices. on the other hand, there is a stage right dimension to this case in that what section three says is that a person who previously held office and engage in insurrection cannot hold the office but it doesn't address the issue of ballot access. ballot access is controlled by the states but the reason this cases is in court is because the colorado state court has ruled in colorado as in other states, you cannot be on the ballot unless you're constitutionally eligible for the office you're running for. that part as a matter of states rights because there are some states that don't have a rule like that. what we have here is a kind of promulgation of federal constitutional power and state authority over ballot actions. guest: i think i agree.

it sort of a weird dichotomy were colorado is enforcing federal constitution and trump is saying no, you cannot do this by yourself and let's is a federal law an act of congress. it turns states rights argument on its head. we do in fact need federal enforce legislation. we saw the decision from 1869 where the supreme court justice suggested you need to have a federal law. it was a lower court decision. we think it's a good decision and it's one that was largely accepted. people didn't really argue against it. the courts resolve this by saying congress should take action. host: if the justices decide to side with the voters of colorado, what happens then? guest: it depends what grounds they do it. if the court affirms across the board than trump is off the ballot in colorado and he's

probably off the ballot in 50 states, it's over. if the court takes any one the arguments, then it gets complicated. one argument that we haven't mentioned yet is we are in a primary. it's not a general election ballot, maybe the colorado republican primary can take them off the ballot. if we go through november and the general election and the case comes back to the court or the court says it's not for cholera to do it, it's for congress, then what happens january 6 of 2025 when there is a joint session of congress to elect the president, what the vice president kamala harris goebbels in the session and democrats in congress object to trump. if the court rules in favor of trump, it depends which approach they choose to have this issue linger all the way to the election or even in the inauguration day. the only clean way to resolve this is by taking a merit

argument about him engaging in insurrection. that will cleanly resolve it. anything short of that will fester in the months to come. host: can you play out these hypotheticals? guest: i'm mostly agree with what josh said. if the court does ruled the way i wanted to rule, then trump would be on the ballot -- off the ballot for the general election in most states though perhaps not all because not all states have this requirement in order to be on the ballot. you have to be eligible for the office you're running for. nonetheless as a practical matter, trump would have virtually no chance of winning the election if the court were to affirm the colorado supreme court. if it goes the other way, it depends to some degree on how they do it. if they rule the president is not an officer of the united states or the rule that trump did not engage in insurrection, that would decisively end the issue. there are other paths they could

take. they could potentially allow the issue to linger. they could say this doesn't apply at all to the election process or apply to taking office and principal, that could let the issue linger until trump actually wins in november. i suspect the court won't do that. they could and there's a couple of other ways they can let the issue linger. they could rule contrary to my argument but they could say trump did not get an due process for his claim. that would leave open the door to further litigation and other states where trump might get more process such as a higher burden of proof or different trial procedures or something like that. that also would allow the issue to continue to linger. i suspect the court would like to resolve the issue definitively now but obviously, i could be wrong about that. that prediction may be worth as much as you are not paying for

it. host: about halfway through a conversation this morning with our law professors, taking your phone calls. this is eric in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. there are two points i wanted to raise. has anyone advanced the equal protection argument? i'm a resident of new jersey and this is a national election and yet the colorado system is minimizing or weakening my vote. that's one thing i wanted to address, if you could respond to that and the other thing is how is it that texas can be told you are a state, you are not the national governments you don't have the right to put up a barbed wire fence in colorado has the right to exclude a presidential candidate from a national ballot, thank you very much. guest: one of the arguments in favor of this is uniformity. if congress would establish a

single process we would know nationwide to be an insurrectionist. each state can taken upon itself to decide who is and who isn't on the ballot. it's problematic when you elect the president. you need to be on the ballot to have a chance of winning. your odds of winning the electoral college down substantially. to your second point about what is a state, the constitution gives the states the power over the matter of appointing presidential electors of how the electors are chosen. i think that gives the states some leeway but to your other point, it becomes problematic when you have a national election that is so fragmented which is why i think it's important to get a clean resolution about this. it can be chaotic for each state to decide if trump is on the ballot or not. if you think people lost

confident the last election, if we had a 50 state solution, people would lose even more confidence and i don't know how that plays out. host: equal protection and state actions? guest: the fact that each state controls ballot access for itself is a fundamental feature of our election system and it's the way things have worked through every election we've ever had. in every election we've had, some presidential candidates, usually minor party ones but are on the ballot in some states but not the ballot in other states. if you don't like that, that's a flaw in the constitutional design. you would have to have a constitutional amendment to get rid of that. some people would be angry if trump is to qualified and they might lose confidence but on the other hand, lots of people would be angry if he's not disqualified because they would see the man instigated violence to keep himself in power after he lost an election. then he got off scott free despite the existence of a

section of the constitution that is supposed to prevent people who did that very thing from getting into power again. i think there is no way the court could rule here that would not anger a substantial number of people. i think the court should try not to focus too much on who will be angry or happy about their decision but try to do the right thing. host: this is john in alabama, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the supreme court has to make a decision today in whichever way it goes camille will have some people that are unhappy. the supreme court also takes an oath when they are sworn in. one of the things that i look at is clarence thomas. while the insurrection was going on, his wife made calls and text messages to people in trump's

administration. i think one of the people she spoke to was meadows. i think thomas should recuse himself because by voting that trump is an insurrectionist, he will also be voting that his wife took part in that insurrection. he's going to vote the other way. thank you for taking my call. host: you both already addressed the recusal argument. he said the supreme court would make a decision today but they are not making that decision today but when do you expect a will? guest: the rule of thumb is usually the court will hear a case and issue a decision a few months later. this is not a normal case. the colorado supreme court ruled in december and about a week later, the case went to the supreme court in a couple of days after that, the court granted the case. they set the argument for month after that so we are in a

superduper rocket docket. i think the looming deadline is the colorado primary on march 5. i think we need a decision before march 5. it won't be today. that would be remarkable if it happened but we should get a decision by march 5. we may not get a clean decision, it may be fragmented. there may not be a simple majority. you might have three votes here or there. when you cobble it together, if we are looking for clarity and the supreme court, we don't always get that especially with the timeframe with a very contentious case. host: on times frames for the decision and historical precedent here going back to the 2000 election and bush v gore. remind folks of how quickly that decision came. guest: i generally agree with

josh that the court is likely to just -- is not likely to decide this quickly. that's why they took the case on an accelerated it. they may well decide by march 5 i'm not certain about that. there is a good chance. bush versus gore which involved litigation over the recount in the 2000 presidential election in the state of florida which was going to be that of -- the decisive tipping point state there, you've got a decision. within a week or two. i don't remember how fast it was but it happened very quickly after an oral argument because the supreme court wanted to resolve the uncertainty about who won the election before the electoral college votes would be certified and before some other deadlines that were at stake. i think this case, while the legal issues it deals with their different from those of bush v gore, it does have in common the fact that it's in the middle of an election season and the court

probably took the case on accelerated basis because they want to have a definitive resolution relatively weekly. whether they achieve that depends in part on what exactly in majority of justices are able to agree on. host: george is next, john, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe you said that a conviction of insurrection is not necessary because the people who engage in insurrection during the civil war were not given a trial. if you remember, you create an insurrection if you are part of the confederate army. if you don't have a conviction in a court of law of insurrection, you leave it up to people's judgment as to whether or not someone is guilty of insurrection. if i'm in a position of authority and i can make the determination as to whether or not someone deserves to be on the ballot, i could say that joe biden participated in insurrection because he allowed

13 or 14 million people to come into the united states through the southern border, did nothing about it, didn't follow the law. i can make that determination, he could be kicked off the ballot if a court of law and a conviction is not necessary to determine whether or not someone participated in an insurrection. guest: what i said was that a criminal conviction is not necessary. if a state official, depending on the state system, makes a determination that some of -- that someone is not eligible for the ballot because they engaged in insurrection or any other reason, that person can then go to court and challenge that and the court can hear evidence. the person could say i did not actually engage in insurrection. in the case of biden, he could say letting in undocumented immigrants is not an insurrection. it is not an attempt to seize the power of government by force

and i supported more people in trump. therefore, i didn't engage in insurrection. it is simply not the case that one partisan official on their own simply decides somebody engaged in insurrection and is ineligible. those are legal issues that could be litigated in court and we could potentially go to the federal supreme court as a legal reason why the this has to do the federal constitution as opposed to some state law. this is the way that issues of election qualification have been handled throughout our history including when trump himself brought cases against people in 2016, arguing that they were ineligible. his supporters brought a case, several cases against ted cruz who his main rival for the 2016 republican nomination. they argued he was ineligible because he was not a natural born citizen, he was born in

canada to u.s. citizens and that issue was adjudicated in the words and ultimately ted cruz prevail but no one doubted the state courts could address an issue like that and they can address section three qualification as well. host: can you take up this question from stephen massachusett guest: the u.s. solicitor general is the top lawyer for the government before the u.s. supreme court. they will often file a brief unimportant cases. he does this when it's a federal interest. there is a lot of interest whether the biden administration would file this case whether trump should be on the ballot. my suggestion is that the solicitor general would not file a brief. indeed, the government has not weighed on this case we don't know the government's position. they have been silent.

the only lawyers are mr. trump's lawyer and the colorado voters and the lawyer for the colorado secretary of state. host: why the secretary of state? guest: i don't know. there are some issues of election law and she wants to have her say. the colorado voters oppose the secretary of state. i think she would only help trump if she throws m someuck in the works. the court usually hears from sovereign state on an issue like this. host: the role of the colorado secretary of state today? guest: i believe they got the 10 minutes because part of what the issue is at stake in this case are colorado's authority to determine ballot access and to adjudicate section three issues even in the absence of a congressional statute. it may also be a technical issue of colorado law.

in general, the issues of colorado law, the color of supreme court is supposed to be the final authority on that. trump's lawyer has argued very on persuasively that the supreme court could somehow review some of the state law issues in this case and maybe the secretary of state perhaps is going to address that. host: about 15 minutes left in the segment. brian in washington, good morning. caller: "washington journal good morning "washington journal,." you guys are talking about bush versus gore. i've been thinking how much the roberts court has given us. those guys decided to shut down the recount on the 2000 election. we've got 911, we've got the collapse of the economy. it goes on and on and then we got putin, i remember watching and accusing bush-cheney of going into iraq.

it makes me think agape kootenay green flag. host: hold off on conspiracy theories. do you want to talk about the role of the supreme court in this country now and trust of the supreme court and what this case could do? guest: john roberts was confirmed in 2006. there is a gap in the history there. i think it's a fair point. chief justice roberts for better or worse seems to care how the court proceed as far as legitimacy. i think it's worth looking at. no matter what the court decides, half the country will probably be unhappy. if the court decides that trump stays on the ballot, you will say that's a bunch of republican judges keeping republican in office. if the court kicked him off the ballot, they will say these are judges that are partisan.

it would be nice if the unanimous ruling is 5-4, 6-3, i think9-0. is better for the courts perception. host: dawn out of st. petersburg, florida, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for allowing me to speak. i had a comment/question. if you could clarify better what you meant by protect democracy from voters and ignorant voters. as voters, that is our voice which is our vote. to protect against what you're calling ignorant voters, is that akin to voter suppression? what you said as far as a lack of conviction being a weak argument, due process is a

constitutional protection and the right to face our accuser. to deny that process and jumping to public opinion is unconstitutional. guest: i think there is two questions there. it is certainly true that the 14th amendment and the fifth amendment required due process of law but they only require it in cases where someone's life, liberty or property threatened by the government. in this case, trumps life, liberty is not threatened in any way. if he loses this case, he will lose the ability to hold public office. that's not liberty and property and a threat to his life. if you assume the due process does apply, the civil court proc he got a five day trial in colorado is more than sufficient process for this kind of situation. it is actually more process than the supreme court says is necessary in cases where the

government surprised someone of welfare benefits that are necessary for that person to remain alive. even though some due process and necessary, trump very much got it. on the issue of voter ignorance, our system is not a pure democracy where majority of voters is allowed to do whatever they want. voters have a lot of power and they should. i other hand, the framers of the constitution, the original and the 14th amendment were very afraid of voter ignorance and other problems and they were also afraid that democracy is not constrained in certain ways would destroy itself as they had seen it almost due in the civil war when voters in the south had elected people wanted to watch an insurrection for the purpose of protecting the horrible people institution of slavery. the constitution has a number of constraints on voter choice in order to protect democracy and

protect our system of government more generally in one of those constraints is section three which says if a person who previously held various government offices engage in insurrection, than they wouldn't get another chance to hold office in the future and do it again. host: on voter endurance -- ignorance? guest:elia was my professor in law school. despite his long scholarly record, when people hear voter ignorance, people react the way the caller did. i think the average person on the street who sees this decision that says of trump's this bed, we shouldn't elect and not that the five members of the supreme court to take him off. anecdotally, i've been listening to this for an hour and most of the calls seem to be favoring leave him on the ballot.

i don't hear people say the court should be taking him off and that might be the less popular decision but we will see what happens. host: niagara falls, this is john, good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i was just wondering, a lot of your callers seem to think just january 6 was the only incident that he will answer for today. whether it's an attempt to overthrow the government by fall selectors and stuff, isn't it multifaceted? that's really what my question is. is there more than one charge they could chase. like espionage for instance, would that include part of an insurrection act? host: the caller may be getting into some of the other charges

that former president is facing in some of these other cases that haven't brought against him including the federal case. guest: trump is facing criminal charges for a number of his efforts to overturn the election both federal charges and charges in the state of georgia. that is from the section three issue which is not about criminal charges but about whether he is disqualified from holding various public offices in the future which in and of itself is not a criminal law issue. however, it is true that the section three disqualification issue involves not just with trump did on january 6 itself but also his effort to instigate violence and overturn the result of the election even before january 6. if you read the opinion of the colorado supreme court and the opinion of the trial court in this case, those decisions actually go into that. what he did before january 6 is relevant to this issue but i

want to emphasize that the criminal charges are a distinct issue from the civil issue of whether he is qualified under section three merely being convicted of criminal charges is not by itself disqualify him. on the other hand, not being convicted criminal charges does not mean he is allowed to stay on the ballot or hold office. these are distinct issues. host: how far do you think presidential immunity goes? guest: presidential immunity is also a distinct issue from this case. in the criminal cases against him, trump is argued that when he was president, he was immune from any criminal charges on anything he did it in office related to his duties. the d.c. circuit court of appeals heard that issue and they rejected that argument and rightly so. even if trump is immune from criminal charges, that doesn't mean he cannot be disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment because section three

is not a criminal issue. host: on presidential immunity? guest: i agree that the question of immunity for criminal charges is separate from etchant of whether trump should be disqualified. it's worth noting that no one has charged him with insurrection. -- no one has been charged for insurrection. the federal government may not be sure there was an insurrection. we haven't talked about this much. we don't know what an insurrection is. there is a lot of -- opinion about what insurrection is and is not. it's a question for the court of history. what happen on january 6, before and after that date, at what point was it an insurrection? was it when he made his speech? these are fact bound questions which the court may address. i know the court doesn't want to

go down that path of what is or isn't and insurrection. host: do you think the supreme court will go down the road of deciding how far presidential immunity extends? guest: the supreme court might deny review which would be brutal. if they say we will take this case up when trump loses, if a criminal defendant goes to trial, he will appear at -- appeal after the trial. he is mike -- he's trying to make the appeal before the case begins. they might address this later. if the court takes the case, i suspect they won't reverse it but they might narrow the position to get more protection for future presence but trump might have to stand for the trial soon. host: that were you stand? guest: it's where i stand on the issue of immunity. on the issue of insurrection, i think it's fairly clear that an attempt to seize government

power by force and keep in power the person who lost an election instead of the person who wanted, that is an insurrection even under a narrow definition of the word. there is actually historic evidence in the 1860's when the men was enacted, they had a fairly broad definition of an insurrection which included any kind of violent resistance to enforcement of a federal law if the person who did it did it for so-called public purpose. they might've thought the law was unjust in some way. i have qualms about a definition that broad but you don't have to have that broad definition to include a happened on january 6 or any sort of ordinary meaning of insurrection today and in the 1860's. it would surely include an attempt to use force to seize the power of the government and that's exactly what happened on january 6. host: less than five minutes in this segment. mark from cloverdale, indiana, good morning. caller: good morning.

this is an ignorant voter that has an iq of 130. you can't come up with a definition of what insurrection is. is the insurrection going peaceably to the capital? state legislature should examine and legislate their electorates. is that insurrection? guest: i did mention a definition of insurrection is which is then insurrection is a chance -- is a chance to seize government power by force. that's of the people who storm the capital and generally six did and trump engaged in the insurrection by instigating not just on january 6 but over a. of many weeks. he then tried to leverage the insurrection to try to stay in power during the very time the

attack was going on. he was calling members of congress while they were under siege in the capital, trying to continue to push them to reject the electoral vote and keep them in power. by any reasonable definition of what insurrection is, using the violence as leverage to try to get your way is a form of engaging in insurrection and instigating it not just on generally six but over many weeks also is engaging in insurrection. if you want to know more, there is a very detailed an excellent discussion of this in the colorado supreme court opinion and also in the ruling of the trial court in this case. host: liz in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. joining this discussion but i frankly think some of the professors of history have discussed what it meant in the 1860's and what the 14th amendment means once it was

written and adopted. if we just take the historical view, unfortunately, one of the downsides of a lot of lawyering about the u.s. constitution is that we can always find lawyers who will tell us something that quite clearly black is not white. they will come up with very creative ways to undermine the actual words of the u.s. constitution. i think we need to have for the american people, upholding the u.s. constitution as it is written. that used to be something that republicans especially conservative ones adopted. they have now jumped to the other side to try to justify an

unfit insurrection's president who should not be on the ballot as we are really going to live up to our constitutional writing. thank you. host: just about two minutes left here. guest: i agree we should uphold the constitution. the question about the constitution is not black-and-white. it lists a number of positions that trigger section three in the president is not listed in that. is he appointed or elected? there are lots of positions on this and lots of contemporary history weekend site. ultimately, we have to have a decision by the supreme court to decide what this means. let the people decide is a useful mark and i think that's probably where the court will come down but we will see. guest: i would say that lawyers sometimes make convoluted arguments and that's true of

some argument in this case. hopefully, the court will focus on the plaintext as would be understood by ordinary people which is what the court has told us in the past is the way to interpret it. if you reach that result, you would have to conclude that the person who holds the most powerful office in the federal government is an officer of the united states and that trump did engage in insurrection and therefore is disqualified. i'm not certain by any means that the court will decide it that way. sometimes convoluted organs do prevail over the plain meaning of the text. the court is not completely consistent on those kind of issues but they do have considerable experience at least in arguments lawyers present in trying to separate out weak ones from strong ones. host: we will have to end it there. thank you both for being with us. we appreciate your time this morning.

coming up in just a few minutes, back to your phone calls about today's case, oral arguments at the begin in just over an hour. we will hear from you and we will hear more from some of those scattered outside the supreme court this morning. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ announcer: c-span is your

>> the most important issue this season is immigration. >> i think homelessness is an issue that we need to address. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website can c-span.org/campaign 2024 and record your voice in 30 seconds telling us your issue and why. c-span's voice is 2024, be a part of the conversation. ♪ >> in the weeks that lie ahead, the friedmans television series unfolds. the influential men and women who occupy those seats will have a lot to say about his view of the society in which we live today in his solutions for airtime. >> saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern, we will air the 10 part series, free to choose featuring milton friedman he coproduced the series with his wife and fellow

economist rose friedman and it first aired on public television in 1980. they also wrote of best-selling companion book of the same name. programs take us to locations important to the u.s. and world economy. the friedmans advocate free-market principles and limited government intervention in the economy and social policy. other topics include welfare, education, equality, consumer and worker protection and inflation. watch free to choose saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on american history the c-span podcast app makes it easy to listen to all of the c-span podcast apps in one place. we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes discussing history, current events and culture.

listen to c-span's bookshelf feed today on the free c-span now mobile video capr wherever you get your podcast and on our website c-span.org/podcast. washington journal continues. host: all eyes are on the supreme court this morning for a case that could have sweeping ramification for 2024. arguments up to begin in one hour, justices phase history and the trump ballot case. they hear arguments today. you could stick around for those arguments live here at c-span .org and c-span. now.

we will be taking your phone calls on this case and hearing from those gathered at the courthouse waiting to get inside the chambers. in this case if you support donald trump being disqualified (202) 748-8000 is the number, if you oppose disqualification (202) 748-8001. this is david out of the lake, what are your thoughts? caller: i wanted to give my opinion on the officer of the united states. it talks about the difference between the office versus the employee of the united states. the chief of staff, the press secretary, those are high-profile presidential staff

that are employees of the united states. it talks about the responsibilities and duties of the officer of the united states including executing a treaty, signing contracts. these are the duties of the president. they talk about military officers, the authority to command forces draws his legitimacy from the president himself commander in chief of the united states. it compares military officers and civilian officers and mentions the responsibilities of the office of the united states. not only is the president and officer of the united states but the lead officer of the united states. i wanted to express that opinion. i wish i could have explained

that to your guest because i think he is confused. host: in there legal briefing, the lawyers for the former president kicking up this issue between officer of the united states, they ride the president is not an officer of the united states. the phrase officer of the unite states appears three times in the president is excluded. you will hear about this phrase officer of the united states and what it is and is not. this is james from lancaster, virginia. caller: good morning john. the 14th amendment was only written for the south.

host: i am so sorry, you are going in and out it we will try to get you on a better line. caller: good morning, i didn't hear the former discussion with the two attorneys. since the legal opinions of this case seemed to go in for 100 directions, i was wondering if this came up. i was wondering if you could enlighten me, this seems like a good case to straddled the states rights ideas with the federal idea. would it be possible to use an

ugly term, split the baby and allow colorado and maine for primaries and caucuses to exclude donald trump but require that he appear on their ballots in november if he prevails in the remaining states which did conduct official primary elections. you have him going in as a leader of the republicans and getting the nomination by the party but allowing states rights in terms of their primaries but federal lysing the november election? host: you will be hearing about a lot of these issues at the

supreme court and states right was part of that discussion. if you missed it you can go back and watch it is already available on our website. think you for the call from ohio this morning. all morning long, we have been showing you live pictures from the supreme court and we want to hear from some of the folks gathered outside of the supreme court and those trying to get a seat in the courtroom. c-span is up there talking to some of those folks. >> they did let some people in and others are waiting including these two talking to us right now. they let some people in but you guys were not in the first group.

>> i want to be a supreme court justice. >> i have always wanted to say i feel this is very important. i will come up and spend the night in order to get in. >> have you ever tried to attend the hearing before? >> i've never had the chance before now. >> what is your interest in this case? >> i am a big trump supporter. i admire our constitution so to be able to see if he will even be eligible for the election.

i am excited. >> is not every day that a case comes up on the 14th amendment, section three. a unique piece of history that would be really cool to see live and see what happens of the future and that felt like an important moment to take place. >> how long have you been waiting and why? >> since 7:00 last night. >> about 14, 15 hours. >> thank you so much. host: a chilly february morning on capitol hill. we will show you more than five pictures and live interviews with people who are out there at the supreme court. it is just across the street from the capital. that is where the action will be

today. 10:00 a.m. is when you can watch those live in if you are listening we will show you pictures of those folks talking, cameras are not allowed but live audio matched up with pictures of the folks talking. this is array in syracuse, new york. caller: good morning john. host: what are your thoughts on the supreme court? caller: in your earlier panel i find it amazing that no one brought up what is so obvious to many people which is there was an attempt at an insurrection but i had nothing to do with donald trump supporters, the

only violence was by embedded federal officers instigating the violence. what people would have showed up without weapons that look exactly like angry protesters. why would they show up like that if they wanted to overcome the government? those federal officers that were instigating and committing violence, they will be held accountable. that video, it is on the video. there is no question that the democrats were aware of it. they won't let the video out. in their sham impeachment, they packed one side so where it did not even constitute a whole

quorum. it would not have mattered but it was all one-sided. there was nothing shown that drug did anything or his supporters. host: this is margo in indiana. caller: good morning. i am taken aback from the last caller. i have spoken about trumpet bracing the uneducated and you know why? this has been the result. not learning anything in school, embracing the constitution in embracing this is a country of laws for everyone and no one is above it. i am hopeful today even with

clarence thomas present, they will still make a decision to remove this man not only from the ballot but placed in custody where he should be for the 91 indictments for years to come. how he sold this country out. it is good to see those young people at the supreme court this morning. hopefully, reading will be back again and embracing the knowledge of what this country stands for. it is the greatest in the world. and all the ones who come here from some well else have a

chance at a better life. host: the former president donald trump is not expected to be in attendance. here are two other individuals who will be present today, jason murray and jonathan mitchell. jonathan mitchell will be the lead attorney for president donald trump, a former solicitor general of texas. a clerk for antonin scalia jason murray is a colorado trial lawyer he represents the six colorado voters and he clerked for elena kagan.

those two individuals, they pictures in the washington post. this is leo from woodstock new york. caller: i am one of the uneducated. a couple of your callers stated about the uneducated and they have referenced anglo-saxon white guys. i am irish-american. who is uneducated here? host: what are your thoughts on the case? caller: john, my reference material. you cut people off with their reference material that you're

allowed to reference the wall street journal. that is bias. what has donald trump been convicted of? host: william from illinois. caller: i am calling about one specific point in this case. donald trump is not an officer of the united states. let's follow through how a bill is passed. when congress signs a bill a passage to the president for his signature. what is the significance of the president? it then becomes a law. why don't they pass it to you or me? because it passes to the chief executive officer of the united states.

it doesn't become a law of anyone else signs it. the only other way it becomes a law is of the chief executive officer side sabella. -- signs the bill. caller: hi, good morning. i oppose him being taken off the ballot. he has not been convicted. the man has not been convicted. i believe they are going to rule in a very narrow way to say that he can stay on the ballot. this is hogwash what they are doing with the ballots. the supreme court will bring it in this morning and fine tune the message to the american

people because there is no clarity across the country. you have a justice department playing around with no one investigating the current president. someone has to rain this and. thank god we do have some great justices that will look at it with clarity because i believe the supreme court is what is left of this country. the supreme court are the adults in the room that will so clarity and i want to thank you and i hope everyone understands the civics lesson in the constitution. i hear a lot of hatred and anger but not facts and figures. i think it's wrong to beat up on everybody. host: from the washington post,

justices face history, a central role in charting the pace of a election. they talk about bush v gore. they help the bush campaign witnessing the state having the highest court decide the outcome of a contest and clarence was on the bench in the december of 2000 when they put a stop to the recount in sealed the victory. justice amy coney barrett was three years out of law school when she was sent to help bushes team. justice kavanaugh helped oversee

a recount in central florida as part of the bush campaign and chief justice roberts had already argued cases before the high court was sent to tallahassee to advise the bush campaign and prepare the layers appearing before florida supreme court. robin from vermont, maryland. caller: i feel that he should be removed from the ballot. he is an insurrectionist and did everything he could to advance the big lie up until the election and all of his actions have been to expand power. he did nothing but sat on his hands for three hours while

police officers fought to save those inside the capital. this man should not get within standing distance of the white house again. host: from rio rancho, new mexico. caller: i think i have a solution for the supreme court. he stays on the ballot or you change the ballot to be right in only. he still has pending trials and i'm not sure if that is possible that is one way that he can be on the ballot but right in only. i would make a change to the presidential law. i solemnly swear or affirm that i will faithfully execute the

office of president and preserve, protect and have the courage to fulfill the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and provide the peaceful transfer of power and be held accountable for not withholding this oath. they would have to go to congress to make a change for that oath. if you look at vice president they have a much longer oath of office. they can change it to write-in and at the same time see about changing the presidential oath. host: this is a lien from -- eileen from st. louis.

caller: you're doing a great job. from all the footage that i have seen of trump's action from the insurrection. he has had his finger on the pulse of fat. following a constitution that is over 200 years old does not meet our needs. it was supposed to be the kind of document that allowed changes in the issue of the electoral college. the idea of one person, one vote.

is thrown out at the federal election. why do we need the electoral college? is just a way to oppress people. c-span should be a part of getting your drivers license. you should have to watch c-span before you get your drivers license because america needs to wake up. host: that is a lane from st. louis, missouri. we will go back to tammy derringer at the supreme court and chatting with the folks outside. >> there is still a long line of people hoping to get an. what is your name? >> george, scott.

>> when did you get into line? >> 8:30, 8:15. >> what is your interest in seeing this case? >> it is completely novel. no president has ever been accused of trying to overthrow the government. the supreme court has to deal with interesting issues. whether to let him on the ballot in this discussion of section three of the 14th amendment is fascinating and it will be difficult for the court to sort through this issue. >> i think people have an idea of which way it's going to go and the arguments are fascinating and there will be some entertaining dialogue between the two justices. >> do you think the supreme court should be deciding this issue or it should be left to the voters?

>> their job is to interpret the constitution and it is a constitutional issue. it falls to them to decide it. they could decide it should be left to the voters but they are doing their duty to decide what the constitution means eating and abetting and overthrow of the u.s. government. >> i think other politicians will raise this question because this will be the last time they use the 14th amendment that someone should be disqualified. they need to put this to bed. and then one way or another it set aside. >> do you have confidence in the supreme court? >> not totally. >> in many cases there have been

politics that have entered into it. i think justice roberts will be more serious because it is so wide ranging. >> thank you both so much. host: c-span's tammy derringer has been on capitol hill all morning long as it gets more and more crowded. this is tammy in gadsden, alabama. caller: i think this needs to be left up to the voters. they should be able to choose who they want as their president. we need to drain the swamp.

there is so much corruption, it is unreal. i don't trust the fbi anymore. this country is going to pot. host: is there a government institution that still holds her trust? caller: i am hoping the supreme court will say this is up to the voters. host: that was tammy and alabama. this case on two issues former president donald trump's during and before january 6 and the interpretation and meaning of section three of the 14th amendment ratified in 1868. here is section three and you will hear this a couple of times

a day person shall be a senator or representative in ngress or hold any office who as a officer of the united states as an executive or judicial officer the supports the constitution shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. this is lawrence in ohio. caller: good morning. host: go ahead what is on your mind? caller: i have been listening to a lot of conversation on both sides and this is what i come up to.

when president trump was in office on the fourth he reached out and tried to get the armed forces to come into washington and warned them there were bad players also coming and he was rejected for security at the capital. he was denied security from the mayor of washington to not have security. by listing to the complete speech of president trump, he never said to those people go down there and break into the capital and do what you will. he said, go in peace and make your voices heard.

all of the people who are complaining about trump as a matter of hatred which is rampant in the united states which i do understand why. when you deal with people you are going to run into these problems. everyone has a right to say what they want to say. president trump was never convicted of insurrection. the insurrection could have been avoided if the security was in place that president trump asked for. host: this is danna from

illinois. caller: one thing that troubled me is that trump could be a dictator because he has already said he would be at the tater for the first day. he is never going to leave. it is pretty sad that somebody has yes men to a dictator. if you look at putin and north korea, i would hate to see this place have a dictator. it troubles me because this is a rich man's word. ar. we have to be able to put our voices out there for democracy.

when they said this was a rich man's war we need to look at background of trump and what he stood for. his father was arrested at a kkk march. it has trickled down to citizen trump. host: this is jean in florida, you are next. caller: he made himself guilty march down pennsylvania avenue and give them hell. he stayed in this office and

sought protection. he should be removed from the ballot. host: a lot of pictures outside of the supreme court. the supreme court deciding if colorado's high court was wrong to exclude them from the ballot. you will hear a lot more about that today. this is the scene outside the supreme court. this is sherry out of kansas. caller: one lady called in and talked about the insurrection. january 6 was not an insurrection. he would not have been calling

it an insurrection. why did they change the law so that the vice president can no longer do that? my call came in with the guest were on but i got disconnected. the amendments and articles have been thrown around loosely. our federal government should protect us from invasion. if they are going to use the same barometer for biden as trump, our current president is guilty of insurrection because if we have riots from illegal he

is guilty of that. biden is compromised by china one of your ghost was from george mason university. they are dealing with the enemy, he talked about how horrible slavery was but china has slaves and they take their organs while they are still alive. host: one of the issues you bring up is the border issue. amid everything happening today in this case specifically there has been plenty of news on the u.s. border efforts to try to address that.

if you are watching the senate yesterday the senate order deal including with the republicans saying that it was too much of a stinker. the vote was 49-50. one more headline on that front. the border compromise never stood a chance. it ran aground on anger. back to your calls come in 25 minutes before we take you live to the supreme court. this is bob. caller: hello?

a couple of callers ago. i watched the insurrection live as it happened. donald trump never said to go home and peas. he was the man up there and said charge and he is responsible for everything. people are getting brainwashed by this guy and that is exactly what hitler's did. host: why do you think people can watch the same thing and come to different conclusions about what they saw? caller: i don't know, they must've escaped from an institution. i watched this live and i know exactly what i heard. i have it recorded. i will wish i knew where they

came up with those words to go in peace. host: next, from bonita springs, florida. caller: i have to disagree with that guy. he did say to go in peace and he said peacefully marched to the capital. lying doesn't help anything. the crux of the matter has to do with the word insurrection. this was a protest not an insurrection. there were no guns fired. there wasn't an army marching on the capital. there is quite a bit of evidence that the capitol police were set up and it is questionable why

this security of the national guard was turned down in the january 6 committee run by people who are not sympathetic to this country. the refusal to release all of the surveillance tapes is glaring evidence of the corruption and bias of that committee. the judges in colorado, they keep talking about threats to our democracy. but taking your political opponents off the ballot is anti-democratic. trump is being set up by people who want to take him out of

power. he was not convicted, and no one's been convicted of insurrection. i started as an independent and ross perot and that was the beginning of the end. we have lost our sovereignty by nasa joining the wto. we should not be invaded. those people coming in illegally, have more sense than the people here. host: kathy and orange, texas. 20 minutes before we are set to hear all arguments. caller: i think he should be banned from running for president of the united states. he should be disqualified.

i don't trust him. he has brainwashed every body voting for him. he is brainwashing people that were trying to impeach the department of homeland security. i don't trust him. i will never vote for him and i did not vote for him when he ran for president the first time and to tell you the truth, i didn't vote for biden either i put none of the above. i hope they don't vote for him.

and i hope you have a nice day. thank you. host: we have been taking your calls ahead of the supreme court arguments. we are also taking you live to the supreme court chatting with the folks waiting outside. >> there is still a line for people to get in. i have three people and i am talking with three gentlemen at the front of the line hoping to get in what is your name and where are you from and what brought you out here today? >> i think this has a big impact

on our day-to-day lives. it will impact her future. i want to be in the rooms where it happens. >> i'm gen z in our generation has watch this chaos since 2017 and watch history happen. >> you got in line right ahead of him and tell us what happened ? >> i got in line at 4:50 and we spent the night and we have been here on the concrete and then they lead in 40 people but there were a few people who cut in line and i was the 41st person. so 40 people got to go in and we missed out. if you got in a few minutes

earlier we could've gotten in. reporter: what are you expecting to hear? what do you want to see from the justices or the lawyers argue? >> i want to hear what justifies an insurrection. how they define that and how they will clarify that. >> we watched him inside and insurrection and i hope the justice system holds up and holds our constitution and tells them you cannot be president. reporter: you are in college, and high school and you are skipping class today.

>> no, no they are not. >> mr. curtin, i promise i will try to get in and tell you how it goes. host: those are live pictures just about 15 minutes before trump the anderson occurs. that case will decide if donald trump has access to the ballot. our phone lines are split this way if you think you should be disqualified from the ballot (202) 748-8000, if you think you should not be disqualified (202) 748-8001. chris in illinois, you are next. caller: the supreme court makes

the final decisions and the supreme court said the state have their own right to manage their own decision so i think they should stick to that. we have the right to container ballot. they are forgetting about the alternate electorate scheme that trump was aware of. that alternate electorate scheme is as dirty as it gets. they should use that as well. host: from bristol, tennessee, you are next. caller: i appreciate the question. my comment is, of all the soldiers and civil servants the sacrificed to work for america

is the very reason that kept the january 6 insurrection from coming to fruition. my question for callers, or law professors, what with the argument be if a democratic president would have attempted an insurrection with the same belief that we won the election knowing what we have seen with our own eyes and with our own ears on that day in the past three years of investigations and evidence that is backed by facts. what if joe biden does the same thing in 25 that trump tried in

20. he needs to be held accountable. host: taking your comments via social media chris and elgin, texas goes back to donald trump speech saying yes he said go in peace but he also said they have to fight like hell and giuliani yelled out trial by combat. the statements that donald trump made and this is from the transcript, the words that he used everyone will soon be marching over to the capital building peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. another of his statements, we fight like hell and if you don't

fight like hell you won't have a country anymore. this is led in pleasant valley, new york. -- this is ed, and new york. caller: i would probably feel like these other people that he should be off the ballot. it started with hillary clinton, the second election for trump you have the cia, people buying and holding back information. biden has been dealing with foreign countries and the problem here is, i think he should run for president. i have a bad feeling that this government is going down.

there are too many people involved in trying to get him out and it's all a big scam. this guy we have running this country is running it into the ground. new york state has hundreds of thousands of illegals running around the state. host: we have kurt in washington. caller: good morning washington journal. thank you for making me feel like i am at the l like the live coverage you are doing. -- feel like i am at the coverage. putin's ambassador got grilled on bbc on hard copy. please, share it with your viewers.

this was a guy that was trying to keep ukraine. host: we just won a key people in this moment ahead of the supreme court. we are not affiliated but we will always keep your info on segments. but bring me back to the supreme court in just about 10 minutes and your thoughts on it. caller: they asked the ambassador about what they were hoping to be the turnout and accused the russian ambassador of wanting the outcome in trump's favor. i thought that was relevant to what our supreme court is deciding today. what our enemies and foes are hoping for. i thought it would be helpful to

compare what people who are for us versus those who are against us, where they stand on the outcome of the supreme court. host: this is terry from minnesota. caller: good morning. host: go ahead terry. caller: i think this whole case is just interference and a complete waste of time. back in 2020, jerry nadler, the democratic representative said we can't trust an election to get rid of president trump. they're trying to do the same thing again. in 2024, they think the only way they can win is to take him off the ballot. i'm sure the supreme court will

rule and trumps favor. host: this case comes from suing to keep trump off the ballot. norma anderson is a former republican legislator and her name is now on this case and you can see what this scene is like at the supreme court and we have nine minutes until they are expected to begin. this is alan from florida. caller: the supreme court will rule in favor of trump. one cannot commit an insurrection to overthrow the government when you are the government. he was president on january 6 and you cannot overthrow yourself. thank you. host: ellen, good morning, you

are next. caller: prior to the insurrection, is it not true that trump would not agree to a peaceful transition of power? isn't that the precursor to the insurrection and one more thing, we need to trust our supreme court or we will not have a republic but i do not think trip is qualified that i respect our supreme court decision. host: david, illinois, you are next. caller: hi, how are you. i am all for them not letting him be on the ballot and i watch

the insurrection on tv to. o. i saw the fire extinguisher and trying to bust out the windows. host: this same question to you, why do you think people can watch what happened on january 6 and come to completely different conclusions about what happened? caller: for one, they believe everything he says and they just don't want to see the truth for what it is. i think it is sad that it is a conspiracy. i can't wrap my brain around that. host: brady in ohio. caller: thank you for taking my

call. many of the callers were question if they actually did go in peace. one point they are overlooking with the insurrection was taking place and he sat for several hours and never called for backup. i think he did support the insurrection for very that very reason, he should be disqualified. host: kelly is next in north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i am against taking trump off the ballot. i think you but the american people decide the next president. i think we have had the most corrupt presidency in the last few years of my lifetime and i am a registered democrat. host: why are you still a registered democrat? caller: i am going to change that. i just have not gone down to my office and changed it. host: will you do that before the election? will you do that before the primary? caller: yes, i certainly am. i'm going to do that before the election. host: elizabeth in jonesville,

virginia. caller: i have been watching the show and listen to a lot of people. it is clear people were not watching january 6 and telling people to fight like hell and the insurrection. i just hope the justices will do the right thing and take him off the ballot and hold him accountable for everything he is already done. do you have faith in the supreme court? caller: not a whole lot. they took a 50 year law and changed it. what else are they going to change? host: in nebraska, we have mike. caller: good morning again.

this is going to be good. democrats are added again. this is tierney at its finest. -- tyranny at its finest. the insurrectionist we had was obama, biden and kamala harris. who was causing the riots in our cities and 2000, hans? uh. caller: people should listen to al gore's speech he gave a concession speech and said that is their decision. he could've been running for president again but instead

decided to wage a failed coup. we need to respect the constitution. whatever decision if it's not in trump's favor, they will not support it. host: 12/13/2000 and the presence of his family members vice president al gore conceded the election to governor george w. bush and called on the unity pledged to support the new president. it's only about eight minutes long on our website at c-span.org. this is chris from san antonio, texas. caller: for everyone confused on

january 6 i would like the washington journal to show the footage and everyone can make up their minds. a lot of people are being stupid . the one thing i know about the washington journal. bring your cameras down to the courthouses in the cartel members, but once the journalists come down there and put cameras out there and make their own decisions. host: -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i have always respected the president whether democrat or

republican but in this case and i'm talking about donald trump, he is not qualified to be president. thank you for taking my call. host: this is joanne in bridgeport, good morning. caller: president trump should be on the ballot and the people should decide who they want the president to be trump did not cause an insurrection. he was charged under an impeachment and was acquitted. you cannot have states arbitrarily taking a candidate off a ballot. this is a democracy and the democrats constantly scream about democracy. they are taking him to court. they have investigated this guy more than anyone probably in the whole world. they are petrified of him. thank you for taking my call. host: joanne in connecticut.

it is after 10:00 a.m. eastern. the oral arguments will start at any moment at the supreme court on capitol hill at the intersection of east capitol and 1st street. just a few blocks from where we are in our studio. we will go there as soon as we get the feed to the oral argument and until then we will continue with your calls. good morning. caller: morning. my name is george. and i don't care if they take him off the ballot or not. just have people listen to the questions asked by the court and the lawyers and you will get an idea of what is going to happen. thank you very much. host: green valley, arizona, mark, you are next. caller: first off, i am a lifelong independent. and i have been watching this

closely because i moved to arizona five years ago with health is -- with health issues. i made it a point to stay focused on what is going on. i was impressed by what donald trump was doing. and i am -- i am watching this and in the past we have seen other candidates doubt what was happening with the election, challenge it, no issues. but this time, he is challenging something that looks so obvious because of all of the lies and deception that was going on, the democratic circumstances of impeachment. they had no grounds, no actual evidence. host: that is mark in green valley. this is andy in california. caller: good morning.

first of all, as far as mr. trump getting set up, i guess he have -- he has been set up 91 times which goes to show you -- that is a stretch. and then, regardless of whether he sent people to the capital or not which obviously he did, he did nothing once they were there, and started to distract and do the things they did, he did nothing. he did nothing for hours other than sit in his room and eat cheeseburgers and just think it was the greatest thing in the world. what don't some of these people get? so, thank you, john and have a good day, buddy. host: our last caller in today's

"washington journal", trump v anderson will start soon. until then, some sights and sounds from around the supreme court. [street noises]

[indiscernible chatter] >> justice and accountability. yeah. [beeping] >> an exception during the winter months. >> all right. >> they have like 10 more? >> are you ok? [indiscernible conversations] >> i will take the first 10 in line. and then no more.

>> why are you really upset? >> real-time.

[street noises] [indiscernible chatter]

>> walk this way! >> walk this way. >> everybody in line, please. >> i am at the three. yeah. >> anyone in the office? >> you can give me your keys. seriously.