president's speech, the g.o.p. response by alabama senator katy britt, and viewer reaction. that'll be on c-span, on our free c-span now video app, and online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doe't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. get informed, straight from the source. on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word-for-word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. span, powered by cable. e court n the front page of the major national papers.

here's the wall street journal. supreme court keeps trump on ballot. states cannot borrow gop front-runner over his role in the capital attack. here's the washington times. unanimous ruling to keep trump on the ballot. states have no power in federal elections. the washington post. supreme court keeps trump on ballot nationwide. usa today. 9-0, supreme court keeps trump on ballot. other states cannot invoke insurrection clause. here is the new york times. justices rule 9-0.ru colorado loses the case. while you are dialing in we will speak to a reporter with the wall street journal, jess freeman. welcome to the program. questions did the supreme court rule on

yesterday? guest: there were a number of arguments donald trump raised in his appeal. the supreme court honed in on one of them, which is only congress can enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment which bars former officials who engage in insurrection or rebellion from public office. the supreme court said only congress can set out the rules for enforcing the provision against a federal candidate and officeholders. that was the question. colorado's supreme court is a state court and had no authority to make that determination that donald trump was ineligible for engaging in insurrection. host: were you surprised it was unanimous? es no, because of the many trump cases the supreme court is hearing. this one seemed pretty clear the courwa this direction. it was clear at the oral argument and the consensus view

of many observers of the court, because the applications of 11 each state to make this kind of determination were pretty severe. the same candidate could be qualified in some states and not qualified and others. even based on the same conduct or record. this was not really a shocker. host: the nine justices all agreed with the opinion. the three level justices -- liberal justices offered a concurring opinion. can you explain what their argument was? guest: to use thsometimes exotic nomenclature, all night agreed with the judgment but not the opinion. there are only five that agreed th the majority opinion, which was unsigned. we know they were because four did not have enough they are. process of elimination let you know who was in the majority. three liberal justices authored

an opinion thatti indications, was a partial dissent. somebody noted the metadata on the document the supreme court published used the word 'descending' in parts. theyido frame it more diplomatically as the concurrence. it's an indication the court was pretty divided about how far to go inuling for donald trump. that is what the issue was. how far should the supreme court go in saying trump stays on the ballot? the majority went pretty far in leg at a specific way to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment. the three in the contrary opinion said we agree only federal law can enforce this when it comes to presidential candidates. you are closing theoor to many l law could step in. for example, let's say someone

was prosecuted by an . could you raise that as a defense in court? you have no right to bring charges because you did not legitimately hold the office. that possibility apparently was foreclosed by the majority opinion. amy coney barrett, who is a trump appointee [inaudible] -- the final months of his term. she did not agree the majority shld go so farthe majority shouo far, she said. they all agreed on the bottom line. she basicallyaid it was not the right time to heighten division and point out divisions. americans should note they agreed on the outcome of this specific case and not the digger's agreement with justices about how to get there. host: does this decision put it

end to all other similar efforts to remove former president trump from the ballot? guest: it does if they are in state court. anllinois state judge last week agreed with the colorado courts and said trump cannot be on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. that c t will pretty much every other action at the state level. host: remind viewers what else the supreme court is looking at when it comes to the former president and january 6. guest: donald trumpof work to d. the most important case coming up will be argued in april. that involves his appeam must stand trial on charges that he attempted to subvert the 2020 election. trump has argued unsuccessfull so far that because he was president when he took these actions that are allegedly

criminal he enjoys a'l constitutional immunity from prosecution. to do otherwise would subject anything a president does to potential prosecution or litigation after he leaves office and would hamstring future presidents who would be trepidations about making bold decisions for fear of being prosecuted in the future. that is his argument about why even a former president should not be exposed to potential the supreme court will hear the argument in april and make a decision we would think before the end of june. that will determine whether he goes on trial in washington, d.c. the charges were brought by special counsel jack smith. there are other trump cases including ones that are more amusing. there's a trademark dispute over the phrase "trump too small." he wants -- a man wants to

trademark the phrase and sell t-shirts and knickknacks displaying it. the biden administration is opposing him and says he cannot trademark the name of a political candidate against that candidate's wishes. he have the administration defending donald trump's interests in the use of his own name. we have a range of cases from the amusing to the deadly serious involving mr. trump. host:ank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will go to your calls now with walter in washington, d.c. call how are you? host: good. caller: i support the decision that the supreme court did. they correctly interpreted the constitution for what it says. what people need to understand, the 14th amendment, section 3,

the president and vice president are exempfrom that clause because the president is the executive of the government. he cannot be -- insurrect on what he is in charge of. republicans wrote 14th, and 15th amendments of the constitution. it was democrats who opposed those three minutes because they wanted to keep slavery going. they took away state rights. historical context. even justice jackson browne pointed out that the president is not mentioned, even though we have these constitutional illiterates like jamie raskin who say he is also the court. no. language. charge him with things he's actually guilty of.

this intentionally trying to cheat to keep trump off the ballot does not do that. if you going to be trump at the ballot boxes, do with the right way. i'm not for all this stuff they keep doing to him. i don't like the guy but they need to stop with this foolishness and perverting our laws and constitution. as for presidential, joe biden could be sued for all these illegal aliens committing crimes on americans. he could get sued too. host: good morning. thank god for c-span. i support the actions of the court. they were unanimous. wehe fact these are people who dedicate their lives to the law.

the question of their integrity really is a shame. they have integrity. they gave their lives for this. it was a 9-0 was great. later on if something comes up with the immunity and there's a split or whatever, people will accept it. trump was singing the praises of the court. it would be hard for him not to -- he can't switch 180 degrees. he can sometimes but i hopes it helps everybody a little to unite. january 6. once this stuff came with everybody charging him with to the republic that donald trump will ever be. they made a mistake approaching this on him and i wish you would stop. host: you are voting today? caller: no. i'm in california. yeah, i will be voting today.

host: you were throwing me off. caller: i will be voting for trump. host: ok. let's hear from the former president who is outside his home in mar-a-lago reacting to the ruling. [video] >> i want to start by thanking the supreme court for its unanimous decision today. it was a very important decision. very well-crafted. i think it will go a long way towards bringing our country together, which our country needs.8, they worked long and hard and frankly very quickly on something that will be spoken out 100 years from now, 200 years from now. extremely important. essentially you cannot take somebody out of a race because in a, -- an opponent would like to have it that way. it has nothing to do with the fact it is the leading

candidate. you cannot take somebody out of a race. the voters can take a person out of the race very quickly. a court should not be doing that an supreme court saw that very well. i do believe that will be unifying factor. while most states were thrilled to have me, there were some that did not. they did not want that for politicaleasons. they did not want that because of pull numbers because the poll numbers are very good. we are beating president biden in almost every poll. the new york times came out with a very big poll for us. they did not like that and you cannot do that. ■you can't do what they tried to do. hopefully colorado will unify. i know there is tremendous support. thb,ey brought our support of strongly because people thought in colorado it was a terrible thing they did. host: we are taking your calls

on that decision by the supreme court 9-0 to keep former president trump on the colorado valid. chuck in lakewood, washington. caller: i think in a way it's a bad decision but it'the way theg out right now, giphy was b -- if he was banned there would be several republican states, especially florida and texas that would do the same thing to biden. it would be a whole affect of dominoes with the whole country fighting over who should be able to run. that is the good thing about it. the bad thing is the guy is pretty much guilty. how he's even running for president, i have no clue. we will see how the rest of the court cases play out for him.

hopefully not good. i don't know. he's gotten away with so much it's ridiculous. y. host: trish in seattle, washington. caller: hey, good morning to the neighbor i just talked to from washington. i think he just kind of said how i'm feeling about it. it would just add so■f much chas to the whole voting system as it is going through now. i don't know we need that much more. people need to educate themselves and say what they want to do. this back-and-forth blows my mind. i would like to give a -- go ahead. host: what do you think about the immunity case? caller: yeah, like the guy said before me down ind.

it seems to create so much chaos . put him on the ballot. people, ed yourselves. i don't know what else to say it to that. i would like to do a slow clap to the supreme court for passing it■ to congress. i have absolutely no faith in them. particularly, i felt that thomas at the least should recuse himself. it would not have been a bad idea for alito to do the same. they gave us citizens united and took away roe. my final statement is i would like to thank all of our military folks and their families for protecting our country. thanks everybody. host: let's take aook at a portion of that majority opinion from the supreme court. it says is "thisraises the question

whether the statesay also enforce section three. we conclude states may disqualify persons attempting to hold state office. constitution to enforce section thre resct to federal of espially the attacks on the4th amendment does n affirmatively delegat power to the states. peaks to enforcement by congress, which enjoys powe enforce the amendment through legislation pursuant to section because the constitution makes congress rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we i want to show you a section from the concurring opinion by justices sotomaygan d jackson. "allcolodo to enforce section 3 would create a chaotic state-te patchwork at odds

with our nation's federa principles. that's enough to resolve this case. yet the majority goes further. although only individual states action is at issuee, tugh geordie opines on which federal 3nd how they must do so. the majority announces a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when congress and ask a particular kind of legislation pursuant to n 5 of the 14th amendment. in d so the majority shuts thedh meanof federal enforcement. we cannot join in opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.we therefoe judgment." you can watch the oraland listes on c-span.org if you would like to go back and do that. michael, tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

i'm so divided because for about seven years i have heard congressay that state rights should be left up to the individual state. now i am heari that -- i'm sorry -- the supreme court can override that decision. in america we are taught in school what is true and what is a lie. i feel it is time our leaders stand up to truth in america. that is why so many of us have faith in our government. i think the decision was wrong. thank you for listening to me. host: james is next in louisiana. what you think? caller: thanks for taking my call.

when had the bush versus gore thing, the supreme court stepped in and stopped the counting of the votes. now they are saying let the states -- let the voters vote in colorado. they are all mixed up on that. you are looking gorgeous this morning, always ready to smile. host: let's look at some off9 te member tweets reacting to this. we have adam schiff first. "the supreme court moved rapid to clear donald trump on the ballot. will it as quickly to reject his false claims of immunity so he can appear in court or will justice beelayed -- justice delayed to be justice tonight?" -- denied?" "someone with 91 felony charges should not be president. the best way to reject trump's devote decisivelípy so there is vean doubt.

i will be putting energy into getting dems elected who have riotm than trouble ever have." dold trump tried to violentlyhat overturn an election. the text oconstution may be incont buthe text is clear. figh loophole the republican supreme court carves out." we have a couple of republican responses as well. we will take a call. sheronda virginia. -- in virginia. caller: i just wanted to say if anybody has paid attention. all the presidents besides donald trump are related. they were already chosen for prophecy recent. we are in the end days. i suggest everyone repents for their sins and turn away from

worldly things and turned back to the covenant of the most high. we are in the end daysyear. i'm not sure if anyone knows but you will see eventually. host: let's talk to bob in north carolina. caller: good morning, mimi. farmer bob here. host: what you think about the supreme court? caller: well, i expected this to be a 9-0 decision. i was looking forward to it. it would be tough for it not to be a 9-0 decision. federal government overrules the states and a lot of things. to me this was expected. i am really looking forward to hearing the arguments on the -- i hope you folks carry it on tv. see how that goes.

that is coming up in april. host: the 22nd. we will definitely carry that fisher. -- for sure. what you think about the immunity case? caller: that will be interesting. the reason i say that is let m if you go back far enough a few years and looked at --was president, remember when qadda was overthrown because we bombed a few different places? then they had him in the street. that was never anything ch as a congressional decision to do that. that could be something like that. he is immune. he can do that apparently. the other thing was also there was that one terrorist. he used to be an american.

host: that's right. caller: again, no decision but he was killed and he was a u.s. citizen. let's take that to the next level. he was a family member of mine, i might want to see the president because -- sue the president because he killed my son or my brother or something of that nature. how would that go over? that is an empf i think where he has presidential immunity to kill a guy that is a terrorist without a trial, without due process. kind of interesting. are you voting today in the primary? caller: yeah. i will vote for nikki haley. host: why did you decide on nikki haley? caller: i was actually expecting her to be on the ballot sometime in the past.

i think she has good expense. she was a governor of south carolina. od job, particularly hitting business into the state. on the democratic side, the democrats put the rebel flag up over the south carolina state capital and she took it down. host: i will move on to brendan in south carolina -- brenda in south carolina. caller: how are you? i oppose the opinion because this is my mindset. first of all the states should never have had to do this if the house republicans in the senate with republicans had done their constitutional duty and convicted him for impeachment of trying to overthrow the election. the way i look at it is they take an oath