20240209川普上訴（23-719）內容摘要

【雙魚之論】英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯
The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump （23-719  Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al.） is disqualified from holding the office of President because he “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States—and that he did so after taking an oath “as an officer of the United States” to “support” the Constitution. The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him. The question presented is:

Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot? （科羅拉多州最高法院下令將川普總統排除在2024年總統初選之外是否錯誤？）

The petitioner, or Trump side, has to argue: 請願人，或川普一方，必須爭辯說：
I. The president is not an “officer of the United States”
II. President Trump did not “engage in insurrection” 總統不是「美國官員」III.第3條只能通過國會選擇的執行方法IV來執行。
III. Section 3 should be enforced only through Congress’s chosen methods of enforcement特朗普總統沒有「參與叛亂」
IV. Section 3 cannot be used to deny President Trump access to the ballot第3條不能被用來拒絕特朗普總統獲得第五選票。
V. The Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause and the Colorado Election科羅拉多州最高法院違反了選舉人條款和科羅拉多州選舉

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT  川普主張概要

1. The Court should reverse because President Trump is not subject to section 3. The president is not an “officer of the United States” as that term is used in the Constitution. President Trump also never swore an oath before he became president that could trigger the application of section 3.	1. 法院應該推翻，因為川普總統不受第 3 條的約束。總統不是憲法中使用的「美國官員」。川普總統在成為總統之前也從未宣誓過可能觸發第3條適用的誓言。
2. The Court should also reverse because President Trump did not “engage in insurrection.” The Colorado Supreme Court tried to impute the conduct of others to President Trump. But the Anderson litigants needed to show that President Trump’s own conduct qualified as “insurrection,” and they cannot make that showing when President Trump never participated in or directed any of the illegal conduct that occurred at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In fact, the opposite is true, as President Trump repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and law and order.	2. 法院也應該推翻，因為川普總統沒有「參與叛亂」。科羅拉多州最高法院試圖將其他人的行為歸咎於川普總統。但安德森的訴訟當事人需要證明川普總統自己的行為符合「叛亂」的條件，而當川普總統從未參與或指揮2021年1月6日在國會大廈發生的任何非法行為時，他們無法證明這一點。事實上，情況恰恰相反，因為川普總統一再呼籲和平、愛國主義以及法律和秩序。
3. The Court should follow the rationale of Griffin’s Case and Justice Samour’s dissent and allow the judiciary to enforce section 3 only through congressional implementing legislation such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383. This Court has on occasion allowed congressionally created remedial schemes to implicitly preclude other means of enforcement. See Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 20 (1981). And there are reasons to do so here given the precedent of Griffin’s Case, the antidemocratic nature of section 3, and the danger that courts will apply the “engaged in insurrection” test in a partisan or tendentious manner.	3. 法院應遵循Griffin案和Samour’法官的異議理由，並允許司法機構僅通過國會實施立法（如《美國法典》第 18 編第 2383 條）來執行第 3 條。該法院有時允許國會制定的補救計劃，以隱含地排除其他強制執行手段。見Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n， 453 U.S. 1， 20 （1981）。鑒於Griffin案的先例、第3條的反民主性質，以及法院以黨派或傾向性的方式適用「參與叛亂」測試的危險，這裡有理由這樣做。