So I don't have a highly produced video, but I do have a few words that I think this court should follow and think about in this case.

The United States is the oldest modern democracy, well over 200 years, far different than any other country in many ways.

And what makes us different is the experiment we launched, which is this thing called elections. We have elections.

And that means when it comes to decide as to who should lead our nation, as the people of the United States of America, they get to make those decisions.

Not six voters in Colorado who have picked and chosen who they want to follow lawsuit against.

And this court should not interfere with that fundamental value, that rule of democracy. It's the people who get to decide.

And this lawsuit seeks to cancel that principle. This lawsuit is anti-democratic.

It looks to extinguish the opportunity, extinguish it, the opportunity for millions of Colorado Republicans and unaffiliated voters to be able to choose and vote for the presidential candidate they want.

In fact, the leading Republican presidential candidates. And by many measures, the candidate, most likely to win the presidency, they want to extinguish that opportunity by preventing him for running for office.

It is anti-democratic. This is a case of law fair that seeks to interfere with the presidential election.

We argue here that at its basis level, this is election interference.

The petitioners here, the six voters, have appointed themselves private attorney generals. They can pick and choose and file lawsuits against whom they seek to disqualify.

And they rely on exceptionally weak. And then, frankly, in some cases, fringe legal and logical theories to try and tilt the playing field of this election by wiping out President Trump's ability to run for election while before anyone has an opportunity to vote.

They are asking today for a number of historical firsts.

First, there's the first they are asking this court to be the first ever in American history, in American history, to disqualify presidential candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I point to the court, I believe, to, or we will, Horace Grayley, who ran in 1872 as a Democratic presidential candidate.

He had paid for Jefferson Thomas's bail. He was roundly accused, loudly accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, shortly after the Civil War, when he ran.

Lots of debate on the issue. No one ever once thought of trying to disqualify him from voting. They took their arguments to the people for them to make that decision.

Eugene Debs, Socialist Party USA candidate in four elections in 1920, ran from jail. He had been convicted of sedition for giving aid and comfort to enemies during the First World War by trying to stop military recruitment.

He was convicted of that. He ran from jail. He was never disqualified. No attempt was made to disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The case of Eugene Debs is often regarded as a low point in American history, a low point when it comes to First Amendment protections.

And for good reason, people should be able to run for office and shouldn't be punished for their speech.

...