I'm John Batscher with Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Online.

The Colorado case, the arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court within hours on the

8th of February. It turns on the decision by the

Colorado Supreme Court to declare that former President Trump is an insurrectionist

and the decision the language that is used by the Secretary of State of Colorado,

who I believe will be present in the oral arguments

before the court and may speak, the decision was that therefore former President Trump is an ineligible

insurrectionist. I come to Andy on this

I've been reading them so much.

I don't get confused but I want to narrow it down to the three case

argument that is being made by, is said to be made by the Trump camp, the Trump lawyers, before the court.

One that the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States.

That's the language of the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

Two, that no matter what you determine, no matter how you see this, because he's not an officer of the Supreme Court,

officer of the Court, the statute was never meant for him.

This is entirely about the 1860s. It's not about

anything to do with today. And three, well I forget three for the moment Andy, the

first two are enough. he's not an officer

of the United States and two it's about the 1860s and not the 20-20s is a

is an issue that has to be put in the context of the full text of the amendment.

And I hesitate to do that because I know it's sometimes difficult for people to follow when you read to them but let me just

read what section 3 says about the the officials of the United States who are who would be banned by this insurrectionist

...