This is a

CBS, I on the world, I'm John Bachelor.

The Supreme Court, much in the news to do with the presidential election of 2024. I'm very, very pleased to bring

Stephen Maisie, the Supreme Court Correspondent for The Economist magazine, to

comment on two recent episodes. One having to do with the

Colorado decision to ban Donald Trump's name from a primary ballot, and the other is a decision by the Supreme Court

to hear oral arguments on the claim by the former president that he enjoyed immunity on January 6th and subsequent days.

Stephen, a very good evening to you, thank you for this.

The Supreme Court decided, and you emphasize in your column without signature, that Colorado could not ban the former president

from its ballot on the basis of what because this is about a Supreme Court

reading civil War history.

Good evening, John.

It's great to be back with you.

Yes, normally the Supreme Court likes to look at history

when they're deciding what the Constitution means.

It's pretty interesting that in this decision that they reached a few days ago,

so little history figured in to their analysis of what section 3 of the 14th Amendment

means.

Few of us have been looking at section 3 of the 14th Amendment over the decades and even centuries

because it hasn't had much relevance since after the Civil War, but what it says is that an official who took an oath supporting the Constitution

who then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution is no longer able to hold any future

office, federal or state.

...