(Colorado Newsline) Since the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump should be barred from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, blowback has been plentiful and passionate. The main criticism of the court’s opinion is that it is undemocratic — that voters, not the courts, should get the final say on whether Trump should be president again.

Protests of this sort have come from Trump supporters, of course, but they’ve also come from opponents, who worry the ruling sets a dangerous precedent and smacks of partisanship.

But blocking Trump from the presidency is precisely what democracy demands, and failure to do so would be a grave betrayal of democratic values.

The state Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday involved an interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says no person who took an oath to support the Constitution then “engaged in insurrection” can hold any office in the United States. 

In a 4-3 opinion, the majority of Colorado justices said that Trump’s actions around the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol met the amendment’s “engaged in insurrection” standard and that — reversing a District Court decision — Section 3 applies to presidents. The state Supreme Court therefore ordered the Colorado secretary of state not to list Trump’s name on the Colorado presidential primary ballot.

Is this a shocking violation of democracy? No, quite the opposite.

The 14th Amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War. The framers of Section 3 wanted to ensure that Confederate figures — traitors — couldn’t return to public office in the United States.

The initial draft of the amendment was developed in the congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction in the first half of 1866. In May, the draft was introduced in the House and soon adopted. It then went to the Senate, which passed it in early June after adjusting some language. The House approved the new version five days later.

The document was ready for consideration by the states for ratification, but President Andrew Johnson spoke out against the amendment. This “led to a two-year battle,” according to the National Constitution Center.

“Following a heated campaign between President Johnson and the Reconstruction Republicans over the future of the 14th Amendment, the Republican Party won a landslide victory in the congressional elections of 1866, solidifying their political power over Reconstruction policy,” the center says. The 14th Amendment finally became part of the Constitution after the 28th of the then-37 states ratified it on July 9, 1868.

In other words, adoption of the amendment was the outcome of a long, arduous, democratic exercise. It featured debate, due process and the people’s will every step of the way.

The language of the 14th Amendment became the supreme law of the land. Enforcement of the law is therefore a profound expression of democracy, and neglect of the law is an offense against democracy.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday, “We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next President of the United States.” But it’s the contrary position that most honors democracy: We should oppose any reckless disregard of the law and abide by a constitutional provision that was adopted with the consent of the American people.

There might be legitimate argument about whether enforcement of the 14th Amendment is appropriate in a particular case, such as against Trump. But much of the displeasure around the state Supreme Court opinion is in fact discomfort with the implications of the amendment itself. Some people continue to resist the idea that a previous generation also lived through an existential threat to the country and bequeathed to subsequent Americans a constitutional self-defense mechanism. We are obliged to deploy it.

In the case at hand, enforcement happens to be exceedingly appropriate, as any fair-minded tribunal must conclude. Trump, who swore an oath to support the Constitution, understood that he lost the 2020 election, but he lied to the American people about the results and, in extreme violation of his oath, incited a deadly attack on the Capitol — an “insurrection.”

Beyond the legal imperative to advance democratic interests by enforcing Section 3 against Trump, there is also the practical case.

The District Court and the state Supreme Court might have disagreed on the application of Section 3 to presidents, but they agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection to claim a position of power that the people had denied him. No behavior could be less democratic. And Trump has promised, in public, that he will govern as an autocrat if he returns to the White House. No form of rule could be less democratic.

Even if democracy-minded critics of 14th Amendment enforcement made a persuasive case on principle, their argument withers under Trump’s pledge to be a “dictator.” Debate over the Colorado ruling has seen both sides invoke the authority of democratic virtues. But only one side champions a candidate who would eliminate democracy itself.

The Colorado opinion is certain to be appealed to U.S. Supreme Court justices, before whom Trump’s team will no doubt argue that to bar him from the ballot is to deprive Americans of the right to elect a leader of their choosing. But if the justices follow democratic principles, they will submit themselves to the constraints of the Constitution and affirm the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump disqualified himself from holding public office in the United States. 

Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com. Follow Colorado Newsline on Facebook and Twitter.