Trump stews on Colorado ruling as Texas threatens to block Biden: Live

So has Donald Trump come to terms with the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that he is constitutionally ineligible to hold public office ever again due to his role in the 6 January uprising at the US Capitol?

No. No he hasn’t. Of course not.

Instead, he has been busily stewing on Truth Social, posting support for his fellow wounded conservatives and angry all-caps howls like this:

Here’s a recap of his response yesterday courtesy of IndyTV.

Ms Haley told reporters in Iowa that while she does not believe Mr Trump should be president, it should be up to the voters to decide if he obtains the office, not judges.

“I don’t think Donald Trump needs to be president, I think I need to be president. I think that’s good for the country,” Ms Haley said.

“We don’t need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions so I want to see this in the hands of the voters. We’re going to win this the right way, we’re going to do what we need to do,” she added.

The former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador said “the last thing” the country needs is judges deciding who can be on the ballot.

The former Arkansas governor was the only 2024 candidate to not defend the former president, saying “the factual finding that he supported insurrection will haunt his candidacy.”

Mr Hutchinson said he raised similar concerns about Mr Trump’s ballot eligibility during the first GOP debate, the only one Mr Hutchinson qualified for and participated in.

During the August debate, Mr Hutchinson was asked if he would support the former president should he be the Republican National Committee nominee, but the former governor said Mr Trump could be disqualified from being president due to his involvement in January 6.

Colorado is the first state to disqualify Mr Trump under the 14th Amendment. So far, the other states where lawsuits were filed have dismissed them or rejected the claim.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Arizona rejected a little-known Republican candidate’s lawsuit to remove Mr Trump citing the 14th Amendment.

Judges in New Hampshire and Rhode Island dismissed similar lawsuits in their states.

A majority of the Colorado Supreme Court was convinced of the argument in a 4-3 ruling released on 19 December.

The court said Section Three of the 14th Amendment applied to Mr Trump and thus “it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado secretary of state to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”

Justices heard arguments in the case earlier this month after a district court judge ruled that the provision did not apply to the president. The judge argued that Section Three does not explicitly mention the presidency only “officers of the United States” and because the presidential oath contains wording separate from other officers it was not included.

However, the state’s supreme court justices said they considered the presidency as part of “officers of the United States”.

More importantly, the justices agreed that January 6 was an insurrection and Mr Trump engaged in it when he sent messages to his supporters – an argument in the case that has been highly disputed in other states.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” justices wrote in a majority opinion. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

Much of the pushback from the Trump camp thus far can be summed up by the assertion that none of the January 6 rioters convicted of crimes related to the attack on Congress have been directly charged with engaging in a rebellion or insurrection.

Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal theorist with George Washington University, agrees. He has argued that the attack on Congress was “a protest that became a riot”, dismissing more serious charges filed against militia leaders, and arguing that Mr Trump’s speech on the White House lawn just minutes before the brunt of the violence began did not qualify as incitement.

Mr Trump said he would appeal the decision – likely it will now go before the US Supreme Court.

Mr Ramaswamy, a vocal supporter of Mr Trump, posted a two-minute-long video to X and issued a lengthy statement through his campaign defending the former president.

“This is what an actual attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and unprecedented decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado,” Mr Ramaswamy wrote in his statement.

Section Three of the 14th Amendment disqualifies a person from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to enemies, after taking the oath of office.

The provision, often referred to as “the insurrection clause” does not define an insurrection or what it means to engage in one.

Originally, it intended to keep supporters of the South’s failed cease of secession from being elected to office.

But a handful of left-leaning legal groups, buoyed by donations from liberal groups and other Trump-opposed donors, pledged to use the provision to challenge for Mr Trump’s eligibility for president – citing the January 6 attack on the Capitol as an insurrection and Mr Trump’s actions as giving comfort to enemies.

Two constitutional law experts, Professor Lawrence Tribe and former federal judge J Michael Luttig, favour of the plan, arguing that Mr Trump gave comfort to enemies of the US government.

Mr Christie, the former New Jersey governor, has been highly critical of Mr Trump and has run his campaign largely to serve as an alternate to the former president.

But he told voters in New Hampshire that Mr Trump “should not be prevented from being President by any court.”

“He should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country,” Mr Christie said.

Section Three of the amendment prohibits those who take part in insurrections or who aided enemies of the United States government from taking office.

Judges and justices in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan and Arizona have already dismissed or rejected the attempt to disrupt Mr Trump’s ballot access. But on 19 December, the Colorado Supreme Court became the first to disqualify the former president from appearing on the ballot.