The Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Wednesday afternoon in a closely watched case about whether the U.S. Constitution맥스카지노�s ban on insurrectionists from holding office applies to former President Donald Trump.This is one of several 14th Amendment challenges against Trump맥스카지노�s candidacy, which so far have failed to remove him from a single ballot. Legal experts from both sides expect that one of these cases will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which could settle the issue before the Republican primaries begin with the Iowa caucuses in January.After a weeklong bench trial last month, Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that Trump 맥스카지노�engaged in an insurrection맥스카지노� on Jan. 6, 2021, and 맥스카지노�acted with the specific intent to incite political violence.맥스카지노�But she concluded that the insurrectionist ban doesn맥스카지노�t apply to the presidency, based on the text of the post-Civil War constitutional amendment.The provision says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are disqualified from office if they 맥스카지노�engaged in insurrection.맥스카지노� It explicitly prohibits them from serving as senators, representatives and other offices 맥스카지노� but it doesn맥스카지노�t mention the presidency.The anti-Trump challengers appealed Wallace맥스카지노�s conclusion that the ban doesn맥스카지노�t apply to the presidency. Trump appealed many of the other findings in Wallace맥스카지노�s stunning 102-page ruling. Both sides will present arguments at Wednesday맥스카지노�s two-hour hearing.All seven justices on Colorado맥스카지노�s high court were appointed by Democratic governors.The hearing in Denver is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. ET.Both sides make their caseLawyers for the challengers, who are Republican and independent Colorado voters, told the court in a filing that there is 맥스카지노�overwhelming historical consensus맥스카지노� that the provision known as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment 맥스카지노�disqualified rebels from the Presidency.맥스카지노�맥스카지노�Both supporters and opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment understood that,맥스카지노� they said in a filing, referring to the 1860s congressional debate over the amendment. 맥스카지노�Trump does not cite a single person at the time who argued against this common-sense conclusion, and no amount of creative nay-saying by lawyers and academics 150 years later can refute it.맥스카지노�Trump맥스카지노�s attorneys asked the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold Wallace맥스카지노�s final decision to keep Trump on the state맥스카지노�s ballots, but pressed the court to overturn her other findings, which they argued contained 맥스카지노�multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors.맥스카지노�They argued that 맥스카지노�this proceeding should never have gone forward맥스카지노� because Colorado courts aren맥스카지노�t authorized to adjudicate federal constitutional disputes. Further, they claimed Trump can맥스카지노�t be disqualified because 맥스카지노�there was no insurrection on January 6.맥스카지노�GOP attorneys general groups weigh inBefore the hearing, a flurry of outside groups and lawyers tried to weigh in on the case.A coalition of 19 state attorneys general, all Republicans, urged the court to keep Trump on the ballot by determining that the challengers couldn맥스카지노�t file the suit in the first place. Wallace had ruled that the challengers, a group of Colorado voters, had standing to sue.Many of these GOP attorneys general also supported the unsuccessful Supreme Court lawsuit that Texas filed in 2020 to overturn the results in four states that Trump lost.A group of First Amendment experts argued that Trump맥스카지노�s remarks at his Jan. 6 rally were 맥스카지노�so threatening맥스카지노� that they weren맥스카지노�t protected by his constitutional free-speech rights, and told the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold Wallace맥스카지노�s decision to that effect.