Banned from the ballot. Colorado's highest court, the state Supreme Court, has disqualified former President Donald Trump and Republican frontrunner, of course, from the state's ballot in 2024, deciding that the former President's actions on January sixth, 2021 made him ineligible to hold office again. That ruling hinge on a 14th amendment prohibition on, quote, insurrectionist holding office. However, Donald Trump is why I'm bowing to fight back, and we'll get into it. This is Outnumbered. I'm Harris Faulkner here with my co-host, Emily Campano, also joining us today, Fox News contributor, President of K-A Consulting, and former senior counselor to President Trump, Kellyann Conway, former NFL sideline reporter and host of the Michelle Tefoya podcast. It's excellent, by the way. Michelle Tefoya is here, and author of Parents of the World Unite and senior advisor at America First legal, Ian Pryor is here. The unprecedented decision by Colorado Supreme Court marks the very first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. And all of the justices on that state Supreme Court were appointed by Democrat governors. But the ruling actually went along party lines. Four to three, four Democrats voted for it.

However, Colorado Secretary of state thinks they made the right call.

The Colorado.

Supreme.

Court confirmed that the district court got it right that he did engage in insurrection. Think Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has to apply to the presidency because if not, it's a get-out-of-jail free card.

Meanwhile, former President Trump is looking to appeal Colorado's ruling to the United States Supreme Court, so he's going to take it higher if he can. A case which would almost certainly decide the fate of many anti-Trump efforts happening across America. At least 12 states now have pending lawsuits, which would bar Trump from the ballot, with two states having pending appeals. The former President reacted to last night's news during a campaign stop in Iowa.

They want to silence me because I will.

Never let them.

Silence.

You. And in.

The end.

They're not after me. They're after you.

I just happened to be standing in their way.

Specifically, though, he didn't talk about the Colorado case. The GWU law professor, Jonathan Tarley, thinks that this decision did great damage to the credibility of Colorado's high court.

I think the opinion is really chilling, and I think that the Supreme Court will make fast work of this theory. I hope it does. But I think this court, I think, did great damage to its own integrity with this opinion. This is a time when we actually need democracy. We need to allow the voters to vote. This is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I've seen in my lifetime.

Jonathan Tarley called it very, very dangerous.

It is, and it's probably election interference. Look, the viewers should know, Harris, that so many of these claims have been withdrawn or dismissed. Colorado is not the only state who's trying to do this. Everyone's trying to do this because they don't know how to beat Donald Trump fairly and squarely. I think that people have handled Trump all wrong. If you want to deprive someone of oxygen, ignore him. Instead, they're so obsessed with him, and they've spent no time learning his voters. I would have done the reverse if I were an anti-Trumper. I would have done everything I could to figure out why 74 million people in 2020, the highest number for a President ever, voted for him. It's an even higher number now. It's base plus. Joe Biden doesn't have his base, minus, minus, base, base plus. I would have ignored Trump. They've done the opposite. I think that they've given him another gift in this case because his voters and other voters who are going to vote for him don't look like they're going to vote for him and will. More young people, more people of color, more union households, more self-identified independence. They can go and they can write him in if they want.

This is not the last we're going to hear, but Jonathan Trilly, my law professor at GW many years ago, when he said it's chilling and he says that this nation is like a powder keg, and the Colorado Supreme Court just let a match. It's important. Last point. If you read the 14th Amendment, the section to which they're referring, to say nothing of the fact that Donald Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. He hasn't been charged. He's never been charged of an insurrection. He's never been convicted of anything. What's important here is that the last five words people were pointing out last night, the last five words say, Give comfort to the enemies thereof, meaning to the United States of America. You can interpret that to mean anything. And somebody pointed out, Does it apply to Joe Biden that he gave billions of dollars to Iran? Interesting. This, to me, was a conclusion in search of evidence. If you read their opinion, it's very halting to me and very unconvincing. I love the dissent, the one gentleman who dissented. I mean, he really just let them have it and said there's nothing in the constitution that would support what you just did.

This went along party lines, Emily.

Yeah, and I think I just want to draw that everything you said is so valid, is so important. Taking it a step further, at the end of the day, everyone, we're having a court essentially decide what the people should. That's the argument that proponents of the presidency being excluded from Section Three keep saying. There's no way that the frameers would intend that that one office would mean that, Oh, here's how you are excommunicated from it. No, they were the ones above all that entirely were dedicated to the power of the people. I think advocates that say that, yes, Section Three applies to the presidency because I think the insurrection point is separate whether or not he's been charged. I think that the bigger point here is whether the presidency falls under this clause. Everyone who says, Oh, yes, it definitely does. They cite scattered sources. They say, Oh, there's no way that the Frameers would have intended that someone who was a Confederate got back into the presidency. Then they say that it should be read as to cover as many positions as possible. But the end of the day, the Democracy Canon, as Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett-Tillman wrote for NYU's Journal Law and Liberty, really suggests everyone reads because they go into detail-Say it.

Again because we might have.

Missed it. The NYU of Law and Liberty, Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman wrote an amazing long article about why exactly the presidency does not fall under this, why the framing is intended for this to be excluded. They say, Exactly the point that I made in the beginning, it's because of the power of the people should rest in their hands. They point out that the democracy can and precedents said the entire time that the presidency was not an officer of the United States. They go one by one through those advocates, their arguments otherwise, and they say, Look, I guess it's sources. There's not enough precedents. Only recently did people start shoving the presidency into that box. But at the end of the day, they say it's not about the courts and it's not about Congress, actually, it's about the people. Therefore, it's up to the courts right now to write this decision and restore that power back to the people, because here they can do what they want with those other offices. But the presidency does not apply under Section 3, overwhelmingly.

In legal scholarship. The problem that Leo Tarrell told me now resides among those other states is if Donald Trump is now going to appeal, they before the US Supreme Court would make a ruling on this per Colorado. Are they going to overturn? Are they going to block? What are they going to do with Colorado Supreme Court's decision? All those other states can jump in the pool now, except for the two that are already in appeal process. I do want to get to this because Leo had a lot of interesting things to say, and I want to get your response in when we come out. Last hour, I spoke with Leo Tarrell about how this only potentially helps politically Trump. Remember, those justices voted along party lines. Let's watch.

There are people who dislike President Trump, but the system is being challenged. What makes us unique is our rule of law, and it's being questioned. Trump haters are now supporting Trump on the issue that he deserves to be on the ballot. He deserves to face the voters, not for judges. This is our problem right now. Our legal system is being tested, and this is why the Supreme Court has to rule 9-0, Harris. It has to rule 9-0. Those lawyers, those judges know what is right, and 9-0 is the only ruling that they can come up with.

Your thoughts?

Well, I think what President Trump said about, They're coming after me, but really they're coming after you. I'm just in the way. Think about this. This is a national election. What the Colorado Supreme Court has done is essentially taken Colorado off the board for people that would support Trump. Now, is Trump going to win Colorado? Probably not, but a lot of people didn't think he was going to win Michigan or Pennsylvania. That's right. So if it were to come down to, well, you need this state in order to win, and he's not on the ballot, you've disenfranchised everybody else in the country. And that is not for the Colorado Supreme Court to do.

You know the problem right now for the White House, Michelle, and I heard Leo say this. His first remark was he calls on President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to have a profile and courage right now. Have a profile and courage, meaning get some intestinal fortitude, sit up straight and speak out against this because you don't want it to go this way. It will be used against the other side next time. But most importantly, it hurts all of us. It takes the power right out of our hands as voters.

You know, the instant that this news broke, my thought was Colorado is trying to make news. The Supreme Court wants to make history. They want to be the one state that stood up and said, We're not going to have Trump on our ballot. They have to know that the Supreme Court is going to overturn this. They have to know that. They may be unwise, but they're not stupid, right? They have to know this.

Well, that's questionable. I never really can decide that. They have to show me if they're stupid or not.

I think this will be overturned by the Supreme Court very easily, and they have to know that. But I think what's interesting is when you talk about the four judges who voted in favor of this, they're from Penn Law School, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Virginia. The three who didn't vote for this were all, I think, from Denver, University of Denver, which is a really interesting, again, another reflection on the Ivy League mentality of judicial activism. That's what I feel this is.

Hey, everyone. I'm Emily Campano. Catch me and my co-host, Harris Falkner and Kaylee McInenny, on Outnumbered every weekday at 12:00 p. M. Eastern, or sets your DVR. Also, don't forget to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page for daily highlights.