He wants Trump to be kicked off the ballot.

The following has been edited for clarity. Professor Tribe and I have been discussing the 14th Amendment disqualification clause together for three years. In his career as a constitutional law professor, Professor Tribe has studied and written about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If Trump was disqualified on the grounds of the 14th amendment, the Senate was constitutionally able to convict him, but that is not correct for technical reasons. The impeachment clause is concerned with removing a president from office. If a president is convicted by the Senate of a crime, then one constitutional remedy is to disqualify him from holding high offices again. I concluded that he had to be impeached and convicted before he left office, so I did not have to ask that question. Professor Tribe said that the Senate could still convict the former president even though he was no longer in office, and that he could disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again. I didn't need to answer those two questions because they are fundamentally different from the disqualification clause. I wonder if it was relevant in the context of your op-ed that you believed that Trump was disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment? You have very little space and I never have enough space to address unrelated issues. The Wall Street Journal reported that you consulted with congressional Republicans during the second impeachment trial, but I don't think that's true. The former president can't be tried by the Senate after he leaves office according to my opinion. Do you regret the fact that the Republicans used your arguments to justify their no votes? I do the law and they can do politics, so it was a matter of indifference to me if they agreed with my conclusion on the impeachment clause. I don't think impeachment and conviction within the bounds of the Constitution would be better than a political solution to Trump's eligibility. I can only say that it would have been another option that would have avoided the disqualification question. Since the Colorado decision, a lot of commentators have argued that Congress has the power to serve as the primary check on the executive, and that impeachment and conviction from Congress would have been a better solution than kicking it to the courts. The 14th amendment's Section 3 is self-executing, which means that congressional action is not required. It's not required that the former president be found guilty of an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The Constitution tells us that disqualification of the former president is not anti-democratic. The 14th Amendment is anti-democratic because of the conduct that can give rise to disqualification. The disqualification of the former president is provided by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution of the United States without regard to politics or partisan politics. I'm careful with my word choice in public on matters of great importance, so what is the source of your confidence? I am confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the Colorado Supreme Court's decision based on Section 3 of the 14th amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court decision is unassailable under the United States Constitution. I have always respected the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States and the current court that I have had my entire life. If the Supreme Court does not affirm the Colorado Supreme Court, what do you think about the court? The Supreme Court of the United States is the final decision maker when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. I agree that all Americans should accept the final decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. I understand that you mean that the Supreme Court could assail it. We can't do anything about the objective law of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. I was a judge for many, many years, and I did exactly that on constitutional questions for 15 years, and as we discussed earlier, I have been studying this question in great detail for the past three years. I studied the issue and read every word of the Colorado Supreme Court decision because I consider myself an expert on the question. The Colorado Supreme Court looked at every single state law question and every single federal constitutional question regarding the meaning and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I know for a fact that the opinion resolved all of the questions under federal constitutional law. I believe that the Supreme Court should affirm the Colorado Supreme Court if given the chance, based on the objective law of the 14th. We have to wait and see if the justices agree with you.