Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible to run in the primary because of the above clause in the US Constitution. However, this may be appealed to the federal Supreme Court.

If they override Colorado and rule that Trump is eligible, will it only be because they don’t consider the president to be an “officer of the United States,” implying they do believe Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion that would disqualify him from being Senator, Representative, or another officer position? If they say that he’s not an officer but also wouldn’t be disqualified anyway, that resolves NO.

Resolves N/A if SCOTUS doesn’t provide a decision, finds that Trump is ineligible, or I’m sufficiently confused that I don’t understand how to resolve this market. Please comment if my description reveals that I’ve misunderstood something!

I will extend close as necessary.

General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.