QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I believe. Why do the lawyers involved in the Colorado case removing Trump does not grasp the structure of the Constitution as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would result in national chaos. Your analysis of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution understood such a result would break the union. Any comment on this oversight would be greatly appreciated.
ANSWER: Sometimes, lawyers focus too intently because statutory law is wordsmithing. They are arguing if Trump is an officer when they should be looking at the subject matter jurisdiction of the law. I have had to study law from a global perspective, looking at its evolution from ancient times to the present. Continental Europe followed Canon Law, whereas England created Common Law. There are huge differences such as under French law, not even your brother-in-law can be compelled to testify against you, whereas under English Common Law, the king is ruthless, so the only one with such a privilege is a spouse. They can throw your children in prison on contempt until they testify against a parent. We do not respect the family unit, whereas, under Canon Law, anyone related by marriage is covered.
I was so appalled that the oral arguments were focused on wordsmithing I decided to submit my own Amicus Curiae brief. The Court is not supposed to raise an argument that is not presented. They will probably reject it because it was after oral argument. But if they want a clean escape that is constitutionally correct rather than not addressing the issue directly, then just maybe they might make an exception and accept a Pro Se Amicus. It might be a first, anyway.