EXCERPT:
RASKIN: "Well, the text of the Constitution is unambiguous, it’s just perfectly clear. If you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and you violate that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you are never allowed to hold federal or state office again. And the purposes behind it are clear, which is to prevent people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy in office from getting back into a position where they could also threaten the constitutional order again. So I guess my major question is, given the comprehensiveness and the airtight logic of the Colorado decision, why would there be any reason to depart from the clear text of the Constitution and from the original purposes? And I would pose that specifically to the so-called textualists and originalists on the court."