Rob Witwer, the former member of the Colorado House of Representatives and co-author of “The Blueprint,” characteristically had the most succinct and accurate description of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to disqualify Donald Trump from the state primary ballot: “Four unelected judges just took away my right to vote against Donald Trump.”

I iterate my opposition to Trump’s disqualification with an important caveat: I don’t think Trump is qualified to be president, or to hold any other public office for that matter. His egregious character flaws and (to put it politely) questionable judgement should be enough to keep him from being elected dog catcher anywhere in the civilized world. Mind you, I happen to feel that way about a great number of politicians, in both parties, for much the same reason, policy differences aside.

That, however, is not the same as a legal disqualification. The question is not (or at least shouldn’t be) about what you think of Trump, whether you like him or think he’s the worst human being since Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, or Pierre Trudeau (pick your poison). It is, rather, a technical (but crucially important) question of law.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

It’s not entirely correct to say, as some on the right are, that the court’s decision is “undemocratic” or “un-American.” Charles Cooke wrote a brilliant piece in National Review on this issue, explaining “it is an incorrect argument – or, at least, it’s an incomplete argument constitutionally. The problem with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is it’s incorrect… by design, there are many provisions within our Constitution that limit what the public is able to vote for, and sometimes even for whom. Without amending the Constitution, a transient majority of Americans cannot elect a president for a third term, hold midterm elections more than once every two years, abolish elections completely, restrict the freedom of speech,” and so forth. He goes on to explain there is a fundamental difference in unelected judges creating law and upholding existing law. In this instance, Cooke writes, if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does, in fact, disqualify Trump, then Trump must be disqualified in order to uphold democratically made law.

So the question is, does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to Trump in this case? Specifically, did he engage in an insurrection in the manner envisioned by the folks who wrote and passed the law after the Civil War? The evidence to support that is less persuasive.

First, there is the matter Trump has never even been indicted for engaging in an insurrection, never mind convicted. Yes, the justices determined Section 3 is self-enacting, and a conviction is not necessary. But given the constitutional, historical and political weight this carries, it is not an unreasonable bar to insist upon.

So, again, the question stands, did Trump engage in an insurrection in the manner envisioned by the people who drafted and passed the amendment? Dan McLaughlin, also writing in National Review lays out the legal arguments in opposition rather well. Suffice to say, the Supreme Court is going to have its hands full sorting through it all. This, again, is why judicial devotion to original intent is so important. Call it Scalia’s Revenge, if you will.

There are, of course, other factors at play beyond the purely legal. The principle of reciprocity, for instance. There is nothing, nothing, in the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority interpretation that would prevent a red-state court from similarly disqualifying from the ballot an individual who participated in any of the several violent left-wing protests, riots, “occupations” (remember them?) and other foolishness over the years in the course of calling for radical systemic change. I may not think such miscreants should be anywhere near seats of government, except in handcuffs, but for a court to make that determination is a far more ominous and chilling proposition. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake pointed out “Republicans were also much quicker to attack the decision than Democrats were to hail it,” which may be an indication that some on the left are recognizing this particular sword could cut both ways.

As for the other political impacts? Well, Trump was never going to be in play in Colorado in any case. It will fuel the persecution complex of Trump and his supporters, and, ironically, probably boost his poll numbers. As for the historical impact, the matter almost certainly will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, purely as a matter of law, will almost certainly overturn Tuesday’s call. Whether it does or not, it will be navigating a constitutional crisis, and will take on the immense responsibility of finally granting some clarity to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, after more than a century and a half.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.