"Trump hasn’t been indicted for insurrection, let alone convicted. On what basis do you deprive him of his right to run and his voters of their right to vote for him? Your personal belief he engaged in insurrection? The personal beliefs of politically motivated state officials? That’s not a constitutional principle." Greg has enunciated what I, far away in New Zealand, have been left puzzled about from first noticing these attempts to bar Trump under section 3. Like that New York judge deciding Trump engaged in fraud without an identified victim and before any evidence has been heard, it does leave one wondering about what passes for justice and due process.
I’m pretty much gob-smacked by this column. Oh well, one of the reasons I subscribe is to read contrarian thinking. Anyway, this really caught my eye:
“Here is how I think Section 3 ought to be enforced. State officials, whether in the courts or in the state attorney general offices, should make eligibility decisions through the same procedures they use when deciding any other eligibility requirement. Then the Supreme Court could review those decisions, striking down invalid ones and upholding valid ones.
. . ..
“ This is how the decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment ought to have been made. If the Supreme Court had upheld the Colorado decision, it would have given a green light to other election officials and state courts that similar decisions would also be likely to be upheld. And for state official[s] who obstinately continued to include Trump on the ballot, it would be a signal that court challenges to their decisions are likely to succeed.”
Seriously? That’s your idea of a reliable system for presenting candidates to voters? And this gives away what your real problem is: you want Trump gone (as do I), but you’re willing to accept any method for doing so, even if it is a terrible precedent. Trump hasn’t been indicted for insurrection, let alone convicted. On what basis do you deprive him of his right to run and his voters of their right to vote for him? Your personal belief he engaged in insurrection? The personal beliefs of politically motivated state officials? That’s not a constitutional principle.
The patchwork you describe would/could be a nightmare smack in the middle of an election season. As we are experiencing now. I despise Trump, but I cannot believe you really think we ought to leave the interpretation of Section 3 to 50+ politically motivated Secretaries/Registrars.
And this one:
“Donald Trump is exactly the kind of man the Constitution was written to protect against—every provision of it, and the document as a whole. But those protections require active vigilance on the part of every actor within the system. I mentioned that I was concerned about the precedent this ruling would set. Well, the precedent is that the Supreme Court will decline to enforce key provisions of the Constitution if doing is politically controversial—which is to say, precisely when doing so is most necessary.”
Avoidance of political controversy is not new for the Court. It’s actually a well-established judicial approach. Further, they’re not “declining”?to enforce anything. They’re not an enforcement body. They have specifically identified who does enforce section 3: Congress, not state election officials. That is SCOTUS’s job, and they did it. What kind of conservative wants an activist SCOTUS? Who wants SCOTUS to determine who can be a candidate? I don’t. That is a political function. Not a judicial one.
This one also, suggesting that the Court should act when others fail to. That’s not their job.
“And why has it never needed to be invoked? Because nobody has ever pushed our constitutional system quite this far before—not since the Civil War. We are heading into strange and uncomfortable territory and facing dilemmas where either a constitutional provision will be enforced awkwardly or become a dead letter. It is clearly better for it to be enforced awkwardly and imperfectly than for a whole section of the Constitution to effectively be written out of the document by judicial fiat.”
That’s the job Congress was given. And the executive branch. Want to bar Trump for being an insurrectionist? Then convict him of being one. Last time I checked; we’re still supposed to have due process here. Want him out? Go back in time and get Merrick Garland off his ass and get moving to indict and convict Trump of insurrection. Failing that conviction, you really don’t have much basis for pointing the finger at SCOTUS.
“No one is coming to save us. Not the Congress, not the parties, not the media—and not the courts. We will have to save ourselves.”
Save us? Please, this is ON US. So, quit whining and get out the vote.
I agree with the comments made by Phil, Gary, and Greg.
In addition, the qualifications to run for President are in Article Two (age, residency, etc.). The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with qualifications to run for President. Nothing. It doesn't say insurrectionists can't RUN for office. It says they can't HOLD office unless after having been elected, two-thirds of both houses of Congress removes the disability. How can Congress have the chance to remove the disability if the candidate accused of insurrection can't run in the first place?
Suppose the Supreme Court had ruled as you wished. How soon would it be that Republican states would remove Biden because he gave "aid or comfort to the enemies" the United States, e.g. released billions of dollars to Iran? (Section 3 states: ". . .engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.")
Allowing states to determine qualifications to run for the Presidency is a very bad idea and I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously crushed this attempt by Colorado to do so.
I immediately wondered why some people were so quick to call the January 6 riot an “insurrection”, but it soon became evident it had everything to do with the 14th Amendment. I still see “insurrection” as waaaaay too high of a bar. Can you really say an unarmed group is staging one? Let alone without any coordination of other substantial forces? Please just give it up!
Respectfully Bob, I share your other fans sentiments as I find your sound and fury moral and unjust. To take a low blow at The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas via citing a dog faced pony progressive soldiers Pro U.S.S.R. Publication low blow hit piece….Come on man. And this is coming from a very un populist amongst my former fellow Republican friends who know all to well how I assert not only should Heat Miser have been impeached but justly be burning in Hell right now for the atrocity of January 6th
But , even if your originalist/textualist/ Scripturalist interpretation is dead rights….We the People simply cannot have two unduly elected Presidents the morning after Election Day….it will make January 6th look like a victory parade. No wonder for once The Black Rope Society voted unanimously.
#REMEMBERASHLIBABBITT died for a complete fing BIG LIE uttered over and over and over again by a shameless, mendacious, narcissistic, megalomaniac conman, crony capitalist pig, casino card shark magnate, reality tv porn star, FTX, I mean NFT huckster, GOP crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant An Atheist that still reads The Holy Bible. Peace through superior mental firepower
"Trump hasn’t been indicted for insurrection, let alone convicted. On what basis do you deprive him of his right to run and his voters of their right to vote for him? Your personal belief he engaged in insurrection? The personal beliefs of politically motivated state officials? That’s not a constitutional principle." Greg has enunciated what I, far away in New Zealand, have been left puzzled about from first noticing these attempts to bar Trump under section 3. Like that New York judge deciding Trump engaged in fraud without an identified victim and before any evidence has been heard, it does leave one wondering about what passes for justice and due process.
I’m pretty much gob-smacked by this column. Oh well, one of the reasons I subscribe is to read contrarian thinking. Anyway, this really caught my eye:
“Here is how I think Section 3 ought to be enforced. State officials, whether in the courts or in the state attorney general offices, should make eligibility decisions through the same procedures they use when deciding any other eligibility requirement. Then the Supreme Court could review those decisions, striking down invalid ones and upholding valid ones.
. . ..
“ This is how the decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment ought to have been made. If the Supreme Court had upheld the Colorado decision, it would have given a green light to other election officials and state courts that similar decisions would also be likely to be upheld. And for state official[s] who obstinately continued to include Trump on the ballot, it would be a signal that court challenges to their decisions are likely to succeed.”
Seriously? That’s your idea of a reliable system for presenting candidates to voters? And this gives away what your real problem is: you want Trump gone (as do I), but you’re willing to accept any method for doing so, even if it is a terrible precedent. Trump hasn’t been indicted for insurrection, let alone convicted. On what basis do you deprive him of his right to run and his voters of their right to vote for him? Your personal belief he engaged in insurrection? The personal beliefs of politically motivated state officials? That’s not a constitutional principle.
The patchwork you describe would/could be a nightmare smack in the middle of an election season. As we are experiencing now. I despise Trump, but I cannot believe you really think we ought to leave the interpretation of Section 3 to 50+ politically motivated Secretaries/Registrars.
And this one:
“Donald Trump is exactly the kind of man the Constitution was written to protect against—every provision of it, and the document as a whole. But those protections require active vigilance on the part of every actor within the system. I mentioned that I was concerned about the precedent this ruling would set. Well, the precedent is that the Supreme Court will decline to enforce key provisions of the Constitution if doing is politically controversial—which is to say, precisely when doing so is most necessary.”
Avoidance of political controversy is not new for the Court. It’s actually a well-established judicial approach. Further, they’re not “declining”?to enforce anything. They’re not an enforcement body. They have specifically identified who does enforce section 3: Congress, not state election officials. That is SCOTUS’s job, and they did it. What kind of conservative wants an activist SCOTUS? Who wants SCOTUS to determine who can be a candidate? I don’t. That is a political function. Not a judicial one.
This one also, suggesting that the Court should act when others fail to. That’s not their job.
“And why has it never needed to be invoked? Because nobody has ever pushed our constitutional system quite this far before—not since the Civil War. We are heading into strange and uncomfortable territory and facing dilemmas where either a constitutional provision will be enforced awkwardly or become a dead letter. It is clearly better for it to be enforced awkwardly and imperfectly than for a whole section of the Constitution to effectively be written out of the document by judicial fiat.”
That’s the job Congress was given. And the executive branch. Want to bar Trump for being an insurrectionist? Then convict him of being one. Last time I checked; we’re still supposed to have due process here. Want him out? Go back in time and get Merrick Garland off his ass and get moving to indict and convict Trump of insurrection. Failing that conviction, you really don’t have much basis for pointing the finger at SCOTUS.
“No one is coming to save us. Not the Congress, not the parties, not the media—and not the courts. We will have to save ourselves.”
Save us? Please, this is ON US. So, quit whining and get out the vote.
I agree with the comments made by Phil, Gary, and Greg.
In addition, the qualifications to run for President are in Article Two (age, residency, etc.). The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with qualifications to run for President. Nothing. It doesn't say insurrectionists can't RUN for office. It says they can't HOLD office unless after having been elected, two-thirds of both houses of Congress removes the disability. How can Congress have the chance to remove the disability if the candidate accused of insurrection can't run in the first place?
Suppose the Supreme Court had ruled as you wished. How soon would it be that Republican states would remove Biden because he gave "aid or comfort to the enemies" the United States, e.g. released billions of dollars to Iran? (Section 3 states: ". . .engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.")
Allowing states to determine qualifications to run for the Presidency is a very bad idea and I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously crushed this attempt by Colorado to do so.
I immediately wondered why some people were so quick to call the January 6 riot an “insurrection”, but it soon became evident it had everything to do with the 14th Amendment. I still see “insurrection” as waaaaay too high of a bar. Can you really say an unarmed group is staging one? Let alone without any coordination of other substantial forces? Please just give it up!
Respectfully Bob, I share your other fans sentiments as I find your sound and fury moral and unjust. To take a low blow at The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas via citing a dog faced pony progressive soldiers Pro U.S.S.R. Publication low blow hit piece….Come on man. And this is coming from a very un populist amongst my former fellow Republican friends who know all to well how I assert not only should Heat Miser have been impeached but justly be burning in Hell right now for the atrocity of January 6th
But , even if your originalist/textualist/ Scripturalist interpretation is dead rights….We the People simply cannot have two unduly elected Presidents the morning after Election Day….it will make January 6th look like a victory parade. No wonder for once The Black Rope Society voted unanimously.
#REMEMBERASHLIBABBITT died for a complete fing BIG LIE uttered over and over and over again by a shameless, mendacious, narcissistic, megalomaniac conman, crony capitalist pig, casino card shark magnate, reality tv porn star, FTX, I mean NFT huckster, GOP crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant An Atheist that still reads The Holy Bible. Peace through superior mental firepower
Cowards all!