If we were serious about
Keeping Trump off the ballot
We’d all have registered as Republicans and voted for someone else in the primaries (jk😊).
It did occur to me this morning though that the whole process has been pursued wrongly and was doomed to fail. Given the failed insurrectionist’s value as an income producer for both parties it’s sadly possible that was the intended outcome.
A more logical and possibly more effective approach would be for a state legislature to pass a bill of particulars indicating how a candidate had committed disqualifying acts under Amendment 14.3 and stating that said candidate could not legally appear on the state’s ballot, either primary or general election. There is no doubt that the legislation would be attacked as unconstitutional, but a legislated act is on much more secure grounds than action by an executive officer, no matter how well grounded in law it appears.
On appeal, first to the state’s supreme court, the court would almost certainly uphold the legislative action leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court which would be confronted with a very different situation than the recently argued Anderson case. In Anderson, an individual voter acted against a candidate and there was some concern about other states acting against opposing candidates in a tit for tat situation that would have been amusing if not so chaotic and crucial to the country’s security. In this case, a state having taken legislative action, the Court, under Article 3, Section 2 would have original jurisdiction because the matter concerned disputes between state governments. Arguably, the candidate involved wouldn’t even have standing to engage in the suit except perhaps by filing an amicus brief.
The Court would be on very solid ground in ruling that the candidate had disqualified themselves based on the citations in the legislation and the possibility of reciprocal partisan action would be minimized by the need to provide substantiating evidence of violation of 14.3 by anyone whose disqualification was being sought. The Justices (with one probable exception) might even have been courageous enough to decide in favor of the Constitution and maintaining the Union.
I’m not a lawyer by any stretch, but the way this conversation has been pursued to date seems rather haphazard and a bit sloppy, maybe because we’ve all given up on the idea that legislatures can accomplish anything positive. Revising our expectations would go a long way toward restoring balance in government and might even mitigate some of the unthinking partisanship that often cripples any attempt at effective governance.
I am not an attorney either. And I am not a student of the Constitution. But I can read. I know why 14 3 exists. And I have a memory.
The amendment was specifically designed to exclude those who violated their of office from holding any office again. Period.
Why would any sane institution invite back into membership someone who attempted to overthrow said institution?
And I remember watching the president of the United States instigate a Rebellion, watch idly for three hours while Congress was under violent attack. Call it passive aggressive, if anyone needs to. But it was clearly a breach of responsibility. It was a dereliction of duty like none before it.
Donald Trump should have been arrested the day he left office and charged with leading an insurrection. Jailed - no bail - flight risk.
Failing that, he should have been arrested once the full extent of his theft of top secret documents became apparent. Jailed. No bail. Possibly guilty of espionage or selling state secrets.
If you or I had done 10% of what this mafioso boss has done, we would be in a high security facility for a very long time. Color me sick of special treatment for a sociopathic traitor. I know he doesn't fit the textbook definition of traitor. But it's close enough for millions of Americans who expect a lot better from their leaders.
IMHO, Colorado made a pretty compelling argument for the state's right to determine who should be on the ballot. That's what states do ALL THE TIME. The good news is that this is the first time that a presidential candidate who engaged in an insurrection is running for office. So it is the first time that a state has had to consider that in addition to all of the other qualifications that they use to determine who gets on the ballot.
There is also nothing special about a presidential election that limits the states ability to determine who gets on the ballot. In EVERY presidential election with third party candidates, there are states where those third party candidates fail to meet the qualifications to be on that particular state's ballot. Just because you announce your interest in running for president, doesn't automatically require a state to include you on their ballot.
Finally, states do have the right to exclude candidates who haven't proven that they have sufficient support/organization to be considered "serious". They don't have the right to exclude "serious" candidates for arbitrary reasons (party, race, creed, gender, sexual preference, etc.). If states altered their rules to create an overly broad definition of "insurrection" for example in an effort to exclude otherwise qualified candidates because of their party, that definition would get challenged in court and an acceptable definition of what qualifies as an insurrection would emerge in the same way as if a state said that transgender candidates need not apply.
This last point is what Colorado is asking the court to do. They believe that they have the right to determine who gets on the ballot and have been doing that in a responsible manner since the state joined the union. They are simply asking the state to either agree with their definition of how section 3 of the 14th amendment should be used, or provide guidance for how they should use the 14th amendment going forward.
Whether the court likes it or not, this amendment exists and shouldn't be ignored just because it is inconvenient or potentially disruptive.
Unfortunately, this court seems unwilling to address the core issues that this amendment REQUIRES the country to confront. What are the consequences for ANYONE who is involved in any way in a violent attempt to disrupt a government process (insurrection)? Section 3 says that they lose the right to ever hold any elective or military office.
The amendment DELIBERATELY casts a broad net regarding both the offense against the government and the nature of the participation in that event.
It also provides a method for relief if this broad net happens to ensnare someone whom 2/3rd of the House considers unfairly "disabled".
Not sure this court is going to be willing to answer the question.
The civil war was fought in part because wealthy southern oligarchs had packed the court with judges who used Dred Scott to memorialize slavery. Overturning Dred Scott was the primary purpose of the 14th amendment. It took another 100 years for the courts to catch up the idea that separating children in public schools was unconstitutional. Even then, it took another decade and the assassination of JFK to give LBJ the leverage to pass legislation to practically guarantee the right to vote for black folks. And this court has been systematically dismantling those rights. So I'm prepared to be disappointed by this court on this issue too.