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.
Since this is the first time this particular constitutionally provided disqualification has been raised in a real election context, I would almost expect that it would have to go through several stages before being familiar enough that it wouldn't have caused the awe&horror reaction from SCOTUS that it [supposedly] did ... others such as age restriction or birth location have been around and discussed for much longer. Otherwise, your analysis is spot-on and I hope we'll never have to use it (foolish, I know...).
Thank you Dave. Here's the problem. These are partisan legal maneuvers tried in partisan districts. Not just partisan, but overwhelmingly so. When Trump loses, his voters can say the whole thing was partisan. When Trump wins, his voters can say the whole thing was partisan. It's no-win. And you might actually lose some of the critical middle, those non-partisans who sway elections. They don't like partisan anything, let alone courts.
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.
Since this is the first time this particular constitutionally provided disqualification has been raised in a real election context, I would almost expect that it would have to go through several stages before being familiar enough that it wouldn't have caused the awe&horror reaction from SCOTUS that it [supposedly] did ... others such as age restriction or birth location have been around and discussed for much longer. Otherwise, your analysis is spot-on and I hope we'll never have to use it (foolish, I know...).
Dave,
Your analysis is beautifully reasoned and compelling.
This is a far more serious strategy for success than the one being pursued.
Thank you for all your deep thought.
Thank you Dave. Here's the problem. These are partisan legal maneuvers tried in partisan districts. Not just partisan, but overwhelmingly so. When Trump loses, his voters can say the whole thing was partisan. When Trump wins, his voters can say the whole thing was partisan. It's no-win. And you might actually lose some of the critical middle, those non-partisans who sway elections. They don't like partisan anything, let alone courts.