14th Amendment Time -- It's long overdue to keep insurrectionists off the ballot

wildchild · Mar 4, 2024

Ricter said:
Opinion: Congress has already disqualified Trump from the ballot

Opinion by Tristan Snell
5 minute read
Published 3:57 AM EST, Thu February 8, 2024

CNN legal analyst breaks down Colorado Supreme Court Trump ruling
01:02 - Source: CNN
Editor’s Note: Tristan Snell is author of the new book “Taking Down Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump by Someone Who Did it Successfully.” He is a lawyer and legal commentator who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN, and he served as assistant attorney general for New York State, where he led the investigation of, and civil case against, Trump University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. Read more opinion on CNN.

CNN —
The Supreme Court on Thursday is weighing the question of whether former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from office by engaging in an insurrection in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The constitutional text is clear: Any official who took an oath of office is disqualified if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump to be ineligible on this basis. The ruling encompassed both the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol itself, which interfered with the certification of the Electoral College vote for president, and the former president’s overall scheme to overturn the 2020 election.

The case now comes to the Supreme Court following Trump’s appeal, and it could determine whether Trump appears on the ballot in up to 35 different states where his eligibility is being challenged.

There are two factual questions at the core of this case: Was January 6 an insurrection and did Trump “engage” in it?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court need not look far for answers to these questions. They can simply look across the street at the Capitol, where majorities of both chambers of Congress already found that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but “incited” it.

This may come as a shock. When, one might ask, did Congress ever hold such votes?

Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

This was a finding of fact, by majorities of our elected representatives, after a full public trial in which Trump was able to mount a defense — and it should be deemed persuasive, if not conclusive, in answering the factual questions before the Supreme Court. Indeed, for the more right-wing justices, who are often fond of pontificating that courts should not make policy judgments and should instead defer to legislatures, one would think that such a clear public pronouncement from Congress on Trump’s engagement in insurrection would be a compelling precedent.

Related article Opinion: Trump is hoping to delay his trial. The Supreme Court shouldn’t take the bait

To be clear, the 14th Amendment does not actually require anyone to have voted to disqualify an insurrectionist, whether that’s a legislature or a jury. It certainly does not require a conviction, as some have tried to argue (and such bastardization of the plain language of a constitutional provision is exactly the opposite of what conservatives normally preach).

Legally, the insurrectionist is disqualified the moment he engages in insurrection. Though “innocent until proven guilty” is a familiar standard in criminal law, it shouldn’t apply to disqualifying someone from public office, since holding office is a privilege, not a right. Indeed, the courts in Colorado found Trump engaged in insurrection, and that alone was legally sufficient for Trump to be ruled ineligible there.

Yet if we are going to look for some additional fact-based determination on whether Trump engaged in insurrection — especially one that can be applied nationally — Congress has already provided us with one, and the Supreme Court should look no further.

The congressional votes regarding Trump should satisfy those who say we should “let the voters decide” rather than applying the Constitution and removing Trump from the ballot; the voters already decided. Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators.

Related article Opinion: Trump’s immunity defeat isn’t the setback it seems to be

Those majorities already represent the will of the American people. True, it was not enough for impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but it is more than enough for disqualification, where no supermajority is stipulated and thus a simple majority should suffice.

If the voters change their minds at some future date, the Constitution also provides a way to restore Trump’s eligibility for office: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment allows for a disqualified official to be rehabilitated by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

Without such an effort by Congress, it makes a mockery of both democracy and the Constitution to allow Trump to run again. If he is legally ineligible, he must not be on the 2024 ballot, or else the Constitution is meaningless. We cannot cherry-pick which provisions of the Constitution we feel like enforcing at any given moment and we cannot ignore provisions of the Constitution merely because they yield difficult or inconvenient outcomes.

Therein lies the greatest danger. We must not be fooled by the “let the voters decide” argument. It sounds democratic, but a suspension and circumvention of a clear constitutional provision could be the beginning of the end for our democracy and the rule of law. If any one part of the Constitution is set aside, no part of it is sacred.

If we “let the voters decide” Trump’s eligibility, does that mean we should also “let the voters decide” whether journalists should be jailed, as Trump has called for? Should we “let the voters decide” to strip voting rights from other voters they disagree with? A democracy without a constitution and the rule of law will not remain a democracy for long. Instead, we must apply all the laws as written — including the 14th Amendment.

Get Our Free Weekly Newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

We already possess a clear determination by Congress regarding Trump and January 6, and we must not ignore it. We cannot keep holding more and more votes until Trump finds one that he can win — or overturn successfully.

The Supreme Court may be wary of disqualifying Trump based solely on their own ruling as a group of unelected judges. But they do not have to do so. They can ground their ruling in the determination that Congress has already made, thus giving their decision both legal and political legitimacy. The Constitution is clear, Congress’ votes are clear and Trump’s disqualification is thus wholly justified. If some people disagree, they can push for Congress to reinstate Trump as provided by the Constitution.

What Congress did, Congress can undo. That is the genius of the 14th Amendment — which the Supreme Court should fully embrace.
More...

Ricter, a Canadian boomer, thought Trump would be disqualified.

Atlantic · Mar 4, 2024

wildchild said:
Ricter, a Canadian boomer, thought Trump would be disqualified.

More...

you can cheer if it makes you feel better now.

fact is that joe biden will be reelected.

this has been determined long ago.

cope.

Ricter · Mar 4, 2024

Atlantic said:
you can cheer if it makes you feel better now.

fact is that joe biden will be reelected.

this has been determined long ago.

cope.
More...

I'll be voting for him. I won't get the progressive agenda I really want, nor will a leash be put on the mad dog Israel, but at least democracy itself will survive for another 4 years. Without that nothing else is possible.

Cuddles · Mar 4, 2024

Ricter said:
I'll be voting for him. I won't get the progressive agenda I really want, nor will a leash be put on the mad dog Israel, but at least democracy itself will survive for another 4 years. Without that nothing else is possible.
More...

Sadly even if Israel were to condemn 2M Gazans, upholding American democracy where hundreds of millions would be exposed to the alternative, is the price....never mind the catastrophe that could follow in terms of bodies.

gwb-trading · Mar 4, 2024

As I have stated numerous times in the past (here, here, etc.), these 14th Amendments cases to disqualify Trump from the ballot were unlikely to succeed. The U.S. Supreme Court needed to step in so every state would not go their own direction and provide different decisions regarding allowing Trump on the ballot. The Supreme Court justices were unanimous in deciding on this particular point of not allowing each state to decide on their own -- with the minority differing on the overall scope of federal enforcement.

All the justices agreed on this point - "Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."

Supreme Court's liberal justices fault scope of Trump 14th Amendment decision
The court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Trump but disputes remained.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...ces-fault-scope-trump-14th/story?id=107774893

El OchoCinco · Mar 4, 2024

Supreme Court says Trump can appear on 2024 ballot, overturning Colorado ruling

look at all the wannabe lawyers backtracking now ....

CaptainObvious · Mar 4, 2024

Ricter said:
I'll be voting for him. I won't get the progressive agenda I really want, nor will a leash be put on the mad dog Israel, but at least democracy itself will survive for another 4 years. Without that nothing else is possible.
More...

To save democracy? Please. The last thing the democrats want is democracy. Bidens is hugely unpopular among democrats. An overwhelming majority of democratic voters would rather see another candidate. If the DNC establishment wanted democracy they'd have an open primary allowing real candidates to run. Given the indisputable unpopularity of Biden among democrats, an actual democracy would demand an open primary process. As in 2016 when the DNC establishment fixed the primary for Hillary rather than the obvious favorite Bernie, democracy takes a back seat. You can vote for whoever you like, but please don't say you're doing it to defend democracy, not when it's so painfully obvious that democracy is being thrown out the window in order to appoint a very unpopular incumbent president. Unpopular among his own voting public.

wildchild · Mar 4, 2024

Ricter said:
I'll be voting for him. I won't get the progressive agenda I really want, nor will a leash be put on the mad dog Israel, but at least democracy itself will survive for another 4 years. Without that nothing else is possible.
More...

It took the Supreme Court to save democracy from assholes like you. This whole idea that you have to be a member of The Party to run for office is horrible.

gwb-trading · Mar 4, 2024

Biden campaign on Trump’s Supreme Court ruling: ‘We don’t really care’
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...mps-supreme-court-ruling-we-dont-really-care/

Seeing that Trump is the only Republican presidential candidate that Biden has any possibility of beating in the general election... they rather see Trump as the GOP candidate.

Cuddles · Mar 4, 2024

CaptainObvious said:
To save democracy? Please. The last thing the democrats want is democracy. Bidens is hugely unpopular among democrats. An overwhelming majority of democratic voters would rather see another candidate. If the DNC establishment wanted democracy they'd have an open primary allowing real candidates to run. Given the indisputable unpopularity of Biden among democrats, an actual democracy would demand an open primary process. As in 2016 when the DNC establishment fixed the primary for Hillary rather than the obvious favorite Bernie, democracy takes a back seat. You can vote for whoever you like, but please don't say you're doing it to defend democracy, not when it's so painfully obvious that democracy is being thrown out the window in order to appoint a very unpopular incumbent president. Unpopular among his own voting public.
More...

Fair points all around but do realize many democracies around the world don't even have primaries so it's just the anointed come election time.