Posted on 01/18/2024 10:10:04 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
There’s a strange idea floating in the political ether.
Everyone from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) seems to think there is something unseemly about invoking the 14th Amendment to keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot, and that his electoral fate ought to be left to the voters rather than the courts. Even Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who voted to impeach the former president over his involvement in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, thinks keeping him off the ballot is undemocratic.
It’s a strange idea because none of these people think about any other constitutional provisions in quite the same way.
If former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run for president, he simply wouldn’t be allowed on the ballot. No one would argue that not letting him run because he wasn’t born in the U.S. would be “undemocratic” and that we should let the voters decide.
And if Trump were to win and wanted to run for a third term, should we roll our eyes at efforts to block him using the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms? Think hard about your answer, and don’t imagine for a minute that Trump would not consider doing exactly that.
The Constitution specifies certain eligibility requirements for the presidency. If you have taken an oath of office and you engage in insurrection, you are ineligible to be president, just as you would be if you were born as a Canadian citizen or if you were only 25 years of age. It doesn’t matter how popular you are or how “undemocratic” your supporters think it is to keep you off the ballot. You are simply ineligible.
This idea of picking and choosing which part of the Constitution we’d like to apply — “constitution à la carte” — is extremely dangerous. If we are going to ignore part of the 14th Amendment because Donald Trump is popular, why stop there? Lots of people would like to ignore the Second Amendment and bring in much stricter gun control laws. Even the First Amendment has its detractors these days.
The Constitution is a package deal. We all like some parts more than others, but we must respect all parts equally. There is nothing illegitimate in using the Constitution to challenge overly restrictive gun laws or speech restrictions, no matter how popular they might be. By the same token, there is nothing undemocratic about ensuring presidential candidates meet the constitutional requirements for office.
Anyone who respects the Constitution should fully endorse removing someone from the ballot if they don’t meet those requirements.
As for the claim that keeping Donald Trump off the ballot would be “undemocratic,” well, it is. But so are lots of things in the Constitution. The Electoral College system gives California 54 Electoral College votes while Wyoming gets three. Since California has a population about 68 times larger than Wyoming’s, that makes a vote for president in Wyoming 3.7 times more valuable than a vote for president in California. There are advantages to the Electoral College system, but democratic rigor isn’t one of them.
In another sense, however, the Electoral College is quintessentially democratic because these are the rules we have agreed to use to elect our president. These rules may not be perfect, and we can certainly argue to change them, but until we do, democracy requires that we honor them.
Whether the courts find Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment or not, about half of the voters will be upset. But that doesn’t mean that everyone, including the people who are upset, should not respect that decision. The American Constitution is just a bunch of words on parchment unless we take those words seriously — especially when we’d rather not.
Chris Truax is an appellate lawyer in San Diego and a member of the Guardrails of Democracy Project.
Except for the “due process” part apparently.
See Colorado and Maine, where punishment was meted out just on a whim, without charge, trial or conviction, that is, process.
Just some people deciding and that was that.
If Trump is convicted, then we can discuss the 14th. As it stands he has not even been charged with insurrection. Therefore they can pound sand.
Then why ignore Section 5 of the 14th amendment?
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.-PJ
He was tried an acquitted in the Senate.
“There’s a strange idea floating in the political ether.”
_________________________________________________
...and that strange idea comes from Chris Truax.
The Hill may as well be Media Matters.
This is gibberish cloaked with obfuscation about a possible ‘third term’ which is clearly defined and limited to two terms elected up to a 10 years maximum. The only recent possible occurrence of this could have been LBJ, who took over from assassinated JFK and could have run for election/reelection but he bowed out of a second term cuz Viet Nam.
Trump is due a second term and there has been no conviction of insurrection that would fall within the meaning of insurrection He is eligible, period. This idiot wants/urges otherwise. Screw him.
TDA at its finest.
You know Liberals. They pick and choose and then accuse their opponents of doing the same.
Wonder what they think about the 2nd amendment?
And what about due process? Has President Trump been convicted of Insurrection? I must have missed it.
But States can remove or decline to put him on the ballot. Because of, what exactly? Hell, I have to look it up because I don’t know their excuse. Insurrection? WTF?
Again, The Hill may as well be Media Matters!
Here’s the Left Loon author in 2019:
Republican: I’m telling Democrats how to beat Trump in 2020. It’s Job One so get over it.
Enough with the progressive wish lists, just focus on winning. The next president is everyone’s business, and we can’t afford to screw it up. Again.
Chris Truax Opinion columnist
July 2019
Mr Truax is is an appellate lawyer, and I am not. But may I point something out to him? When the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that from 1861–1865 a violent insurrection had, in fact, occurred resulting in 100s of thousands of deaths.
It must amaze Mr. Truax, appellate lawyer, that there 10s of millions of Americans who do not believe that the events during the late hours of January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection’ at all therefore rendering the 14th Amendment clause in question moot.
So who gets to decide? MSNBC? CNN? The Maine Sec’y of State? Or perhaps the fine folks at Guardrails of Democracy Project?
That’s begging the question, which is whether the 14th Amendment is relevant at all here.
If CHRIS TRUAX wants to respect the US Constitution, then he should read it.
Correct. The only relevancy is
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
And as we know - Trump has not been charged with insurrection. Much less being “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Seems like Attorney Truax would know this. I guess he skipped Constitutional Law that day.
Well, IIRC, joementia has already informed us those pesky amendments are NOT absolute so............
Don’t tell me what I “must” do. I decide what I will and won’t do, like read this tripe.
Hey Chrissie. If you respect the Constitution, you must respect enforcement of the FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS TOO. It ain’t happening in your Amerika, sonny.
How about the original 10, especially the 1st,the 2nd and the 10th?
I’m sure this imbecile fully respects them.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment is the due process clause and prohibits states from denying citizens their rights without due process.
President Trump was charged with, and ACQUITED of the charge of Insurrection during his second impeachment. Just because a judge says that a person committed a crime is not due process and it does not make them guilty. Further, the 5th amendment’s double jeopardy clause prohibits Trump for being prosecuted twice for the same charge.
You must respect the whole and entire constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.