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.
Yes, like in 18 U.S. Code § 2102 that clears President Trump:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't even meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of insurrection?
-PJ
Because they’re lying.
The 14th amendment does not state a criminal conviction is necessary to disqualify someone from being president. Historically, the majority of those disqualified after the civil war were never convicted.
Democrats are the party of INSURRECTION which the 14th was created for....I would enforce it but that would mean NO DEMOCRAT would ever be allowed to hold office in the United States and each would be treated as the seditious bastards they are.
I never said it did. I said §2383. Enacted June 25, 1948.
Historically, the majority of those disqualified after the civil war were never convicted.
§2383 was not in effect then.
“I never said it did.”
Post 31.
Me:
“There is no criminal conviction required for disqualification.”
You:
“Yes there is. Insurrection leading to disqualification occurs when one is fined or imprisoned.”
But has President Trump been fined or imprisoned?
No, he has not. So the only way he can be disqualified under the 14th and subsequent §2383 is expressly outlined in my post 15.
So there IS a criminal conviction required for disqualification.
“If you respect the Constitution, you must respect enforcement of the 14th Amendment”
Cool.
The other clause they are arguing about doesn’t apply to the nationally elected President of Vice President.
You’re talking in circles.
Yeah, I didn’t think you knew what was going on.
If you have taken an oath of office and you engage in insurrection, you are ineligible to be president,
However, Pres. Trump has not engaged in insurrection, has not been charged (and will not be) with insurrection, and is not guilty of insurrection.
So, pound sand to the flaming liberal Fascist wannabe.
You should reread section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Also, 18 U.S. CODE § 2383 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION codifies Insurrection. IOW, Congress has already made the law clear.
If you respect the Constitution, you need to actually READ the entire 14th amendment and understand it before you write an absurd article in the press and make a complete ass of yourself.
Trump was never convicted of participating in anything resembling an insurrection, and was in fact found not guilty of same, at least as far as the impeachment process covers this issue. But, leave it to a leftist to make an ass of himself regarding this corrupt anti-democratic abuse of power by a corrupt and ill informed Colorado Supreme Court, and a non educated AG of the state of Maine.
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.