Colorado Supreme Court calls it an insurrection.
I saw it myself on TV. The goal was to intimidate Congress and stop the peaceful transfer of power. Both police and rioters were inured and died. I call that an insurrection.
GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell described it on the Senate floor, after the second impeachment vote:
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president, and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole.
President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. He didn't get away with anything. Yet."
Meanwhile, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has sat quietly for over a century. In 1866 Congress and states did not want to restore Confederate states to the union and have those states fill offices with people who would try to undermine the government from within. The Constitution added a qualification for office:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Every word in the Constitution can be defined and interpreted into meaninglessness, but the text certainly appears straightforward on its face. If Trump (who we saw take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution) engaged in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to an insurrection (such as we saw and heard on January 6), he engaged in insurrection. Therefore, he is ineligible to hold office.
But maybe it wasn't really an insurrection. GOP politicians looking for a reason to defend Trump say it was arguably a peaceful demonstration with a few troublemakers, possibly Democratic false flags or FBI provocateurs.
There is a problem with that position. Trump isn't disavowing January 6. Trump has a different frame. He attacks Democratic prosecutors and biased courts. Look at them! He calls the Colorado court decision a partisan effort to keep the likely winning candidate -- him -- off the ballot. This was in my inbox yesterday evening:
Affirming Colorado would make sense. They have a window of time, before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes. Republicans have replacement candidates ready to go. As supposed textualists, they have the text to support them. They have lifetime appointment so don't need to fear the short term wrath of GOP primary voters. Most GOP senators would be secretly very pleased. Trump openly undermines the credibility of courts -- all courts -- so they would be defending the judicial branch. It would be a clever and cynical act done to help Republicans, because the GOP could now choose among stronger general election candidates, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.
They would be doing what McConnell talked about -- Trump facing future justice -- but failed to do.
I don't think they will do it. They really are beholden to Trump.
[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]
18 comments:
Did or does George Soros have anything to do with the lawsuit decided by the Colorado Supreme Court? Will he have anything to do with defending the appeal to the United States Supreme Court? If so, what role, exactly, did or does he have in this? If not, why is candidate Trump referring to George Soros?
Chris Landau, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia, told NBC News Tuesday night that he is confident the Supreme Court will “take one look at” Colorado’s decision and overturn it.
I think that the Supreme Court upholding the Colorado decision might be the most likely way for a Civil War to start in this country. I would prefer for that war not to happen.
How about letting the voters decide who should be president instead of the judiciary?
Some things are just obvious. But MAGA is out of touch with reality, as we all know by know.
How can you overlook the fact that Oregon entertained a similar motion and ruled opposite? As have a few other states, AFAIK.
This isn’t about legalities, it’s about politics; and I’m a bit surprised any sober-minded person would want our so-called democracy to descend to this level.
It’s hard to imagine anything crazier than allowing a traitor to be a candidate for president of the United States. Trump and his supporters have made it clear they have no interest in or respect for the principles and values on which this country was founded. I have no doubt some of Trump’s chumps are stupid enough to take up arms on his behalf, and he would undoubtedly find it amusing while denying any responsibility. But we’d be even bigger idiots if we allowed their threats to intimidate us. Trump and all the ringleaders of his attempt to overturn the 2020 election need to be held accountable or our Constitution is meaningless.
“It’s hard to imagine anything crazier than allowing a traitor to be a candidate for president of the United States.“
The question is, exactly who is going to do this “allowing?“ Who in this country is supposed to be empowered to dictate and limit the choices that voters have?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
During an appearance on NBC News “National Report” on Wednesday, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz blasted the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump was not eligible for the presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment.
According to Dershowitz, the Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling misinterpreted the 14th Amendment, which he said laid out the process that Congress would enact, not a state court.
“In the 60 years I’ve been practicing and teaching law, I’ve never seen a decision that’s so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional,” Dershowitz said. “It is absurd. The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong.”
“If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there’s a provision,” he continued. “It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy.”
Dershowitz also said he anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the Colorado decision.
It isn't 'who' but 'what.' As Peter pointed out, it's our Constitution.
If voters feel their choice has been limited because they can't vote for a traitor, that's their problem.
“The Constitution” does not take action all by itself. Particular people and institutions take action in its name. Who are they? What are their prejudices?
What is the actual locus of this God-like power?
The Oregon situation was only vaguely similar in that it was the appointed Secretary of State who declined to bar Former Guy, not the Oregon Supreme Court. Hopefully, a new Lawsuit will soon be filed, depending on what the corrupt , ethically challenged Majority at SCOTUS does. Buy more popcorn, it's going to interesting watching Gorsuch keep from swallowing his tongue if he tries to reverse his decision as a Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court, which clearly says that States have a Constitutional Right to administer there own elections.
A lken "Has- Been" Dershowitz will say anything, anywhere to get back in the public eye. I want to see what somebody like Lawrence Tribe has to say, or retired former Judge J. Michael Luttig, as well.
No-one is suggesting we outlaw guns - just the ones designed for mass murder.
Remember, outlaws have guns because Republicans refuse to require universal background checks.
Mike said: "Remember, outlaws have guns because Republicans refuse to require universal background checks".
Who writes your script, Dude? You don't know what you're talking about. Oregon requires an FBI background check for every gun sold. I know. I just bought a gun and they did a background check on me.
Most crimes are committed by gangsters, and they don't buy their guns at gun stores.
Gangsters aren't the ones shooting up our schools. Anyway, I meant this for yesterday's post.
... and nearly EVERY mass shooting is committed by a white male between the ages of 18-25 who legally purchased the AR-15 recently.
If I had a magic want I could wave to help this issue it would be to say that Men aren't allowed to own a gun until they're 30. Bam! Problem mostly solved.
Judge Luttig was joined by Constitutional Expert Lawrence Tribe in doing so. Seeing the two of them together making their points was inspiring.
Anonymous @9:08 PM
And your solution is to do nothing. I'm pretty sure the perpetrators of Sandy Hook, Uvalde, Las Vegas ad nauseum weren't "gangsters", or even people of color, your unspoken allegation.
Post a Comment