Q&A: Should the Courts Keep Trump Off the Ballot?
with John McWhorter
The debate rages on: Should Donald Trump’s eligibility for the presidency be left in the hands of the voters or the courts? Personally, I don’t think there’s any question about this, especially now that Trump is the sole remaining candidate for the Republican nomination. Republican voters are aware of the charges he’s facing, and they’ve opted to run him anyway. Disqualifying him from the ballot via the courts would infringe on the people’s right to elect their president. John, as you may know, disagrees. He believes a second Trump term would be so disastrous that it would be justified to disqualify him using legal but undemocratic methods. In this clip from our most recent subscriber-only session, we duke it out.1
This clip is taken from a subscriber-only Q&A session. For access to Q&As, comments, early episodes, and a host of other benefits, click below and subscribe.
The Supreme Court has decided, in Trump v. Anderson, that states cannot determine eligibility for a federal office. Nevertheless, with Trump still facing criminal charges, the courts remain an issue.
Trump has not been convicted of anything, so removing him from ballots would be REALLY BAD.
I find it to be unconscionable that ANYONE could support efforts to remove Trump from the ballot because you don't like him. Where would it end? It wouldn't. But I guess that's the country we live in now - people on the left accept using elected office and lawfare to punish political opponents.
I don't like Biden, and can argue that he should be removed from ballots for allowing an invasion and aiding and abetting our enemies but wouldn't do so. John is completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong on this one. He would feel good if it happens, but he'll be one of the first ones to howl wildly should one of his politicians get booted off the ballot, even if it was for a justifiable reason.
That fact that this is even being seriously considered by some is an indication that we are probably, as a country, beyond saving. The next generation will be living in one of three countries that used to comprise the United States of America.
The original targets of Amrndment 14.3 were confederate officers and officeholders who had obviously engaged in insurrection (the civil War) nor did they deny that they had done so: they were proud of it. Section 5 of amendment 14 allows it to Congress to enforce 14.3, and they did so with the insurrection act which is currently federal 18:2383. Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, or even incitement to insurrection, under 18:2383 and he of course denies guilt. That’s a complete different situation from that of the old Confederates. There are questions of fact in Trump’s case that only a formal jury trial can resolve.
But In fact not only has Trump not been indicted under 18:2383 for Jan 6, no one in the entire country has been indicted under 18: 2383 for Jan 6. No one in tbe entire country has been indicted for insurrection for Jan 6—let alone convicted for it. That’s a legal fact.
If Trump were indicted and convicted under 18:2383,—insurrection—then he would automatically be removed from ballots on the basis of section 3 of the 14th amendment. It would be self-enforcing. Until that happens, as much as I dislike Trump, he has a right to remain on the ballot.