None have been charged, much less convicted, of insurrection. Without any insurrectionists, there was no insurrection -- so Trump didn't incite one. Which he wasn't trying to, either. He wanted a peaceful protest, and almost got it.
The 2020 was stolen. If an election is not free and fair, it is stolen. Censoring the bad truth about one candidate gives that candidate an unfair advantage—if he wins, the loser is right to claim it was unfair, and thus stolen.
Neither John McWhorter nor Arnold Kling accept this principle. They are wrong.
Trump is a jerk, but he fights -- like Grant. And he gets votes. His total went from ~61 million up to ~73 million. Tho the turnout went from 60% up to an unbelievable 65%, which is why I don't believe all that mail-in increase, 65 million envelopes, were properly verified before the ballots inside were counted.
Why weren't all the envelopes from the swing state big counties more thoroughly verified? Because Dems, especially, but also Rep politicians don't really want voter ID and fraud free election.
It should play out in the courts and through the legal process. My point is that it's silly to say that going through the legal process makes it illegitimate and somehow "wrong".
Conservative scholars have made a case for invoking – or really upholding – the Fourteenth Amendment:
W. Baude and M. S. Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Rochester, NY, Aug. 09, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4532751
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
From what you say, I take it the 14th Amendment, Section 3 can be used by anyone, at any time, for any reason at all as long as they say the person excluded engaged in an insurrection, on their say-so of what an insurrection is. From my take on your reasoning, I conclude it sets aside every single rule in the rest of the U.S. Constitution.
Also, I call attention to your claim that the 14th "disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others. . ." By your summary, would that include Kamala Harris, to take only one example, who urged people to help bail out the violent protesters arrested during the summer uprisings, which destroyed, not merely occupied, several public buildings and seized territory in Seattle that they declared no longer a part of the U.S.? (Which is in fact precisely the kind of insurrectionary act the Confederacy took to bring on this amendment in the first place.) I don't say it does include Kamala, but if you think tens of millions won't say it does once Trump is excluded, you are kidding yourself. It is this that Loury is trying, desperately, to get through to those who think this arcane 14th Amendment ploy is some sort of cute law school exercise, nothing more.
Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone.
Therefore, removing Trump from the ballot is illegitimate.
His opponents continually claim Trump is a threat to democracy, a threat to the Republic, dangerous for everyone who is part of a minority group in the US, and now even a threat to European nations. But who is the real threat? I say it's the people who, weilding the power of the government and law enforcement, have attempted to sidestep the Bill of Rights, particularly Freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, Redress, Due Process, etc. in part by leveraging their regulatory roles to strongarm companies or paying others to censure their opponents and silence them on many social media platforms. (And the people in Great Britain and Ireland who are creating laws against wrongthink and allowing police to enter homes, search electronic devices, and arrest the occupants for possession of unapproved materials such as anti- transgender or anti-migrant cartoons and essays.) I believe the threats are those who had the FBI investigating traditional Roman Catholics and Parental Rights Advocates as domestic terrorists. I believe it is the people who have urged their followers to harass and chase their political opponents from public places, who condoned rioting, theft, arson, and even murder in the name of "social justice", and who had nothing to say about a section of a US city seceeding from the country. I believe it is the people who supported the Senator who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name if they ruled in a way he disapproved. I believe it is the people who have spoken about unilaterally eliminating the Electoral College, the Senate, the Second Amendment, and making drastic changes to the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights.
Before the 2020 election, Trump did not DO anything that in any way threatened the nation. He did not officially (in an official speech or in official written communication acting in his role as President) say anything that threatened the nation. He unofficially said many rather ridiculous things. He was impeached without being accused of an actual crime. He was hounded, lied about, misrepresented, misquoted, and was even investigated by his own Justice Department on the basis of a document created and supplied by a political opponent.
Trump has unwisely and vociferously maintained that the 2020 elections were "stolen". I have no reason to think he does not believe this. At one point he suggested that, since the Constitution offers no recourse for what he says happened, extra-Constitutional means would need to be used to address it. He did not urge his followers to overthrow the government. He did not attempt to call out the military to "stop the steal" . He did not refuse to leave the Whitehouse.
He has been dragged into court in multiple jurisdictions on charges, some of which are flimsy at best, that are clearly motivated by political considerations. Although he (evidently jokingly) said he would have Hillary arrested for violating the law by having an outside mail server she used for official government business, and for destroying evidence on this server and on cellphones, he never persued that prosecution. In fact, the worst he has done to his "enemies" is to call then enemies of the people, despicable, horrible, and several other names. According to accounts from across the political spectrum, these words left no visible or permanent damage on those who were called names. The same sources have confirmed that Trump has never used "Sticks and Stones" against his political opponents.
Former President Donald Trump is uncultured, egotistical, inarticulate, illinformed, a braggart, an unabashed populist, and I do not like him. But there is no reason for a reasonable, thinking person to honestly consider him a threat to democracy. And there is no legal reason to keep him off the ballot.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. There is a chance of violence breaking out from either side because of their actions or rhetoric. But beyond this election and the immediate aftermath, they are opening the door for reprisals. Tit for Tat. What goes around, comes around. You remove the most popular Republican candidate in this election cycle. Your candidates get removed in the next. Democrats have forgotten that the tables can, and eventually will turn. Eventually they will be out of power. If the Republicans are feeling vengeful, it will be a bad time to be a Democrat.
"Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone."
There were weapons, there were leaders, there was a plan with a range of goals, there were threats by Trump (directed at Mike Pence). There wasn't, at least as far as we know (and I think we would know by now), a typical chain of command with Trump at the top and everyone else carrying out his explicit orders.
If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
I am no Trumper but it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim to think 1) Jan 6th was an insurrection, and 2) Trump incited it. What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot. A riot is not an insurrection. That guy in the Viking hat was going to take over the country? It's absurd. Yes there were a few whack-jobs who were cosplaying at revolution. You can find those people peppering demonstrations on both sides. It doesn't make it an insurrection.
Meanwhile Trump asked the crowd to demonstrate peacefully. Some insurrectionist. Democrats played up Jan 6 for political purposes and the media played along as usual. The End.
So I've had my fun with this thread and am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")
"What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot."
Do you think the Capitol and Metropolitan police who fought for 3 hours would agree with your characterization that the crowd was "goofy?" I have my doubts. Leaving that aside, you apparently do agree that the crowd was "whipped up into a riot" but excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech. I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. He egged the crowd on with a tweet about Pence. He has never even claimed to have involved himself in the deploying of police or troops to the Capitol to regain control, which is one of the biggest Presidential failures in US history in and of itself, but also gives a good sense of what Trump's state of mind was. Also, when he finally did call on the mob to go home, he told the rioters that he loved them, another tell.
What you ignore is that the crowd was one piece of a larger scheme involivng pressure on the VP and members of Congress, forged electoral certificates, and (earlier) pressure on states not to certify their elections.
"am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")"
Sorry you felt condescended to but it was a statement of fact.
"excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech"
No, if you read more carefully you'll see that I did not "excuse" him. I said the head insurrectionist doesn't tell insurrectionists to behave peacefully. Trump behaved badly, as usual, but he was not telling the crowd to storm inside the Capitol, much less engage in armed rebellion against the United States.
"I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. "
You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country.
"You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country."
I haven't said I want Trump struck from the ballot. For me it is a hard question, because the case that he is disqualified under the 14th amendment is strong.
But I'll just ask you this, rather than making any inferences:
Do you really think it was in any way defensible for the President of the United States to spend the 3 hours of of the overruning of the Capitol doing nothing to help? The literal Commander in Chief just sitting there, watching, occasionally tweeting, and not doing any of the many obvious things one would expect a President to do in the event of an attack on a major seat of government in the US?
I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but a gross dereliction of duty.
Yes, I agree it was a gross dereliction of duty. His impeachment should have passed and might have had it been limited to Trump and his dereliction of duty to see the laws faithfully enforced. But that is not the same as leading an insurrection, which is what he was charged with in the impeachment article, and which thereby implicated all the other "insurrectionists," anyone might care to name, including the mob who mainly were a pretty goofy bunch if you ask me. Both Republicans and Democrats together acted in ways that doomed that impeachment. If Trump comes back into power, the option will still be available if needed. I trust that part of the Constitution much more than the 14th, Section 3.
On reading this exchange on Joe's 2020 election question, my first instinct was the same as JAE's comment, John, like Sam Harris is exhibiting TDS. However, John is expressing a point of view that held widely and deserves a serious response (which Glenn offered in part). I'd invite John to consider the following points from someone who sees Trump as unfit for office:
1. Are you not playing a bit fast and loose with the term "insurrection"? You describe what happened as "They were trying to hold up the procedure." Does that sound like an insurrection? Holding up the process was an attempt to implement John Eastman's and Peter Navarro's whacky "Green Bay Sweep" legal strategy. While that effort was bogus, does it really qualify as an insurrection in the meaning of the 14th Amendment?This would be the only insurrection in history attempted without arms. Isn't the use of the term "insurrection" sophistry intended to open up the possibility of first impeachment and then disqualification? Have you read the 3-judge dissent in the 4-3 Colorado decision?
2. Are your historical analogies really apt? The 1960 and 2000 election problems were examples of shenanigans in Cook County and Dade County, respectively. In 2020 we are talking about what Molly Ball described in Time Magazine as a "shadow campaign": There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans." While these conspirators believed they were "fortifying" democracy even i lifelong Democrat like me can recoil at the sheer audacity...oligarchy much? Then there is the spectacle of national security officials concocting a story and coordinating with tech companies to suppress information, not about Hunter Biden's embarrassing sex and drug escapades, but about potential corruption, and Biden specifically relying on that disinformation in presidential debates. Does that not give you pause?
3. Finally, as you acknowledge, there is a difference between the people like Joe who posed the question and the nutters who think the election was stolen in a "bald, absurd, nasty, incontestable way." What might be the effect on folks like Joe and the millions of others, including Democrats and independents who think (a) there were some very troubling aspects of the 2020 effort to "fortify" the election and (b) the current attempts to boot Trump off the ballot and the coordinated lawfare efforts to get him are illegitimate? While I think civil war or even widespread violence is not a likely, isn't it better, as Glenn suggested, to defeat him in an election than to make him a martyr to millions and further erode the institutional trust of even wider swaths of the electorate?
Legally, how do we decide if a candidate engaged in "insurrection"? For most legal processes like this, there's a trial. With witnesses. And the accused has rights to question the witnesses, etc..
Aside from an impeachment ("not guilty"), Trump has not had a trial. He hasn't even been charged in a court of law.
Suppose some Republican person in charge of elections decided that Biden engaged in an insurrection and is ineligible to be on the ballot. You may laugh, but isn't that the legal theory we're putting forward -- that an election official gets to decide if the 14th amendment applies?
There was a (civil) trial in Colorado where Trump was allowed to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses, present his own evidence, even testify had he wanted to.
There was an administrative process in Maine where Trump had the right to present evidence and witnesses, but largely opted not to.
So it is not right to claim that Trump received no due process here. (And his appeal to SCOTUS is another part of that due process).
"Suppose some Republican person in charge of elections decided that Biden engaged in an insurrection and is ineligible to be on the ballot."
A fair point, Steve. Perhaps someone should charge him with that crime... Of course, that's precisely what's happening, but is in the delay, delay, delay state.
Professor Loury, you write, "An election in which legal maneuvering keeps a candidate preferred by half (and maybe more than half) of the electorate off the ballot would not, in my view, be legitimate."
Upholding the rule of law is not "legal maneuvering". We either live by our Constitution or we do not. We can't decide to not uphold the rule of law because Trump is popular with a lot of people. He's popular with them because he lies to them and they believe it, and actually, it doesn't even matter why they like him. There's no "electability" or "likeability" clause. If he is found to have engaged in insurrection, then he is ineligible. The fact that a lot of people will throw a tantrum is irrelevant. And yes, it may lead to violence in the streets. That will have to be dealt with by the rule of law also. Since Trump was first elected we have been heading in this direction. Liberals have not helped matters, but the fault of this insurrectionist mood is almost entirely on the shoulders of Trump. If it takes a civil war and violence in the street to finally break that fever, then I'm afraid that John is right. It may just have to happen. That scares me mightily, but the alternative of Trump as President again scares me even more.
The 14th Amendment was written specifically to deny the vote to those who would send insurrectionists to Washington by rendering those rebels ineligible. The reason it is written that way is because the post civil war south voted to return insurrectionists right back into office after they lost the civil war. The congress passed a constitutional amendment to prevent that, taking that coice off the table for the majority populations in the south and for any other people who were so inclined to elect persons who would not respect the rule of law.
The constitution also grants the states the right to run their own elections. It is completely legitimate for states to determine that candidates that are not eligible to hold office by being too young, not native born, not citizens or INSURRECTIONISTS cannot appear on the ballot.
Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.
Hey Chief, I thought your piece on Dec31 about "the nazi problem" on Substack perfectly addressed the issue, and was so impressed that i subscribed (unintentionally paid btw).
I've seen enough! Thank-you!
I like impartial, thoughtful black writers, you ain't it! 'Race Doesn't Matter' x Duckr Colonial Vest 🤔😒🤨
'The real threat to the Republic... ? Ethnocentric morons? Collectivists?
"Thank God I never went to school
To be flogged into the style of a fool " Wm Blake. Cheers!
Professor Loury, as always, I deeply respect your thinking on this subject, and I was of a similar mind. However, after listening to the arguments posited by both sites of this argument - whether to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot - I am now convinced that Colorado's Supreme Court is well within its right, under the Constitution, to decide as they have done.
I would like to point you to the works of constitutional scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying that founding document and who argue that indeed, Colorado can remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment's Section 3.
You can Judge Michael Luttig to the list of conservative lawyers and constitutional scholars who think the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualifies Trump.
It is remarkable to me that the breakdown of constitutional scholars who are in favor of vs against removal does not alingn on our typical left/right spectrum at all.
Good flag. Thank you for sharing! To be fair, Akhil Amar describes himself as a liberal. He is, however, an originalist Constitutional scholar who gets referenced by both liberal and conservative Justices, it is important to him to uphold the meaning of the Constitution highlighted against the background of its history.
It is farcical to pretend that ANY of this is about the law or about the constitution. It is about people who hate Trump and don't want him to be president. Such people should make it a point to NOT participate in any effort to keep any candidate off the ballot. Whatever democracy is, and nobody seems interested in defining it, if it doesn't include the right of every citizen to speak and VOTE for who a citizen wants to, then democracy is a false god.
People are rationalizing their little hearts out over how to justify keeping Trump off the ballot. And THAT makes them totalitarians. Hitler rationalized persecuting Jews. He didn't just do it, he rationalized it first. If you can't beat Trump with intelligent, rational arguments, and beat him at the ballot box, you DESERVE to loose. You SHOULD lose. Have you thought about that, ever? Maybe YOU are the problem.
I encourage you to engage rationally and dispassionately with the scholars writing about this. You may disagree with their arguments, but those arguments are based on the text of the Constitution.
So are MY arguments. Why do you presume that the "scholars" are right and I am wrong? Why do you presume there is no constitutional or legal basis for what I've said?
I you'd care to express your own interpretations, I'd be glad to hear them. But do not represent to me that I should just take their word for anything, because they're "scholars".
There are those who have dedicated their lives to subject matter expertise. If you're one of the ones who had done so with the Constitution, that is an admirable dedication. I do not see any in-depth analysis in your comments, which doesn't mean you can't provide it. If you want others acknowledging your expertise, it would make sense to make a strong argument for your case. Aggression is not an effective argument, and unfortunately, for a stranger on the internet, it does a disservice to the point you want to make since people can just choose to ignore.
People with 'expertise' claimed that Trump colluded with Russians. They were lying. The Mueller 'investigation' is a certifiable sham. At any rate, it found no collusion. I knew all along that the 'investigation' was a sham. Did you? Or did you simply trust people that you shouldn't have been trusting?
How about the first impeachment? Do you simply trust the expertise of 'experts'? Do you have any idea what it was about? Do you believe that it wasn't entirely politically based, having nothing to do with the constitution? Or do you believe the lies of 'experts'? What did Trump actually do that was impeachable? You have no idea, right? You just trust the 'experts'. The facts are, Trump was impeached for a phone call. That's right, a phone call. EVERY one who was a party to that phone call, including Volodymyr Zelinsky, was incredulous that Trump was impeached for it. But you know all that. Right? Wrong? You trusted the 'experts'?
Did Trump wreck the economy? 'Experts' told us he would. Did he start WWIII? 'Experts' told us he would.
Second impeachment: Allegedly Trump fomented an insurrection, except there was no insurrection. No, don't take my word for it, take the 'expert's' word for it. Merick Garland, Joe Biden's hitman has arrested NO ONE for insurrection on Jan 6. He's the expert, right?
Take a look at all those 'experts'. Have you noticed something? They are all democrat party hacks. Coincidence? Don't be absurd. These are people who have no conscience about trying to illegally and unconstitutionally remove a legitimate citizen and candidate from what they allege will be a legitimate election. If Trump is not on the ballot in every state, it will be for political reasons only. And I will not sit quietly and accept the tyranny of party hack 'experts'. Neither should you. Neither should anyone.
We're talking about the people who now vilify Liz Cheney and her father, John Bolton, and scores of other hard-core conservatives as traitors. They ARE morons, or they are just fascists, if they aren't morons, and that includes perhaps the majority of the people commenting below. I don't even have to read it because I know by now. It's the same type of person who does the work with Ibram X Kendi and condemns Israel right after the Hamas atrocities we saw, only on the right wing of the spectrum. And Lowry catering to that type of idiot is frankly disgusting.
IMHO anyone who cannot make a reasoned argument without calling the other side morons needs to reassess themselves. While people make the whole election about Trump, what they fail to recognize is that it’s not a beauty contest. People who want Trump are adamant about it because they are very powerfully opposed to the direction of the country into socialism and overarching government control, even to the elimination of the constitution in favor of a globalist agenda to take away private property, massive censorship, and human rights. The fact is it isn’t about Trump, it’s because people don’t see another candidate who will stand in front of this. In March Biden will sign a treaty (or whatever form the document takes) agreeing the WEF and WHO can take over and supersede the constitution in the event of a “Health emergency”, whatever that may be constructed to be. Globalists predict Disease X, which is a hypothetical disease, already being talked about as if it is not only real but imminent. If none of this alarms you, perhaps a time will come when it does.
I might add too that the current administration is not very transparent about their ultimate plans. Why isn’t there major public debate about the globalist agenda and the President’s planned buy in in March? Why does the President insist the border is secure when it clearly is not? And on and on? This distrust that is being created drives people to Trump, not because of who he is, but because of what they hope he can stop.
I understand completely: the only candidate the Republican party could nominate who will prevent the sky from falling is Trump. The beliefs that hold up that sentiment are moronic, starting with the complete disregard for the scores of serious conservatives who have been explaining for years now already why Trump will do what he can to destroy the rule of law and the separation of powers, and is therefore unelectable. That's before you consider all the unlawful acts he will be convicted of if time allows and the 3000+ fact-checked lies he uttered while in office. But NO, the election was stolen, 60 lawsuits were all dismissed, some by Trump appointed judges, because they're all part of the deep state etc etc. I know there's no reasoning with any more than there was with my ancestors who voted for Hitler. They weren't particularly bad people, but in terms of political education and insight, they were morons. I know. I grew up with them. That's how I know you, too.
So now you’ve called me a moron as well. Thank you for proving my point as well as failing to address any of the very serious issues within the current agenda. I won’t return the favor of maligning you personally.
I had moronic beliefs,too, when I was young, leftist overreacting to the Hitler past, completely stupid. It comes from reading extremist literature and watching stupid stuff made to convince you that what's obvious can be ignored for the sake of sublime insights, like the threat of a vaccination mandated by an overseas bureaucracy. The WHO is going to turn you into a slave and Biden is complicit and only Trump will stop it. You're going to think of me some day and remember that stuff with embarrassment, unless you actually are a moron, which doesn't appear to be the case, just based on your writing.
Let’s see, you in your wisdom, know my intelligence level, where I get my information, how I will feel about it in the future, and of course, you understand what’s happening in the world and how it will play out with absolute clarity. No other opinions hold any validity. So what would be the point of discussing an issue with someone with such omnipotent knowledge? I guess we will see what events actually play out. I won’t be responding again after this post.
In 2020 the Democrats weaponized all 3 letter American institutions. The genie is out of the bottle and we will never be able to put it back. This is the new normal, deal with it.
Come this July or August, Google will switch on the algorithm, Zuckerberg and the like will dump hundreds of millions of dollars into the race. Sometime after midnight you know who will squeek out a win for a second term.
I'm at the point where I am accepting of the reality, but with the long game in view:
Don't prevent Trump from being on the ballot. He will win. We grit our teeth for four years and put all this behind us for once and for all on January 20, 2029.
Otherwise, HE WILL RUN AGAIN IN 2028 and we'll never be rid of that mf.
That said, if SCOTUS rules Trump disqualified it would take another judicial decision or a 2/3 vote of Congress to allow him to run in 2028. At which point he will be 82, and, recent weeks suggest that age is hitting his mental faculties hard than Biden's. He mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi in an extended rant this weekend.
i don't think this reasoning is sound -- in 2028 he would be 81-82. Everybody ages and his threat proportionally decreases. Running for president is incredible physical exertion -- we'll see that this campaign, not one most 80 some year old men are equipped for, no matter how many billions in campaign funds.
Hahahaha, you’ve been watching too much of The View or Rachel Maddow.
That aside, if you had an honest point to make you wouldn’t use all the extremes you could find for examples now would you. Give it a rest, it’s boring for the rest of us.
Typical Conservative response. Divert. Forced pregnancy is not a problem. Your nonsense only works on Conservative websites. I am not surprised that you don’t find anything wrong.
I simply listen to what the Republicans say. I don’t need Maddow or the View. Republicans embarrass themselves.
The January 6th attack is being justified by the Republican Party. Those who attacked police are being called hostages.,a conman is the party leader. People within the party who complain are kicked out. The Republican Party is the group that has lost the meaning of democracy.
This site serves as a Linus blanket. You are free to rant with very little pushback. When your ideas are taken to the public, you lose. When you do put your economic policies in place, we get the economic collapse of Kansas. So-called economic experts said that we should be in a recession. Instead we have a recovery with growth in the stock market despite Bidenomics and DEI.
Chip Roy admits the GOP has been worthless from an economic standard. The Republics are so insane, they are willing to let pregnant women die by blocking doctors from delivering proper health care. They object to the teaching the full history of the United States, but want to maintain Confederate statues.
Watching a guy carrying a Confederate flag yell about his heritage while at the same time complaining about the cost of slaves sums up Nikki Haley’s nonsense about Confederate heritage.
We have to stop pandering to Conservative bullies. They will never be satisfied. When Republicans see they can’t win, they bum rush the legislative buildings in Michigan and Washington D.C. These people are not patriots.
Edit to add:
Trump supporters tried to stop certification of the election.
When Bush v Gore was decided, Democrats did not attack members of Congress.
No, I do catch occasional snippets on YouTube. Same goes for CNN. Haven’t watched ABC,NBC, or CBS in years. I do gather snippets of video of interviews with politicians. I have seen the gibberish that comes out of the mouth of Nikki Haley regarding Black people. I see Biden justifying a genocide. I listen to the rants of Donald Trump. I really don’t focus on anchor or pundit opinion.
Unless Trump or Biden die, it will be Biden vs Trump. Trump is the bigger danger. Trump was the guy who left his wife at the car when he first came up the White House steps. Trump is the guy who was recently not was not allowed to ride in the same car as his wife. His wife was the one blocking him.
None have been charged, much less convicted, of insurrection. Without any insurrectionists, there was no insurrection -- so Trump didn't incite one. Which he wasn't trying to, either. He wanted a peaceful protest, and almost got it.
The 2020 was stolen. If an election is not free and fair, it is stolen. Censoring the bad truth about one candidate gives that candidate an unfair advantage—if he wins, the loser is right to claim it was unfair, and thus stolen.
Neither John McWhorter nor Arnold Kling accept this principle. They are wrong.
Trump is a jerk, but he fights -- like Grant. And he gets votes. His total went from ~61 million up to ~73 million. Tho the turnout went from 60% up to an unbelievable 65%, which is why I don't believe all that mail-in increase, 65 million envelopes, were properly verified before the ballots inside were counted.
Why weren't all the envelopes from the swing state big counties more thoroughly verified? Because Dems, especially, but also Rep politicians don't really want voter ID and fraud free election.
It should play out in the courts and through the legal process. My point is that it's silly to say that going through the legal process makes it illegitimate and somehow "wrong".
Conservative scholars have made a case for invoking – or really upholding – the Fourteenth Amendment:
W. Baude and M. S. Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Rochester, NY, Aug. 09, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4532751
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
Also, see this Atlantic article by George Conway:
G. T. Conway III, “The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind,” The Atlantic. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/dont-read-the-colorado-ruling-read-the-dissents/676920/
From what you say, I take it the 14th Amendment, Section 3 can be used by anyone, at any time, for any reason at all as long as they say the person excluded engaged in an insurrection, on their say-so of what an insurrection is. From my take on your reasoning, I conclude it sets aside every single rule in the rest of the U.S. Constitution.
Also, I call attention to your claim that the 14th "disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others. . ." By your summary, would that include Kamala Harris, to take only one example, who urged people to help bail out the violent protesters arrested during the summer uprisings, which destroyed, not merely occupied, several public buildings and seized territory in Seattle that they declared no longer a part of the U.S.? (Which is in fact precisely the kind of insurrectionary act the Confederacy took to bring on this amendment in the first place.) I don't say it does include Kamala, but if you think tens of millions won't say it does once Trump is excluded, you are kidding yourself. It is this that Loury is trying, desperately, to get through to those who think this arcane 14th Amendment ploy is some sort of cute law school exercise, nothing more.
To clarify, all of the text in my post above under “Abstract” is by the authors, not by me.
Legally there was no insurrection.
Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone.
Therefore, removing Trump from the ballot is illegitimate.
His opponents continually claim Trump is a threat to democracy, a threat to the Republic, dangerous for everyone who is part of a minority group in the US, and now even a threat to European nations. But who is the real threat? I say it's the people who, weilding the power of the government and law enforcement, have attempted to sidestep the Bill of Rights, particularly Freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, Redress, Due Process, etc. in part by leveraging their regulatory roles to strongarm companies or paying others to censure their opponents and silence them on many social media platforms. (And the people in Great Britain and Ireland who are creating laws against wrongthink and allowing police to enter homes, search electronic devices, and arrest the occupants for possession of unapproved materials such as anti- transgender or anti-migrant cartoons and essays.) I believe the threats are those who had the FBI investigating traditional Roman Catholics and Parental Rights Advocates as domestic terrorists. I believe it is the people who have urged their followers to harass and chase their political opponents from public places, who condoned rioting, theft, arson, and even murder in the name of "social justice", and who had nothing to say about a section of a US city seceeding from the country. I believe it is the people who supported the Senator who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name if they ruled in a way he disapproved. I believe it is the people who have spoken about unilaterally eliminating the Electoral College, the Senate, the Second Amendment, and making drastic changes to the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights.
Before the 2020 election, Trump did not DO anything that in any way threatened the nation. He did not officially (in an official speech or in official written communication acting in his role as President) say anything that threatened the nation. He unofficially said many rather ridiculous things. He was impeached without being accused of an actual crime. He was hounded, lied about, misrepresented, misquoted, and was even investigated by his own Justice Department on the basis of a document created and supplied by a political opponent.
Trump has unwisely and vociferously maintained that the 2020 elections were "stolen". I have no reason to think he does not believe this. At one point he suggested that, since the Constitution offers no recourse for what he says happened, extra-Constitutional means would need to be used to address it. He did not urge his followers to overthrow the government. He did not attempt to call out the military to "stop the steal" . He did not refuse to leave the Whitehouse.
He has been dragged into court in multiple jurisdictions on charges, some of which are flimsy at best, that are clearly motivated by political considerations. Although he (evidently jokingly) said he would have Hillary arrested for violating the law by having an outside mail server she used for official government business, and for destroying evidence on this server and on cellphones, he never persued that prosecution. In fact, the worst he has done to his "enemies" is to call then enemies of the people, despicable, horrible, and several other names. According to accounts from across the political spectrum, these words left no visible or permanent damage on those who were called names. The same sources have confirmed that Trump has never used "Sticks and Stones" against his political opponents.
Former President Donald Trump is uncultured, egotistical, inarticulate, illinformed, a braggart, an unabashed populist, and I do not like him. But there is no reason for a reasonable, thinking person to honestly consider him a threat to democracy. And there is no legal reason to keep him off the ballot.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. There is a chance of violence breaking out from either side because of their actions or rhetoric. But beyond this election and the immediate aftermath, they are opening the door for reprisals. Tit for Tat. What goes around, comes around. You remove the most popular Republican candidate in this election cycle. Your candidates get removed in the next. Democrats have forgotten that the tables can, and eventually will turn. Eventually they will be out of power. If the Republicans are feeling vengeful, it will be a bad time to be a Democrat.
"Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone."
There were weapons, there were leaders, there was a plan with a range of goals, there were threats by Trump (directed at Mike Pence). There wasn't, at least as far as we know (and I think we would know by now), a typical chain of command with Trump at the top and everyone else carrying out his explicit orders.
If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
Your eagerness to put words in my mouth leads me to think you aren't really here in good faith, so good day to you, sir.
I hope you’re never had to use your bear spray and never will.
I almost excluded the “sir” for that very reason but I had the image of an offended British aristo in my head and of course he’d say that.
I am no Trumper but it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim to think 1) Jan 6th was an insurrection, and 2) Trump incited it. What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot. A riot is not an insurrection. That guy in the Viking hat was going to take over the country? It's absurd. Yes there were a few whack-jobs who were cosplaying at revolution. You can find those people peppering demonstrations on both sides. It doesn't make it an insurrection.
Meanwhile Trump asked the crowd to demonstrate peacefully. Some insurrectionist. Democrats played up Jan 6 for political purposes and the media played along as usual. The End.
So I've had my fun with this thread and am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")
"What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot."
Do you think the Capitol and Metropolitan police who fought for 3 hours would agree with your characterization that the crowd was "goofy?" I have my doubts. Leaving that aside, you apparently do agree that the crowd was "whipped up into a riot" but excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech. I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. He egged the crowd on with a tweet about Pence. He has never even claimed to have involved himself in the deploying of police or troops to the Capitol to regain control, which is one of the biggest Presidential failures in US history in and of itself, but also gives a good sense of what Trump's state of mind was. Also, when he finally did call on the mob to go home, he told the rioters that he loved them, another tell.
What you ignore is that the crowd was one piece of a larger scheme involivng pressure on the VP and members of Congress, forged electoral certificates, and (earlier) pressure on states not to certify their elections.
"am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")"
Sorry you felt condescended to but it was a statement of fact.
"excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech"
No, if you read more carefully you'll see that I did not "excuse" him. I said the head insurrectionist doesn't tell insurrectionists to behave peacefully. Trump behaved badly, as usual, but he was not telling the crowd to storm inside the Capitol, much less engage in armed rebellion against the United States.
"I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. "
You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country.
"You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country."
I haven't said I want Trump struck from the ballot. For me it is a hard question, because the case that he is disqualified under the 14th amendment is strong.
But I'll just ask you this, rather than making any inferences:
Do you really think it was in any way defensible for the President of the United States to spend the 3 hours of of the overruning of the Capitol doing nothing to help? The literal Commander in Chief just sitting there, watching, occasionally tweeting, and not doing any of the many obvious things one would expect a President to do in the event of an attack on a major seat of government in the US?
I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but a gross dereliction of duty.
Yes, I agree it was a gross dereliction of duty. His impeachment should have passed and might have had it been limited to Trump and his dereliction of duty to see the laws faithfully enforced. But that is not the same as leading an insurrection, which is what he was charged with in the impeachment article, and which thereby implicated all the other "insurrectionists," anyone might care to name, including the mob who mainly were a pretty goofy bunch if you ask me. Both Republicans and Democrats together acted in ways that doomed that impeachment. If Trump comes back into power, the option will still be available if needed. I trust that part of the Constitution much more than the 14th, Section 3.
"Do you really think it was in any way defensible"
No, as I say Trump behaved badly as usual. Among the reasons I don't intend to vote for him.
On reading this exchange on Joe's 2020 election question, my first instinct was the same as JAE's comment, John, like Sam Harris is exhibiting TDS. However, John is expressing a point of view that held widely and deserves a serious response (which Glenn offered in part). I'd invite John to consider the following points from someone who sees Trump as unfit for office:
1. Are you not playing a bit fast and loose with the term "insurrection"? You describe what happened as "They were trying to hold up the procedure." Does that sound like an insurrection? Holding up the process was an attempt to implement John Eastman's and Peter Navarro's whacky "Green Bay Sweep" legal strategy. While that effort was bogus, does it really qualify as an insurrection in the meaning of the 14th Amendment?This would be the only insurrection in history attempted without arms. Isn't the use of the term "insurrection" sophistry intended to open up the possibility of first impeachment and then disqualification? Have you read the 3-judge dissent in the 4-3 Colorado decision?
2. Are your historical analogies really apt? The 1960 and 2000 election problems were examples of shenanigans in Cook County and Dade County, respectively. In 2020 we are talking about what Molly Ball described in Time Magazine as a "shadow campaign": There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans." While these conspirators believed they were "fortifying" democracy even i lifelong Democrat like me can recoil at the sheer audacity...oligarchy much? Then there is the spectacle of national security officials concocting a story and coordinating with tech companies to suppress information, not about Hunter Biden's embarrassing sex and drug escapades, but about potential corruption, and Biden specifically relying on that disinformation in presidential debates. Does that not give you pause?
3. Finally, as you acknowledge, there is a difference between the people like Joe who posed the question and the nutters who think the election was stolen in a "bald, absurd, nasty, incontestable way." What might be the effect on folks like Joe and the millions of others, including Democrats and independents who think (a) there were some very troubling aspects of the 2020 effort to "fortify" the election and (b) the current attempts to boot Trump off the ballot and the coordinated lawfare efforts to get him are illegitimate? While I think civil war or even widespread violence is not a likely, isn't it better, as Glenn suggested, to defeat him in an election than to make him a martyr to millions and further erode the institutional trust of even wider swaths of the electorate?
Exactly!
Legally, how do we decide if a candidate engaged in "insurrection"? For most legal processes like this, there's a trial. With witnesses. And the accused has rights to question the witnesses, etc..
Aside from an impeachment ("not guilty"), Trump has not had a trial. He hasn't even been charged in a court of law.
Suppose some Republican person in charge of elections decided that Biden engaged in an insurrection and is ineligible to be on the ballot. You may laugh, but isn't that the legal theory we're putting forward -- that an election official gets to decide if the 14th amendment applies?
There was a (civil) trial in Colorado where Trump was allowed to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses, present his own evidence, even testify had he wanted to.
There was an administrative process in Maine where Trump had the right to present evidence and witnesses, but largely opted not to.
So it is not right to claim that Trump received no due process here. (And his appeal to SCOTUS is another part of that due process).
"Suppose some Republican person in charge of elections decided that Biden engaged in an insurrection and is ineligible to be on the ballot."
It is a legitimate problem.
These were NOT trials of Trump, for insurrection.
A fair point, Steve. Perhaps someone should charge him with that crime... Of course, that's precisely what's happening, but is in the delay, delay, delay state.
Professor Loury, you write, "An election in which legal maneuvering keeps a candidate preferred by half (and maybe more than half) of the electorate off the ballot would not, in my view, be legitimate."
Upholding the rule of law is not "legal maneuvering". We either live by our Constitution or we do not. We can't decide to not uphold the rule of law because Trump is popular with a lot of people. He's popular with them because he lies to them and they believe it, and actually, it doesn't even matter why they like him. There's no "electability" or "likeability" clause. If he is found to have engaged in insurrection, then he is ineligible. The fact that a lot of people will throw a tantrum is irrelevant. And yes, it may lead to violence in the streets. That will have to be dealt with by the rule of law also. Since Trump was first elected we have been heading in this direction. Liberals have not helped matters, but the fault of this insurrectionist mood is almost entirely on the shoulders of Trump. If it takes a civil war and violence in the street to finally break that fever, then I'm afraid that John is right. It may just have to happen. That scares me mightily, but the alternative of Trump as President again scares me even more.
Trump is reckless, but this is not?
Why,and how, does Trump scare you?
The 14th Amendment was written specifically to deny the vote to those who would send insurrectionists to Washington by rendering those rebels ineligible. The reason it is written that way is because the post civil war south voted to return insurrectionists right back into office after they lost the civil war. The congress passed a constitutional amendment to prevent that, taking that coice off the table for the majority populations in the south and for any other people who were so inclined to elect persons who would not respect the rule of law.
The constitution also grants the states the right to run their own elections. It is completely legitimate for states to determine that candidates that are not eligible to hold office by being too young, not native born, not citizens or INSURRECTIONISTS cannot appear on the ballot.
How am I wrong?
Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.
Hey Chief, I thought your piece on Dec31 about "the nazi problem" on Substack perfectly addressed the issue, and was so impressed that i subscribed (unintentionally paid btw).
I've seen enough! Thank-you!
I like impartial, thoughtful black writers, you ain't it! 'Race Doesn't Matter' x Duckr Colonial Vest 🤔😒🤨
'The real threat to the Republic... ? Ethnocentric morons? Collectivists?
"Thank God I never went to school
To be flogged into the style of a fool " Wm Blake. Cheers!
Traditionally you arrest the opposition. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
The rest of us simply muddle through.
Professor Loury, as always, I deeply respect your thinking on this subject, and I was of a similar mind. However, after listening to the arguments posited by both sites of this argument - whether to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot - I am now convinced that Colorado's Supreme Court is well within its right, under the Constitution, to decide as they have done.
I would like to point you to the works of constitutional scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying that founding document and who argue that indeed, Colorado can remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment's Section 3.
Professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote this influential SSRN article on Section 3: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Additionally, Professors Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar wrote this amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court on the Trump vs. Norma Anderson, et al. case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf
You can Judge Michael Luttig to the list of conservative lawyers and constitutional scholars who think the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualifies Trump.
It is remarkable to me that the breakdown of constitutional scholars who are in favor of vs against removal does not alingn on our typical left/right spectrum at all.
Good flag. Thank you for sharing! To be fair, Akhil Amar describes himself as a liberal. He is, however, an originalist Constitutional scholar who gets referenced by both liberal and conservative Justices, it is important to him to uphold the meaning of the Constitution highlighted against the background of its history.
Let me add my perspective.
It is farcical to pretend that ANY of this is about the law or about the constitution. It is about people who hate Trump and don't want him to be president. Such people should make it a point to NOT participate in any effort to keep any candidate off the ballot. Whatever democracy is, and nobody seems interested in defining it, if it doesn't include the right of every citizen to speak and VOTE for who a citizen wants to, then democracy is a false god.
People are rationalizing their little hearts out over how to justify keeping Trump off the ballot. And THAT makes them totalitarians. Hitler rationalized persecuting Jews. He didn't just do it, he rationalized it first. If you can't beat Trump with intelligent, rational arguments, and beat him at the ballot box, you DESERVE to loose. You SHOULD lose. Have you thought about that, ever? Maybe YOU are the problem.
I encourage you to engage rationally and dispassionately with the scholars writing about this. You may disagree with their arguments, but those arguments are based on the text of the Constitution.
So are MY arguments. Why do you presume that the "scholars" are right and I am wrong? Why do you presume there is no constitutional or legal basis for what I've said?
I you'd care to express your own interpretations, I'd be glad to hear them. But do not represent to me that I should just take their word for anything, because they're "scholars".
There are those who have dedicated their lives to subject matter expertise. If you're one of the ones who had done so with the Constitution, that is an admirable dedication. I do not see any in-depth analysis in your comments, which doesn't mean you can't provide it. If you want others acknowledging your expertise, it would make sense to make a strong argument for your case. Aggression is not an effective argument, and unfortunately, for a stranger on the internet, it does a disservice to the point you want to make since people can just choose to ignore.
Let's review:
People with 'expertise' claimed that Trump colluded with Russians. They were lying. The Mueller 'investigation' is a certifiable sham. At any rate, it found no collusion. I knew all along that the 'investigation' was a sham. Did you? Or did you simply trust people that you shouldn't have been trusting?
How about the first impeachment? Do you simply trust the expertise of 'experts'? Do you have any idea what it was about? Do you believe that it wasn't entirely politically based, having nothing to do with the constitution? Or do you believe the lies of 'experts'? What did Trump actually do that was impeachable? You have no idea, right? You just trust the 'experts'. The facts are, Trump was impeached for a phone call. That's right, a phone call. EVERY one who was a party to that phone call, including Volodymyr Zelinsky, was incredulous that Trump was impeached for it. But you know all that. Right? Wrong? You trusted the 'experts'?
Did Trump wreck the economy? 'Experts' told us he would. Did he start WWIII? 'Experts' told us he would.
Second impeachment: Allegedly Trump fomented an insurrection, except there was no insurrection. No, don't take my word for it, take the 'expert's' word for it. Merick Garland, Joe Biden's hitman has arrested NO ONE for insurrection on Jan 6. He's the expert, right?
Take a look at all those 'experts'. Have you noticed something? They are all democrat party hacks. Coincidence? Don't be absurd. These are people who have no conscience about trying to illegally and unconstitutionally remove a legitimate citizen and candidate from what they allege will be a legitimate election. If Trump is not on the ballot in every state, it will be for political reasons only. And I will not sit quietly and accept the tyranny of party hack 'experts'. Neither should you. Neither should anyone.
We're talking about the people who now vilify Liz Cheney and her father, John Bolton, and scores of other hard-core conservatives as traitors. They ARE morons, or they are just fascists, if they aren't morons, and that includes perhaps the majority of the people commenting below. I don't even have to read it because I know by now. It's the same type of person who does the work with Ibram X Kendi and condemns Israel right after the Hamas atrocities we saw, only on the right wing of the spectrum. And Lowry catering to that type of idiot is frankly disgusting.
IMHO anyone who cannot make a reasoned argument without calling the other side morons needs to reassess themselves. While people make the whole election about Trump, what they fail to recognize is that it’s not a beauty contest. People who want Trump are adamant about it because they are very powerfully opposed to the direction of the country into socialism and overarching government control, even to the elimination of the constitution in favor of a globalist agenda to take away private property, massive censorship, and human rights. The fact is it isn’t about Trump, it’s because people don’t see another candidate who will stand in front of this. In March Biden will sign a treaty (or whatever form the document takes) agreeing the WEF and WHO can take over and supersede the constitution in the event of a “Health emergency”, whatever that may be constructed to be. Globalists predict Disease X, which is a hypothetical disease, already being talked about as if it is not only real but imminent. If none of this alarms you, perhaps a time will come when it does.
I might add too that the current administration is not very transparent about their ultimate plans. Why isn’t there major public debate about the globalist agenda and the President’s planned buy in in March? Why does the President insist the border is secure when it clearly is not? And on and on? This distrust that is being created drives people to Trump, not because of who he is, but because of what they hope he can stop.
I understand completely: the only candidate the Republican party could nominate who will prevent the sky from falling is Trump. The beliefs that hold up that sentiment are moronic, starting with the complete disregard for the scores of serious conservatives who have been explaining for years now already why Trump will do what he can to destroy the rule of law and the separation of powers, and is therefore unelectable. That's before you consider all the unlawful acts he will be convicted of if time allows and the 3000+ fact-checked lies he uttered while in office. But NO, the election was stolen, 60 lawsuits were all dismissed, some by Trump appointed judges, because they're all part of the deep state etc etc. I know there's no reasoning with any more than there was with my ancestors who voted for Hitler. They weren't particularly bad people, but in terms of political education and insight, they were morons. I know. I grew up with them. That's how I know you, too.
So now you’ve called me a moron as well. Thank you for proving my point as well as failing to address any of the very serious issues within the current agenda. I won’t return the favor of maligning you personally.
I had moronic beliefs,too, when I was young, leftist overreacting to the Hitler past, completely stupid. It comes from reading extremist literature and watching stupid stuff made to convince you that what's obvious can be ignored for the sake of sublime insights, like the threat of a vaccination mandated by an overseas bureaucracy. The WHO is going to turn you into a slave and Biden is complicit and only Trump will stop it. You're going to think of me some day and remember that stuff with embarrassment, unless you actually are a moron, which doesn't appear to be the case, just based on your writing.
Let’s see, you in your wisdom, know my intelligence level, where I get my information, how I will feel about it in the future, and of course, you understand what’s happening in the world and how it will play out with absolute clarity. No other opinions hold any validity. So what would be the point of discussing an issue with someone with such omnipotent knowledge? I guess we will see what events actually play out. I won’t be responding again after this post.
In 2020 the Democrats weaponized all 3 letter American institutions. The genie is out of the bottle and we will never be able to put it back. This is the new normal, deal with it.
Come this July or August, Google will switch on the algorithm, Zuckerberg and the like will dump hundreds of millions of dollars into the race. Sometime after midnight you know who will squeek out a win for a second term.
Conservatives are usually pro-money in campaigns. Citizens United is a decision conservatives support and liberals oppose.
And if so...then what?
I'm at the point where I am accepting of the reality, but with the long game in view:
Don't prevent Trump from being on the ballot. He will win. We grit our teeth for four years and put all this behind us for once and for all on January 20, 2029.
Otherwise, HE WILL RUN AGAIN IN 2028 and we'll never be rid of that mf.
Your position here might be the right one.
That said, if SCOTUS rules Trump disqualified it would take another judicial decision or a 2/3 vote of Congress to allow him to run in 2028. At which point he will be 82, and, recent weeks suggest that age is hitting his mental faculties hard than Biden's. He mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi in an extended rant this weekend.
i don't think this reasoning is sound -- in 2028 he would be 81-82. Everybody ages and his threat proportionally decreases. Running for president is incredible physical exertion -- we'll see that this campaign, not one most 80 some year old men are equipped for, no matter how many billions in campaign funds.
If Trump wins, we may not get the chance to vote again.
With a Republican majority, Mike Johnson will not certify the election
We have gone through multiple snipe hunts based on Conservative delusions
Republicans said the following:
Obama was not born in the United States
There was/is a war on Christmas
We can’t say “Merry Christmas” anymore
Children are coming to school dressed as cats
Conservatives have seen litter boxes in public school classrooms
Books about Ann Frank and Martin Luther King Jr., should not be in school libraries
If tax-paying parents want their children to read those books, they should have to buy them
Only a group of women with a person involved in a threesome should dictate library purchases
Learning about slavery makes Black children feel
This despite Black children feel empowered knowing what ancestors overcame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/24/florida-black-history-churches-teaching/
A 12-year old enough to bring a fetus to birth
That same 12- year old is not old enough to read a book with anything close to sexual content
A woman with a failed pregnancy needs to be a death’s door before receiving treatment
Blacks need to forget about slavery, but statues honoring enslavers should remain
The ist goes on
These people are not going to accept any result that does not agree with their worldview
They are threatening judges, court employees, election workers, etc.
They will not be going away.
Blue states send money to Red States
Red States lead the list of poorest states
Blue States have better health outcomes and longevity
Time to confront the Conservative madness now.
Hahahaha, you’ve been watching too much of The View or Rachel Maddow.
That aside, if you had an honest point to make you wouldn’t use all the extremes you could find for examples now would you. Give it a rest, it’s boring for the rest of us.
Typical Conservative response. Divert. Forced pregnancy is not a problem. Your nonsense only works on Conservative websites. I am not surprised that you don’t find anything wrong.
I simply listen to what the Republicans say. I don’t need Maddow or the View. Republicans embarrass themselves.
Yep. A lot of nutty stuff!
But, if I were Democrats, I wouldn't throw stones...
If Trump wins, democracy loses.
Then you haven't a clue what democracy means. Let alone a Republic. Ffs
The January 6th attack is being justified by the Republican Party. Those who attacked police are being called hostages.,a conman is the party leader. People within the party who complain are kicked out. The Republican Party is the group that has lost the meaning of democracy.
This site serves as a Linus blanket. You are free to rant with very little pushback. When your ideas are taken to the public, you lose. When you do put your economic policies in place, we get the economic collapse of Kansas. So-called economic experts said that we should be in a recession. Instead we have a recovery with growth in the stock market despite Bidenomics and DEI.
Chip Roy admits the GOP has been worthless from an economic standard. The Republics are so insane, they are willing to let pregnant women die by blocking doctors from delivering proper health care. They object to the teaching the full history of the United States, but want to maintain Confederate statues.
Watching a guy carrying a Confederate flag yell about his heritage while at the same time complaining about the cost of slaves sums up Nikki Haley’s nonsense about Confederate heritage.
https://youtu.be/9QJgTVvEkVg?si=7sM6Jy8GL4lMzzlO
We have to stop pandering to Conservative bullies. They will never be satisfied. When Republicans see they can’t win, they bum rush the legislative buildings in Michigan and Washington D.C. These people are not patriots.
Edit to add:
Trump supporters tried to stop certification of the election.
When Bush v Gore was decided, Democrats did not attack members of Congress.
Conservatives do not believe in democracy.
Just curious: do you watch a lot of MSNBC?
No, I do catch occasional snippets on YouTube. Same goes for CNN. Haven’t watched ABC,NBC, or CBS in years. I do gather snippets of video of interviews with politicians. I have seen the gibberish that comes out of the mouth of Nikki Haley regarding Black people. I see Biden justifying a genocide. I listen to the rants of Donald Trump. I really don’t focus on anchor or pundit opinion.
Unless Trump or Biden die, it will be Biden vs Trump. Trump is the bigger danger. Trump was the guy who left his wife at the car when he first came up the White House steps. Trump is the guy who was recently not was not allowed to ride in the same car as his wife. His wife was the one blocking him.
Trump is the bigger threat.
Edit to add:
Do you listen to Fox or OAN?
Nope. Like you, I disdain major media.