I have been concerned about the Colorado ruling. Then I found that conservative scholars have made a very comprehensive 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First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.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.
Well, Stacey, an ad hominem attack is one that expresses a personal insult, like "horrible, racist and self serving" and "grifter". Ringing any bells, Stacey? In contrast, a reasoned argument addresses the substance of the actions. Can you muster an argument or prefer to spew? As for the "unqualified" appointment to the Supreme Court, would you be able to state who that was in what way they were unqualified? People suffering from TDS are prone to insulting rants and you passed the test with flying colors.
I find the ubiquitous disclaimer "I didn't vote for Trump" with some comments, to be a symbol of the true problem, fear of perceived alignment when it should be fear over the degradation of norms and laws by the left. This is the true threat to Democracy, not White Supremacy as the shameful Governor of New York, along with a dangerously inept President Biden declared. The get Trump off the ballot trend is out of the playbook of dictators. Putin only goes a half step further, opponents don't make it to the ballot because they've been poisoned. I don't believe any of the ballot nonsense will hold up. It will also lead to far greater wins for Trump. He deserves to win if the left wants to play this way. The center most definitely did not hold in America. As a centrist democrat, I've continued in small drifts rightward until I now find myself standing on a rock for one with water rapidly rising around me. I am a man with no land. The parties abandoned reasonable debate, principled disagreement and a demand that only facts be presented. The progressive left has bigger voices and the media amplifies their messages and never questions their glaring contradictions. They are fueling this on a much grander scale as they decimate the democratic party and classic liberalism. With that ending, so shall I start swimming to a safer land. I didn't vote for Trump, but maybe I should have.
"In a time when elite schools appear uniquely removed from reality, amid a political moment defined by elite failure, the irony is profound. Trump campaigns on “saving America” from elites seeking to thwart the will of the people. Those elites, in turn, respond by confirming Trump’s worst allegations."
We have WEF telling us "we will own nothing and be happy" while installing operatives in government cabinets across the western world. We have the WHO, after cowing to CCP curtain pulling about origins and experimentation, pushing vaccine passports. We have the American "representative" government voting to continue FISA after massive number and breadth of abuses were revealed.
Elites are showing themselves to be enemies of of western democracy.
Peter Meijer's attempt to cleanse the stain of his childish backlash vote to impeach Trump is as
poorly considered as the vote itself. The Colorado decision will pass into history as just another case of judicial malfeasance set right by the US Surpreme Court, which is what our court system is dsigned to do. That Colorado chose to join the ranks of Judicial idiots that supported "separate-bu-equal" and Japanese Internment camps will remain a warning beaco to all of us that judges aren't always "of honor".
“What is extraordinary today will be precedent tomorrow; past exceptions become today’s rule. Bending the law and loosening interpretations to force Trump’s accountability for January 6 into the legal realm will be far more damaging in the long term than whatever Trump’s opponents think they might prevent.”
I would have liked to hear a little mea culpa from the author at this point. Weaponization of impeachment is a perfect example of what he is talking about. Might it have been a mistake for him to participate in this extraordinary action?
Um, the plaintiffs in the Colorado suit were Republicans (except 2 unaffiliated).
"They have made clear that they believe it's important not just for constitutional accountability but to ensure that Republican voters in Colorado had a primary that had the utmost integrity and had only qualified candidates in it," he said. "That's one of the reasons why they brought this case, and it's one of the reasons why we and they are so thrilled at the court's judicious decision."
I love Noah's thinking (I'm familiar with his work because of his association with The Bulwark) - I also love that this piece is bursting at the seams with his POV but he holds it in till the vary last sentence (which I wouldn't have been able to resist opening the piece with, if I was writing it).
"...it had become fashionable to lambast American hegemony, to speak derisively of “American exceptionalism”, to ridicule America’s self-arrogated function of “world police”, and to yearn for a multipolar world. Well, congratulations, now we have that world. See if you like it better."
That's what I'm shouting from the rooftops. But I do think that it's a bit early to start writing obituaries and swan songs. If we can dodge the Social Media bullet and if the US pivots just a tiny bit in the direction of not being a nation of self indulgent children who see every problem, no matter how small, as a catastrophe... this might just be the beginning of autocracy's last gasps(?).
Merry Christmas to you as well - and a Happy New Year!
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a bench trial verdict issued by Colorado District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace. She ruled: “The Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” Judge Wallace based her decision on the House Select Committee’s Jan. 6 Report, having dismissed “the idea that any amount of political bias would render the January 6th Report untrustworthy.” However, she did not take into account that the Senate had acquitted Trump of insurrection.
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a bench trial verdict issued by Colorado District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace. She ruled that the Jan. 6 Riot constituted an insurrection and that Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting the riot during his speech at the Ellipse. But it’s doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree that a four-hour riot in which the only shot fired was fired by a Capitol Police office constitutes an insurrection or rebellion. The U.S. Justice Department has charged a thousand rioters for participating in the Jan. 6 Riot, but not a single one is charged with insurrection. In its indictment, the Justice Department charged the rioters with participating in a “civil disorder,” not an insurrection or rebellion.
I didn't see that in the article. I was mainly referring to the Judges that found for the plaintiff. I feel that the decision of the court is more important as it is binding rather than the arguments from either the plaintiff or the defendant. I will do some more research into this; you have me curious now as to who exactly instigated the proceedings.
Left wing nut job here reporting for comment duty. Just to inform the right wing nut jobs that in the parallel universe the issue of Trump having tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and committed the related crimes, isn't complicated. That is, if you don't get your news and interpretations thereof from Tucker Goebbels or Nellie Bowles. For our Nellie, this can only be acting the fool for the sake of the corporation and/or the usual incapacity to walk and chew gum. If you admitted that OJ killed a couple of people, you wasn't black, and if you admit that Trump belongs in prison you isn't against the general plague we come here to complain about but likely an antisemitic wokist, formerly a Commie. And you don't have a sense of humor, neither, thus don't see the connection between tweeting on Roseanne 10 times a day and having the noose ready for Traitor Pence, or making a perfect phone call for some votes, don't appreciate the spectacle of the break-in to the Capitol. It means you don't get out much and never seen the Godfather. Humorless sissy reporting, too, come to think of it.
Excellent article from someone who obviously is not a Trump enthusiast. What I didn't realize was that all of the Ivy League justices voted to disqualify Trump. It's frightening to think of the hundreds of future lawyers from these so-called elite schools who will share these same anti-democratic tendencies whenever they get the opportunity.
I have been concerned about the Colorado ruling. Then I found that conservative scholars have made a very comprehensive 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/
(I also posted this on the Glen Loury – John McWhorter discussion.)
Well, Stacey, an ad hominem attack is one that expresses a personal insult, like "horrible, racist and self serving" and "grifter". Ringing any bells, Stacey? In contrast, a reasoned argument addresses the substance of the actions. Can you muster an argument or prefer to spew? As for the "unqualified" appointment to the Supreme Court, would you be able to state who that was in what way they were unqualified? People suffering from TDS are prone to insulting rants and you passed the test with flying colors.
I find the ubiquitous disclaimer "I didn't vote for Trump" with some comments, to be a symbol of the true problem, fear of perceived alignment when it should be fear over the degradation of norms and laws by the left. This is the true threat to Democracy, not White Supremacy as the shameful Governor of New York, along with a dangerously inept President Biden declared. The get Trump off the ballot trend is out of the playbook of dictators. Putin only goes a half step further, opponents don't make it to the ballot because they've been poisoned. I don't believe any of the ballot nonsense will hold up. It will also lead to far greater wins for Trump. He deserves to win if the left wants to play this way. The center most definitely did not hold in America. As a centrist democrat, I've continued in small drifts rightward until I now find myself standing on a rock for one with water rapidly rising around me. I am a man with no land. The parties abandoned reasonable debate, principled disagreement and a demand that only facts be presented. The progressive left has bigger voices and the media amplifies their messages and never questions their glaring contradictions. They are fueling this on a much grander scale as they decimate the democratic party and classic liberalism. With that ending, so shall I start swimming to a safer land. I didn't vote for Trump, but maybe I should have.
Probably the most poignant part of the essay:
"In a time when elite schools appear uniquely removed from reality, amid a political moment defined by elite failure, the irony is profound. Trump campaigns on “saving America” from elites seeking to thwart the will of the people. Those elites, in turn, respond by confirming Trump’s worst allegations."
We have WEF telling us "we will own nothing and be happy" while installing operatives in government cabinets across the western world. We have the WHO, after cowing to CCP curtain pulling about origins and experimentation, pushing vaccine passports. We have the American "representative" government voting to continue FISA after massive number and breadth of abuses were revealed.
Elites are showing themselves to be enemies of of western democracy.
Peter Meijer's attempt to cleanse the stain of his childish backlash vote to impeach Trump is as
poorly considered as the vote itself. The Colorado decision will pass into history as just another case of judicial malfeasance set right by the US Surpreme Court, which is what our court system is dsigned to do. That Colorado chose to join the ranks of Judicial idiots that supported "separate-bu-equal" and Japanese Internment camps will remain a warning beaco to all of us that judges aren't always "of honor".
“What is extraordinary today will be precedent tomorrow; past exceptions become today’s rule. Bending the law and loosening interpretations to force Trump’s accountability for January 6 into the legal realm will be far more damaging in the long term than whatever Trump’s opponents think they might prevent.”
I would have liked to hear a little mea culpa from the author at this point. Weaponization of impeachment is a perfect example of what he is talking about. Might it have been a mistake for him to participate in this extraordinary action?
Um, the plaintiffs in the Colorado suit were Republicans (except 2 unaffiliated).
"They have made clear that they believe it's important not just for constitutional accountability but to ensure that Republican voters in Colorado had a primary that had the utmost integrity and had only qualified candidates in it," he said. "That's one of the reasons why they brought this case, and it's one of the reasons why we and they are so thrilled at the court's judicious decision."
https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-gop-voters-lawsuit-disqualifying-trump-colorado-ballot-supreme-court-2023-12
Thanks Matt,
I love Noah's thinking (I'm familiar with his work because of his association with The Bulwark) - I also love that this piece is bursting at the seams with his POV but he holds it in till the vary last sentence (which I wouldn't have been able to resist opening the piece with, if I was writing it).
"...it had become fashionable to lambast American hegemony, to speak derisively of “American exceptionalism”, to ridicule America’s self-arrogated function of “world police”, and to yearn for a multipolar world. Well, congratulations, now we have that world. See if you like it better."
That's what I'm shouting from the rooftops. But I do think that it's a bit early to start writing obituaries and swan songs. If we can dodge the Social Media bullet and if the US pivots just a tiny bit in the direction of not being a nation of self indulgent children who see every problem, no matter how small, as a catastrophe... this might just be the beginning of autocracy's last gasps(?).
Merry Christmas to you as well - and a Happy New Year!
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a bench trial verdict issued by Colorado District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace. She ruled: “The Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” Judge Wallace based her decision on the House Select Committee’s Jan. 6 Report, having dismissed “the idea that any amount of political bias would render the January 6th Report untrustworthy.” However, she did not take into account that the Senate had acquitted Trump of insurrection.
Glad you were defeated
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a bench trial verdict issued by Colorado District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace. She ruled that the Jan. 6 Riot constituted an insurrection and that Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting the riot during his speech at the Ellipse. But it’s doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree that a four-hour riot in which the only shot fired was fired by a Capitol Police office constitutes an insurrection or rebellion. The U.S. Justice Department has charged a thousand rioters for participating in the Jan. 6 Riot, but not a single one is charged with insurrection. In its indictment, the Justice Department charged the rioters with participating in a “civil disorder,” not an insurrection or rebellion.
I didn't see that in the article. I was mainly referring to the Judges that found for the plaintiff. I feel that the decision of the court is more important as it is binding rather than the arguments from either the plaintiff or the defendant. I will do some more research into this; you have me curious now as to who exactly instigated the proceedings.
I love this publication.
Left wing nut job here reporting for comment duty. Just to inform the right wing nut jobs that in the parallel universe the issue of Trump having tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and committed the related crimes, isn't complicated. That is, if you don't get your news and interpretations thereof from Tucker Goebbels or Nellie Bowles. For our Nellie, this can only be acting the fool for the sake of the corporation and/or the usual incapacity to walk and chew gum. If you admitted that OJ killed a couple of people, you wasn't black, and if you admit that Trump belongs in prison you isn't against the general plague we come here to complain about but likely an antisemitic wokist, formerly a Commie. And you don't have a sense of humor, neither, thus don't see the connection between tweeting on Roseanne 10 times a day and having the noose ready for Traitor Pence, or making a perfect phone call for some votes, don't appreciate the spectacle of the break-in to the Capitol. It means you don't get out much and never seen the Godfather. Humorless sissy reporting, too, come to think of it.
All I can say is Ditto
Excellent article from someone who obviously is not a Trump enthusiast. What I didn't realize was that all of the Ivy League justices voted to disqualify Trump. It's frightening to think of the hundreds of future lawyers from these so-called elite schools who will share these same anti-democratic tendencies whenever they get the opportunity.