Various constitutional lawyers have been weighing in lately on whether former president Donald Trump and others who participated in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The third section of that amendment, ratified in 1868, reads:
WOW WOW WOW! This is what I have been waiting to hear and you explain it perfectly in the context of a living history. Bravo, once again, Dr Richardson. Will it make the front pages of the WP and NYT.? Do the editors read your column? Praying they do.
I join you Diane, in a hearty thank you and share your feeling of WOW.
The NY Times did report on Baude's upcoming paper on August 11th BUT, it did not even come close to being as good as Dr. Richardson's home run writing today.
The Times article simply said that some conservatives I never heard of from law schools had concluded what any 8th grader would conclude by reading the 14th amendment in history class. It was a surface story that left me befuddled because, lots of people were writing the same thing on January 7th 2021.
Dr. Richardson's letter today? Now THIS is real background, real history and offers anyone, including those folks who claim to be "originalists", an origin story around the 14th amendment and Trump's disqualification.
Today's letter is, without a doubt, the best letter I have read so far from Prof Richardson, and, I must have written this same sentence 10 times, about 10 letters, since I started reading Dr. Richardson here.
I have saved this and will send it to all my dwindling Republican friends. I don't know if they can concentrate for the 5 minutes needed to read the entire letter, so many Americans cannot, but, I will try.
Last comment about "originalists". IF we are going to treat gun LAWS by originalist thinking THEN we need to outlaw ALL GUNS in existence today, that did not EXIST at the time of the formation of the country. So, the only guns for sale can be single shot muzzle loaders that take 2 minutes reload.
This, returning to the ORIGINAL guns that were present at the birth of the nation, will solve the mass shooting problem. I am an ORIGINALIST where gun sales are concerned.
The all male founders of the American nation, undoubtedly, were not interested in being presented children they would be forced to raise, that were not of their own marriages by women they were not married to.
In those days, a married male would be a pariah if a woman came forward with a kid that looked like, say, John Adams but, the kid and the woman were not of his wife. Victorian morality was still in place. Not that Victorian morality was any different from any other time in human evolution. Folks enjoyed sex. It was just supposed to be invisible.
So, it is no surprise that abortion is not mentioned in any early laws. Men fully supported it (abortion).
One update to abortion laws, or their absence, in the early part of the nation's history:
In the southern states, beginning with Virginia, the laws on the books for female slaves were: Rape by a white man was legal (reference: The 1619 Book Project arranged by Nicole Hannah Jones. )
So, in THAT case, when the slave came forward pregnant, the male slave owner was not only PROUD of the outcome, he could SELL the resultant light colored slave for a lot of money.
Just to add clarity about abortion in the early days of the nation. For female slaves, abortion was probably illegal.
Gosh, all those nearly white kids who looked likeJefferson making nails at Monticello. I always laugh about Victorian morality which applied only to women as there was quite an underworld of Victorian sexuality going on with the men. Victorian hypocrisy actually. Victoria enjoyed sex, but not the result as she didn't enjoy being PG at least nine times.
Women and children belonged to the father. And they couldn't inherit. Think about Pride and Prejudice....all daughters and Downton Abbey....all daughters. My mother-in-law was the first woman to get a credit card in her own name at a certain department store here in Salem. Not Victorian times, but the idea that a woman couldn't be responsible. It took a certain type of woman to defy the standards of Victorian England. I am thinking of George Eliot for example.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
PLUS: UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS:
ALL STATES HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT, PROTECT AND FULFILL WOMEN’S RIGHTS RELATED TO ABORTION SERVICES
We need to teach women to get every male sex partner's ID and DNA. When they start getting nailed for "damages" and 20 years worth of support ....maybe they will not be so Okay with voting that women get stuck with the results of a little fun.
I’m glad we have the obvious constitutional safeguard against insurrectionists holding office. But I wonder how the enforcement of this looks… only kicking in after said traitor is elected?? Not a good situation. Much better to nip this in the bud with one of a hundred counts of felony. Felons can’t hold office, can they?
Actually they freaking can. In many states felons can’t vote, but they can become president from jail!! Eugene Debs tried and received a million votes from jail.
This needs a constitutional amendment, or Voting/Democracy Restoration Act ASAP.
Can you imagine an anti-democratic insurrectionist leader and convicted multiple felon with a mafioso authoritarian nepotistic regime holding the office of president?
As you may have noticed, many provisions of the Constitution were ignored by Trump and his fellows. The Emoluments Clause, for one. The Constitution must be enforced by either any of the 3 branches of government, or directly by us, the People.
Under Trump, the Executive was run by him corruptly, so no enforcement there. No cases were brought before the Judiciary -- till now! And the Legislative branch, while doing an excellent job on the January 6 insurrection, really didn't even investigate a lot of the violations of the Constitution.
For example, why all the investigations of Hunter Biden but none of Jared Kushner and Ivanka? The Dems generally don't push hard enough for accountability, and now that Repubs have a House Majority, they push conspiracy theories to damage Dems politically.
Ryan McCormick, the last six years have been dominated by an anti-democratic mafioso authoritarian nepotistic regime holding the office of president for four years, and now he will, hopefully, be convicted of multiple felonies as an insurrectionist. The first four years have brought most of us to the brink of mental breakdown, and I fervently pray that his current campaign won't be successful. How we manage to survive his cretinous spawn, even if he loses, is another matter.
Since Biden inauguration, I've taken a mental break from my political anguish... kind of like how I did with Obama, trusting and noting that their administrations were doing the right things that beneficent governance can achieve.
And like the burnout and PTSD I feel from taking care of people during the darkest days of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, I'm not ready for another pandemic, although we might have to be.
I'm not psychologically prepared for the kind of regime you mention, either. Trump or similar.
Ryan, I can only imagine how stressed these years during and since TFG have been for you, having to deal with the angst of your patients, as well as the pandemic.
I, too, have been much less anxious since Biden's presidency, and I'm trying to give short shrift to all of the gloom mongers who are predicting a win for the dark side next year.
Take care of your patients, and I'll do what I can to encourage sane people to vote. I haven't given up on optimism - yet.
How sane! This horrific predicament should've been nipped in the bud when the orange man announced a second run. What's great here is that Luttig and Tribe, both highly esteemed and with diametrically opposed political views, are saying the same thing. Section 3 is there for a reason and ignoring it is irresponsible. Evoking it lays the groundwork to eject the traitor. It imbues me with a bit of hope....
I agree. However, I believe it would be up to individual secretaries of state to determine Defendant Don's qualification to be on their state's ballot. If so, I wonder: how many have the courage to disqualify him? Unless this becomes a movement to rid ourselves of the scourge of this tyrant, I find it unlikely to happen.
There will be NO enforcement. No court, not judge, no USSC Justice will act in any way to prevent the GOP from having Trump as their Presidential candidate.
Any Judge or Justice who voted to keep Trump off the ballot of any state would immediately be targeted - for death - by the MAGA cult. The Judge/Justice would need a security detail for the rest of his/her life
It's atrocious that these justices are held hostage by these thugs' threats! However, many people have shown great courage and have done their jobs despite threats....
Bridget, this sounds like a logical solution for gun ownership. Show up once a month for duty and be available to be called up in emergencies. And follow only the orders of your military leaders.
Everyone should try to read at least part of the document HCR focuses on today. In the first 10 pages I learned something from the "originalist" authors namely originalism doesn't mean everything in the Constitution is carved in stone. They say that some rules either overshoot or undershoot the supposed intuition of the.rule authors, but once it's past it is what it is.
That's how these originalist conservatives defend Sec 3's validity today with regard to "insurrections or rebellions". Not saying I support the originalist view, it was obvious the Framers created an organic document by allowing for Amendments, but I appreciate the explanation on pg 10 about the consequences of written language and how untended consequences may arrive or give reason for future realities not considered at the time.
Somehow - as much as that is actual truth - I have much faith (?) in this SC that they can manage to deconstruct it in order for their reading of it.
Before we get too excited about djt not being able to run - remember all the "norms" that he blew thru & ignored? Whats to stop him? WHO will stop him and all the other up and coming dictators running?
Mike S -- " IF we are going to treat gun LAWS by originalist thinking THEN we need to outlaw ALL GUNS in existence today, that did not EXIST at the time of the formation of the country. So, the only guns for sale can be single shot muzzle loaders that take 2 minutes reload."
I have a bunch of longterm friends who, as it turns out, are Republican. We have avoided much political talk for the sake of the friendships. I'm included in an occasional group post of right nonsense (that I ignore.) I've sent some Heather/ Robert Reich/ Joyce Vance Substacks their way that apparently do get read. Lo and behold! Just last week, more than one have said "I can't vote for him ever again!" They are dwindling Republicans, but not dwindling friends. Changing hearts, one at a time.
If you think there is any internal consistency to originalism, you are mistaken. It's a complete sham, a mere papering over of retrograde thinking about rights, citizenship, and inclusivity. I am a little disturbed that it was used as a seeming bolster to these papers in HCR's post.
I am also very puzzled why so many commenters in Dr Richardson's substack go out of their way to insult the reading, powers of concentration and sometimes general intelligence of their "friends". If you read these comments regularly, you'll see it's a common theme.
Tom...agree...internal consistency to the "originalism" in interpretation of our laws is confusing...not a sham as you suggest but merely transactional...a concept I am sure you (respectfully) are familiar with...as with the reactions to its interpretations.
True...the "insult" theme is often part of a resident thread here. It is widely suggested...and even accepted...if you must judge people...base it on their actions...and then temper that judgement with an effort at a deeper understanding of their motivations. Of course their actions -> must/should be a major result of that person's ability to process and choice of reading sources, powers of concentration and sometimes general intelligence. You cannot avoid some assessments of your "friends" who so willingly fill in the gaps of their minds with cognitive dissonance and self-supporting fairy tales. Ready fodder for a media ecosystem that both shelters securely its viewers in an ideological bubble, free from facts, while also pumping lies and hate into our society like poison 24-7.
But I don’t feel compelled to judge others. Not a morality thing, but a practicality thing. Unless you’re a mind reader, you’re bound to get it wrong. And beyond that, what is the use?
I am friends with a lot of people, and about half of them I have no idea of their politics.
As for originalism, it is sheer intellectual dishonest, a pretense erected to give pseudo-intellectual cover for retrograde thinking. Good heavens, read A Court of One. Or Scalia’s dissents, many of them.
He is proof that sterling academic and legal credentials don’t make a moral man.
My “favorite” Scalia quote in a majority opinion? “The Constitution guarantees every man a trial when accused of a crime. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial.”
Thank you and for your more clarifying comments on the absurdity of so called Originalists on the Court today. Logic and critical thinking are obviously not part of their repertoire or qualifications for the Court.
Agreed. There's this quote I love, "there's a reason they teach history to us as KIDS, when we CAN'T do anything about it, versus, teaching history to us as ADULTS when we CAN do something about it"
And especially as "Republicans" would have it, a sharply abridged if not falsified history in the primary schools. But genuine DIY democracy means lifelong learning and engagement. We just can't safely pilot the ship of state without keeping a sharp watch, and doing our "homework", at any age.
J.L., I love your words DIY (do it yourself) Democracy. That should be taught to us from the time we are little: We live in a Representative Democracy AND a DIY Democracy. DIY because some representatives are more self-serving than public-serving and so each of us has to consciously work in whatever we can to build a stronger democracy.
DIY because if we are not responsible for our own society's choices, who is? If it is not we who are not setting the agenda for our hired fiduciary agents to champion, then who is? To the degree that our representatives use the powers entrusted to them to enrich or further empower themselves is classic corruption, and corruption is the road to tyranny. History bristles with object lessons of that. The naked conflict of interest of Clarence Thomas in a role that demands avoiding even the appearance of corruption is a constitutional crisis on it's own. Government employees or even private in similar circumstances are often fired on the spot, not for proven malfeasance, but for violating safeguards proscribing conflicts of interest. With greater power comes greater responsibly. That's true when we decide to give a kid car keys or a pocket knife. It's all the more true in roles that profoundly affect the lives of many.
Democracy, certainly "liberty and justice of all" is not a spectator sport where winner takes all. It is not a menu prepared by others from which we choose, with "no substitutions". It is not supposed to be "One dollar, one vote". When we make bad choices or cede them to those with an axe to grind, we suffer as a whole, and those already most deprived most of all. If you look at the big picture of what is occurring, as we speak, to our planet's climate, it is terrifying, and yet not entirely inevitable. Like knowing, based on age, I am approaching the end of my life, I can't dwell on the reality of that all the time, but it's crazy to let our quality of life, or even existence as a species, drift toward the edge. It's crazy to tolerate blatant and destructive abuses of power, and shrug. And yes, I'm crazy too, but try to improve my focus. We are at a point where focus is increasingly necessary.
J.L., I agree. We have a lot of corruption that causes so much suffering. And it is quite absurd as we experience greater and greater death and destruction of nature (including us) and we draw closer to doom, some in power still cling to short-sighted and irrational greed. I know that we as a nation are also going to experience increasing political violence as one party seems intent on it, by constantly watering the seeds of violence against each and every of its perceived enemies.
As you say, we need to stay focused. I hope you will get to stay here with us as long as you wish. Some helpful reminders for my focus are: Discern truth from lie. Don't go down rabbit holes or stay too long in the weeds. Care for myself and others. Do everything I can. Stay present to my fear and anger but don't let them guide me. Never see anyone as an enemy, opponent yes. And remember we must go through great pain for our egos to be rattled and diminished so America can emerge even more beautiful than she is!
I was just asking for clarification from Gail Adams (above); I'm well aware of john schmeekel, but was surprised at what seemed to be a random comment.
This website https://thinkingispower.com/ is run by Melanie Trecek-King, an associate professor of biology at Massasoit Community College in Massachusetts. She nails it, i.e., the process of what excellent teaching entails. Misinformation and disinformation are a formidable problem today. When I was in Texas at the family reunion a nephew of mine was convinced beyond any doubt that Trump had won the election. What are his sources of disinformation/misinformation? Fox News, OAN (One American Network) and Newsmax, the latter two being undeniable conspiracy spreading vehicles.
I’m sure there are also practical reasons why they teach all children rather than all adults, such as:
•kids brain cells absorb more information, while adults brain cells run off in droves and die after having kids
•employers might get upset when their employees have to skip work for history class
•many adults might have trouble attending class if their babysitter or elder care aid canceled at the last minute
•farmers who don’t even have time to go see a doctor even if they suspect they’re having a heart attack, certainly wouldn’t have time to squeeze in history class.
•ER’s, Hospitals, and Emergency First Responders everywhere might have something to say about being too busy to help people when they’re stuck taking history a quiz.
However, this is not to say that adults from all walks of life wouldn’t benefit from being slapped with timely relevant history history lessons, like the Continuing Education requirements of certain professions.
That is my main entertainment: figuring stuff out. researching, learning new skills, making almost everything from scratch, traveled 5-6-7 months solo budget. You couldn't pay me to go on cruise or a tour. From 50-70: like a backpacker. I have never met an American who did that. I thrive on insecurity.
Doing a lot of catch up on politics; I never paid much attention to it before Trump. It was running well enough with me as an uninformed voter.
Not to mention that kids in schools are a captive audience, while kids in college - to the extent they are adults - are not, and except for history majors are probably too busy pursuing their own interests to graduate well and get jobs afterward to study history in any depth - and that is really what is needed to understand how we got where we are. Thank goodness for HCR and other historians keeping history alive and comprehensible for those of us who pursued other studies.
That kids ARE captives makes it easy to teach them "alternate history/alternate facts", to indoctrinate them in dreadful foolishness such as "slaves gained personal skills", etc., and "the earth is only 6000 years old", and "Jews have horns" (heard that one?), and other such trash. "Moms for Liberty" (WHAT a name!) have GOT to be gotten rid of, as does deStructis and the rest of this bunch.
The value of staying connected , in a Civil Discourse, refreshing our application to the complexities of a nowaday world. YES! YES! YES.
I have been as guilty of succumbing to the plod of mendacity (wrongly perceived ) , the hum-drum of trying to keep my head ( and family) above water BUT now see staying up with current events , watch-dogging even, is so very necessary AND EXCITING!
The steady creep is exposed , the creep(s😉) of autocracy ..pardon the pun people..we MUST stay vigilant.
I applaud this Letter ( on top of yet again thanking Heather for such excellent writing technique).
One does not just have to write , teach or publish while also making sense, but provide truth in an appealing,entertaining way.
It’s an ART FORM.
Let us carry this through the drudgery pounded ..what now 7 years..maybe even it’s been longer ? Through 2024 ( FOREVER works for me) which is expectedly going to continue the MO of the MAGA -let us underscore the principle of this Letter ..originalisms of our constitution ...and hold this GREAT AMERICA ‘s leadership to its intended focus.
When one reads the 2nd Amendment it is impossible to understand how tortured the logic was to rationalize giving everyone the right to be armed to the teeth with all kinds of guns. People especially intelligent people are capable of rationalizing anything.
Diane I agree with you and with Dr. Richardson. I'm sure your reasoning will impress open minded and moral citizens that read the NYT and WP. However, no matter what rational and ethical people believe and will act on, too many of our elected representatives and now Supreme Court justices are wearing signs that say "For Sale to the Highest Bidder." Justice Clarence Thomas at least has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar, so we must realistically consider that it is possible that In the United States we are no longer ruled and adjudicated by rational and strongly moral individuals who are immune to the lure of wealth. They have proven that they will lower their standards of morality when the rewards they are offered are too great to resist.
Even If Trump is not elected, there are still legions of the ultra wealthy who will utilize their wealth and power to continue to subvert the Constitution to suit their own ends. They employ brilliant individuals who are focused on subverting our Constitution and our justice system.
Just as those who lived in Maui had not planned for the unthinkable, so must we. They had no Plan B for the possibility that the existing Plan A would fail to save them from death by fire.
We need to have a Plan B for our government and economic system. As of now, those ruled by rationality and morality are losing ground to the ultra wealthy people who follow no moral code no matter how strong the rational arguments. Just as our "Founding Fathers" created a better system than any other system that existed at that time, it is our moral imperative to focus on new and better forms of governance and economics. Now is the time to plan for a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.
Marc, I agree with your assessment about our economy: we have $32 trillion of debt that has been siphoned out of the pockets of working Americans and funneled into the pockets of wealthy Americans, starting with Ronald Reagan. We MUST turn this around and revise the tax codes to retrieve that money. Otherwise, succeeding generations will be miserable and the government might fail.
I feel I must work on alternatives now, as I am very concerned for the future How? challenges of my four children and seven grandchildren. This is not just an intellectual discussion, it is about very real problems. We are now facing. I grew up with the specter of a potential nuclear war, and what it might do to our planet. Our children are growing up with the specter of ecological, economic and political disaster, and anything I can do now to provide alternative plans, and roadmaps is the best thing I can do for them, and the rest of the generation.
..I hear a suitable candidate for office here...pay attention elected officers...this is the likes of what is coming to run for your seat ( AND SHOULD!! ) Hear Hear! HEAR?
It’s time this intent REALLY a took front seat THE DRIVERS SEAT in that oath too many have what????forgotten about? Overlook? Set Aside?
Well I really never think ‘it’s too late’ ....however it seems too many are about to hit the tree in their unfortunate falling asleep at the wheel ...
Patricia, thanks for the compliment about running for an office. However, I prefer to look and work further down the road on a Plan B as the juice gets sucked out of our current democracy. So far, I think the best Plan B is offered by something called economic democracy. It offers a path to the future.
I don’t recall hearing about this but will look into it. Plan B’s are great too. I’m hoping for a sweep , but if not , worst case and all -I’ll still find room for me too. Yeh to Plan B’s.🙌
In addition to the $32 Trillion in debt we ALSO have more than $10 Trillion on the books of the Federal Reserve after folly (extended by the government ATM machine for banks, Ben Bernanke) of "experimenting" with the Federal Reserve printing money to buy bonds during the last Republican sponsored economic crash of 2007.
So, the total actual debt is $42 Trillion dollars.
I am not familiar with this, Mike. I knew that Obama spent money to bail out the banks and Wall Street, without requiring or demanding that the money be repaid, adding to the burden born by ordinary Americans. This on top of the hundreds of thousands who lost their homes through the bank swindles.
Richard….AND not holding bank/WS top brass accountable in any meaningful/deterrent way. I do not understand the financially gluttonous more-more-more….sigh, haven’t those folks heard of the concept “enough”? Tho’ I do recall hearing the phrase “too much is never enough”….wondering what lack such folks are trying to fill.
Barbara, all I know is this: the one thing one can never have enough of is money. It must be true. One can be satiated with wine and food, but the appetite for money never seems to be satisfied.
In my 83rd year I've come to this realization, this conclusion: there will never be a completely fair system, one in which everyone is made whole. But still, Frances Perkins may have had the best idea: "The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life." All the people and not just a select few or those who are white, or Christian, or whatever. Health care. Jobs. Security. Education. Opportunity.
I agree wholeheartedly. Joe Manchin has finally joined those ranks of those determined to undermine our democracy for personal gain. By potentially running as a third party candidate to insure the wealthy survival of the fittest.( In this case, definably NOT fittest.) his lack of care for world politics will lead us towards the authoritatian regimes, ie, wealth and power for the few, misery for many. Bad Joe running against Good Joe. We have to stop him.
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
She did no such thing. The 14th bars from federal office anyone who ". . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Trump certainly gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists of January 6.
On top of that, the Constitution does not demand criminal conviction or even formal charges of insurrection, rebellion, or aid and comfort.
PLUS Trump has vowed in his rallies that, if elected, he will pardon all the insurgents of their crimes. Isn’t that giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Shane, Amendment 14, Section 3 is "self executing" meaning tfg is barred from being President as a matter of Constitutional law & that prohibition is not dependent on how well the cases go for Jack Smith or Fani Willis.
And it doesn’t matter if he believed his own lies, which I don’t for a moment think is true, but may be the basis for his defense in the federal and GA cases.
Thank you for putting some thought to your rebuttal of my post.
I answer as follows: The 14th Amendment bars from office those who give aid and comfort "to the enemies" of the United States. Are the (deluded?) Jan. 6 rioters properly considered enemies of the U.S.? Didn't they think of themselves as patriots? (And that question drags us down the rabbit hole of each individual rioter's motivation.)
And what evidence is there that Trump gave them aid and comfort? Isn't that a question for a judge to decide? If not, then who decides?
The Confederates who fired on Fort Sumter and indeed, John Wilkes Booth and his band of conspirators, all thought of themselves as "patriots" in the sense of their loyalty to the original American idea, as THEY saw it. You opened the rabbit hole by posing such an absurd question, as if Charles Manson's crime could be explained away by what he thought of himself. To pretend that Trump did not encourage the January 6th INSURRECTION and RIOT in the capitol with the express aim of illegally installing him as president ids equally absurd. The forthcoming trials will no doubt prove his role in not just aiding and abetting but in initiating and sponsoring an attempted coup d'etat. Yes, my dear sir, people who attempt to undermine the Constitution to perpetuate political power by an individual who has most emphatically lost an election are indeed "enemies" of the United States. It sounds like a concept that you and certainly a whole lot of white Christian nationalists deny, probably because you think the country "belongs" exclusively to your tribe.
If Trump is guilty, then why wasn't he convicted in the impeachment trial? (It’s a rhetorical question. The impeachment trial over the insurrection was a political, not judicial trial. Which is what your question is…a political, not judicial one.) Prosecutors are charging him with RICOs and everything else for which they have ample evidence in a court of law. The trial itself will prove that he was guilty of insurrection, even if he isn't convicted of it. Al Capone was charged and convicted of tax fraud. Does that mean he didn't kill anybody?
Trump wasn't convicted in the two impeachment proceedings because the Republican politicians protected him, putting Trump above country. Make no mistake about it, they, too, are seditionists and insurrectionists. Trump should have been charged already with insurrection and even now should be.
John, the grand jury is still sitting in DC. Jack Smith still seems to be presenting witnesses.
Given that we didn't know there was a grand jury in Florida until they were ready to charge, I'm not willing to bet there isn't another one looking at a different set of crimes.
The rioters certainly were insurrectionists, gullibly incited by the lawless narcissism of their cult leader who knew he had lost, but couldn't bear to admit it. As to who decides, that is a question I have too, although his his and their guilt is obvious to any honest and fair-minded person based on the carefully detailed evidence presented to the public by the Jan 6th committee.
Biased people come to fair conclusions from real data all day every day in the sciences, in the arts, at your house (assuming you are not a sad dude living all alone on the lousy pay from Russia you are getting).
There is no such thing as an UNBIASED human being John.
There are, however, quite often, those that can be fair and just WHILE also being biased.
Please uncover the patch from your eye that somehow prevents you from seeing these "partisans" who served on the J6 committee: Republicans Liz Cheney (Wyo) and Adam Kitzinger (Il).
Please, please put your energies into work that will heal our country. I think you have lost sight of what we Americans have and stand to lose because of a clever minority focused on the desires of a few and in their effort to “win”, they have lost the art of compromise.
The rioters, and their leader Trump, clearly intended to disrupt the electoral vote count. Their only exoneration is to prove that Biden stole the election and the electoral vote was fraudulent so they were acting to STOP an insurrection.
I'm waiting to see what happens when Trump and Company get their day in court. However, if these cases drag on, the Secretaries of State in the 50 states will have the authority to decide for themselves to block Trump from the ballot in the upcoming Republican primaries. If Trump gets blocked in, say, ten states states with Democratic Secretaries of State, then he might not be able to win the nomination.
There was a lot more to Trump, et. al.'s plan to over turn the 2020 election (meaning: we will stay in power in perpetuity - will of the people be damned), than the events that took place on Jan 6 2021. There were 62 fake law suits, with 61 losses - done solely to sew doubt about the electoral process. There was the attempt to have the army confiscate voting machines in PA. Exhortations to declare martial law by several top advisors - this is the least reported on and most chilling aspect of this whole misbegotten adventure. Sending fake electors to contest the electoral confirmation vote, resulting the the near lynching of then Vice President Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and likely several others. I am sure there are things I have left out, as all of this, plus a penchant for keeping classified documents, and sexually abusing female associates, has resulted in 62 indictments (so far). Convictions on many of these will arrive soon, I'm sure.
It's obvious that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, so it's not far-fetched to imagine that he also stole the general election from Trump.
But I'm not going there without some solid evidence. Trump will have his day (or week or month) in court, and I'll be paying attention.
As far as the 2020 election goes, Trump had his day in court - 62 of them in fact. No solid evidence was presented to support his claims in any of them. If Biden stole the 2020 nomination from Bernie Sanders, it is incumbent on Sanders or his team to bring proof of that to the attention of the American public. They have not. In fact, Sanders sat in a fairly prominent position during Biden's inauguration.
Trump, his phalanx of lawyers, nor anyone else with an R for their party affiliation (some of whom are people of astounding ability), have been able to produce any evidence that Biden stole anything, much less an election. There is, however, ample evidence that Trump attempted a coup to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. If the powers that be were really arrayed against Trump, he would have been quietly liquidated sometime in the spring of 2016. He was not. He instead went on the become POTUS 45. This is proof enough that there was/is no grand conspiracy lead by pizza parlor pedophiles, or any other group, real or imagined, against Trump or the Right in general. It is proof that our system of elective government works.
Yes, pay attention, think critically, you may see something the rest of us miss. Please do not present any claims not backed by solid evidence. It will not help your cause. Please accept evidence that is presented when forming your opinions. They will be much weightier for it.
As Judge Luttig pointed out last evening in an MSNBC interview, Article 3 requires no criminal conviction to be enforced. Any state's election officials, having evidence of violation of any of the article's provisions (such as the thousands of hours of sworn testimony before the Jan-6 Committee) can refuse to certify a candidate, and refuse therefore to put him (or her) on the ballot. Fortunately, there seems to be no end run around that before the fact.
It is Not my point. It is the considered opinion of now several constitutional scholars, that trump is constitutionally unqualified to run for president, just as if he was too young or not a citizen. How it plays out is to be determined. Not by forum contributors, by the way, but by voters and if we're lucky, honest citizens who are charged with awesome responsibility of seeing to it that our election process is fair, honest and legitimate.
You're welcome, John. I put up another post that summarized what the two professors wrote in The Atlantic about "who decides?" You're correct: judges will decide. How it works, I gather, is that the first state election official to bar Trump from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds will be sued by the candidate. That will go up the appellate ladder to the Supremes, who will make the final call on whether the 14th applies to Trump.
Fortunately, we only have to go down the J6 rabbit hole if one of the jailbirds decides to run for federal office. I hope they don't, it will save us the headache.
As for repeating your answer, I was only pulling your leg :-) Post it as many times as you believe worthy, of course.
My thought exactly. How do originalists respond to other originalists if they don't like the arguments presented by those originalists? It is also impossible to actually be an originalist since no one today can possibly understand how people actually experienced life back then. We are all shaped by the era in which we're born. So claiming to be an originalist is cover for "I'm going to interpret this in a way that serves my patrons."
It will be a panicked, unholy mess at the state level, with election officials, governors, legislatures, courts, and their lawyers beating each other to pieces to "win" the right to decide the ballot issue. But once a state does make a decision on Trump, the case goes to the courts. Supreme Court will make the final call.
I hope we manage to HAVE an election in 2024, because the first ballot in the first primary states will have to be finalized shortly after New Year's, and that's when the war will start.
Yes, the question is: who decides, and then, who enforces? It may be so ambiguous that it is unenforceable. But, to the issue of whether Trump participated or promoted insurrection: as to that I have no doubt - guilty. His frame of mind and his conduct coincide to make him guilty of the charge of insurrection.
I will be writing letters to various Secretaries of State suggesting that they commence the process of disqualifying the Insurrectionist in Chief, Donald John Trump.
What are the facts that you rely on for the proposition that "Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders?" What are your sources of information?
While I agree with Judge Luttig and Prof. Tribe, I read a post that questioned whether or not election officials in a state could, on their own authority, in line with the Constitution, decide a candidate was ineligible to be on the ballot in their jurisdiction. While tRump committed his insurrection in plain sight ( "You have to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore.") What if an election official decided candidate A was ineligible to run because that candidate's views did not line up with the views of the election official? A candidate's age, citizenship, or place of residency are straight forward. Is a candidate 35 years of age or older? The Senate could have voted to disqualify tRump, but the Republicans refused to do so. I am simply asking questions here. This forum has lots of learned people with more knowledge and insight than I have. What are your thoughts?
Yes. It is not inconceivable that a Sec. of State could declare Biden, or any candidate, ineligible because they don’t like his policy. “Beau” of the Fifth has a good video arguing the same.
They certainly can try, and states with grandstanding governors probably WILL for the publicity. But as will happen with a Trump ballot ban, a Biden ban will wind up before the Supreme Court.
Beau of the Fifth Column is my go-to video option for political discourse - he's so calm, there are no other talking heads, he vcasts from his shed - what's not to like?!
Subverting democracy is more your brand than democrats. It is not legal to disqualify a candidate because you disagree with him/her, just like it is not legal to cancel millions of votes because you didn’t like the outcome.
States can bar Trump from the 2024 primary ballot if they choose. They've kept other candidates off the ballots for other reasons; they can do it here, too.
It only takes one state to declare that Trump violated the "insurrection and rebellion" clause of the Constitution so his name will not be printed on its ballot. Trump will sue, courts will hear the case, and appeals will wind up at the Supreme Court, which will make the final and binding decision.
That will all be pretty straightforward: decision; lawsuit; appeals; SCOTUS ruling.
The biggest and most complicated fights will be in each state, where election officials, governors, legislators, and courts will beat each other half to death to claim the final say for the state. If the state constitution doesn't spell out that final authority in crisp, irrefutable language, the food fight will make the one in Animal House quiet in comparison.
I have also seen that. It would be up to the state’s Governor and/Or Secretary of State to make that determination. It would however cause a great deal of state in-fighting, and in PA, where I live, it would be politically impossible.
While there is room for interpretation (as always), if confronted with the question of what constitutes "rebellion against [the Constitution]", a court could reasonably and unassailably conclude that the actions of trump and his minions surrounding the 2020 election constituted "rebellion". Insurrection is not required, and secret plots and conspiracies can just as easily constitute rebellion as openly calling for fighting to "take" the White House. And telling his jock straps to come to the Capitol for the "wild" Jan 6 "protest"? Sounds like engaging in either rebellion or insurrection to me. One doesn't get to wriggle out of charges of engaging in either by being an eminence gris, either: telling people to come to CDC, to go "wild" at the Capitol, telling them you'll "walk down" with them to the Capitol to, as January 6 Defendant 1078 put it in his tweets, "stop the steal", even when one has no actual intention of physically leading them or participating in the subsequent violence, sounds A LOT like "engaging in rebellion".
"Disqualified" is in the eye of the beholder, so the courts will decide.
More specifically: A state election director will announce that the "insurrection and rebellion" clause of the Constitution prevents Donald Trump from being on the 2024 ballot. The Trump campaign will sue, and the court system will take it from there.
The Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination on whether the 14th bars him from holding any federal or state office; whether that ban is dependent on a conviction; and whether it's dependent on a specific *type* of conviction: i.e., does the conviction need to be rebellion or insurrection, or will any related felony suffice?
This is all new ground, so the courts will have their hands full untanbling out this hairball.
Disqualification is enforced by states, per the Supreme Court ruling, not printing his name on the ballot. If a state defies the court and prints his name anyway, and he wins the state, Congress can refuse to recognize the legitimacy of his electors. And more lawyers will receive more Trump Bingo Bux.
I have a feeling some secretary of state is going to start that gigantic ball rolling sooner rather than later, so all we'll have to do is sit back and watch who gets flattened!
Does Schmeeckle deserve any more of our time and energy to generate a response? He clearly will distort just to provoke, and responding feeds his desire to post here to provoke the "libs". Just as many here bemoan the media giving Trump oxygen to spread his lies, why give Schmeeckle oxygen?
He can post what he likes. It is his First Amendment right. It is my First Amendment right to respond to him one last time and then my First Amendment right to not read what he says and not respond further.
Absolutely! Going by the contents of his profile, his existence on Substack seems to consist of reposting HRC’s letters with his own rebuttal*, attempting to provoke the rest of us with his delusional representation of HRC’s daily history lesson*, and copy/pasting the same faux intellectual comment* over and over until someone tells him to stop.
Ignoring his ilk and their bad faith intent is working over on Threads. We would be remiss not to employ the same tactic on Substack. Our time and sanity are worthy of more IMO.
*I usually find his contributions to twist the truth (at a minimum) since they rarely stand up to the barest fact checking by this Aussie.
He frequently likes to copy/paste his comments, besides calling people "thugly"--which sadly he doesn't do much anymore. Maybe the numbers of complaints to the admin team about him caused him to be repremanded.
My suggestion (which I posted above) is since people feel compelled to engage with him (which I think is a form of Viagra to him) is to either post empty replies, or ones with repetition of meaningless characters, ie:
🙌 Georgia , I stopped even reading him long ago- as someone said in FB once ‘just keep on scrolling’ this is none of your business ‘ ( GOT THAT RIGHT!) after he quoted -or professed to- a Russian newspaper writer.LOL!
Heather calls them ‘trolls’ says ...’do not ‘feed’ the trolls’ . I almost remember some childhood book about trolls under the bridge...Billy Goat’s Gruff? I m not sure that’s it.
No way does HCR concoct a fraudulent insinuation. Read the Atlantic article by constitution scholars Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig: "The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup."
Once again, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: The conclusion could equally apply to a presidential candidate who was at the head of a nationwide effort to corrupt the reporting of computerized vote totals and "stuff" the mail-in ballots. Trump will have his day (or week or month) in court, and we will be paying careful attention to what he says and doesn't say.
I studied the history of legal ideas in grad school, focusing on the Declaration of Independence. Here's a fun fact: the preambles to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the original May 1776 Independence resolution were all cut from the same cloth.
RYou will see that HCR has accurately report on this if you read the article in The Bulwark regarding this or the original paper "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" by Federalist Society legal scholars William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen available as abstrat and PDF download at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
John, are you conveniently overlooking the rest of the Amendment’s wording? “…shall have engaged in insurrection OR rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Yes, Dutch Mike! The following excerpt from Time Magazine that FERN MCBRIDE posted today explains this so well: “Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
Yep, it is definitely a standard Russian tactic: not trying to convince with arguments, but sowing discord and doubt as much as possible. Gaslighting in its purest sense...
I just had a thought: I've never seen him take on frequent commenter here, Fern, as she is one smart cookie. I think she'd do to him what Christie would do to Trump---if Trump wasn't too scared to debate him.
Was Hillary Clinton indicted for any crime whatsoever, let alone convicted? Yet she was presumed guilty of holy mackerel! capital offenses, such that the GOP you (presumably) belong to demanded that she be incarcerated, let alone prohibited from candidacy for public office. But I guess your "kind" twists itself into knots attempting to perfume your orange cult hero with the aroma of innocence until actually proven guilty, while defaming your opposition with lies and innuendos (pizza parlor sex trafficking, Benghazi, Kenyan birth). Go away, just go away, and take your ridiculous self-rationalizations and specious arguments with you.
The same type of evidence (a pattern of discrepancies between the exit polls and the official results) supporting the conclusion that Biden stole the 2020 Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders also supports the conclusion that Trump stole the 2016 election from Hillary.
p.s. I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, and for Obama in the general election.
The historic review given by Dr. Richardson illustrates that Civil War Confederate participants were not tried in a court of law for insurrection. They were guilty by joining an army whose purpose was to divide and leave the US. For this, a trial was not necessary. And so it is with Trump. We all saw what he did and to cooperate our beliefs we have testimony of his Republican Administration.
Perhaps this is where the phrase "self-executing" comes in. There always has to be an authority who makes a decision. For example, each house of Congress decides if an alleged insurrectionist, after being elected, will be seated.
The 50 Secretaries of State decide if an alleged insurrectionist will be on the ballot for the upcoming Republican primary, state by state. (Who decides if an alleged insurrectionist gets to be a presidential elector...?)
Tribe and Lutig both state that the 14th amendment does not require that DT, or anyone, be convicted of insurrection only that they commit the act. Were all the southerners barred from holding office convicted in a court of law? I don’ believe they were. Please watch this interview.
The southerners barred from sitting in Congress were barred by Congress, which had the authority to decide. Likewise, the Secretaries of State in the 50 States have the authority to decide to exclude Trump from the ballot in the upcoming Republican primaries. I imagined how that might play out here:
Trump would have to provide compelling evidence to a judge that Biden stole the election. Seeing that Biden obviously stole the nomination from Bernie, I'm not ruling out the possibility.
"When the elephant is in a courtroom, even judges have to pause for a while"
The presence of Donal Trump in American politics is similar to the story of an elephant. In an African perspective, Folklore have often and often told of the story of an elephant who is feared and at the same time respected. You are in a jungle and you have brilliant ideas that you think they can be good for the greater jungle community. But, again, you are a small species in such an ecosystem and can't present them as your own less you face the wrath of an elephant. With fear rather respect for the elephant, you frame such ideas as belonging to the elephant for him to accept and agree to execute them. You cautiously weigh your words by saying "Mr. David, by being with you, I have learned a lot from you and I found this ideas from you." Here, you have already won the ego the elephant and you can do anything that you want.
Similarly, the American political system is faced with the same story of an elephant: Donald Trump. Both in the Republican Party and in the courtroom. The elephant is feared if you don't dance to his ego. Republicans have to mumbled from time to time and muttered inwardly what they fear to say publicly. Even the courts have had difficulties locating which clause to use to convict Donald Trump. When they are close to the Fourteenth Amendment, they have to read a tone of literature to unravel which verdict should they bite and arrive at. Even with the glaring evidence of the intention to manipulate elections, the court is still struggling to find how to prosecute Donald Trump. It must be hard serving or prosecuting an elephant. The ramifications of any court decision are tied to politics. Barring Donald Trump from running in 2024 can attract the rattle of its ardent supporters which can be hard sometimes to contain.
But, though it can take time to prosecute and determine if Donald Trump can be tried, Americans should be thankful of its legal institutions which are somehow immune from external pressure. Donald Trump tried to intimidate judges and elections officials in 2020, but he didn't succeed. If Donald Trump was vying in any African country, he would have walked away with the presidency of the minority for being the elephant that he is. And it would have also applied to America in 2020.
The case of a rat is easy to execute. Think about it.
I welcome you to subscribe to my newsletter. It is free being my subscriber. I only rely on donations to sustain it. If you find that my posts are educative, you can donate to support my newsletter.
Yup, I agree, Diane! This is monumental, especially coming from Luttig and Tribe as they “applaud” the Baude-Paulsen article. What ain’t gonna be pretty is watching masses of Trump-supporters and Trump-apologists as they scramble for an off-ramp. Lynn Cheney and Adam Kinzinger didn’t scramble for a safe, soft, smooth surface when they boldly bucked the bad@$$ BS that Trump and his ilk were (AND STILL ARE) bull-horning out there. Mitch McConnell stays silent, but, lordy, Chris Christie is barreling down the highway not even lookin’ in his rearview mirror.
It’s gonna be difficult, but there are many folks who will be hopping off the Trump Train, but we also need to expect to see and read tons of excuse-making and whoa-is-me-ism going on.
Thanks, Paul, and I agree that this new twist might surface at the GOP debates Wed this week if ANYONE has the courage to bring it up. It’s a chess game for sure as positions change the closer we get to checkmating their King. Hoping someone will finally shout “The Emperor has no clothes!”
Agreed, Diane, such a stellar lesson from the professor.
The logic feels self evident to those of use who read HCR daily.
I recommend listening to the Substack “Decoding Fox News” for an eye-opening understanding of what our Republican friends and family are marinating in.
(It’s a week of Fox News boiled down to 45 minutes.)
The ridiculous arguments here are so thoroughly concentrated in an onslaught of fear-baited hysterics that... you can forgive the MAGA-blinded.
I deeply appreciate knowing the Fox POV. Hearing the crazy presented as news gives me empathy for the victims of their misinformation.
And most importantly, I have an understanding that the light that HCR spreads is no match for the unending pummeling of obfuscation championed by the media-savvy, ratings-leading, money-making machine that is Fox News.
Will do! Thanks so much. I have a family member or three embroiled in that station all day long. I have some empathy as well, but still puzzle at the lack of critical thinking skills in that group. Oh well, it’s a fools errand to try to change them. Luckily they are a distinct minority…for now. Vote on!!!
Not sure what all the responses to this say, so this might be redundant.
I highly recommend sharing this article with your local newspaper, local TV news stations, and with papers and TV shows that have a national following. THIS is something we can do!!
Actually, Robert Hubbell brings up similar objections as you. I rarely disagree with him, and in this case, only want to add that it’s the seed of doubt that is the important issue here, coming from the Federalist Society. That gives the Supreme Court, hand picked by that body, some hint of where the real GOP stands on Trump’s Re-election. The MAGA crowd’s only power exists because the other GOP hasn’t spoken. Now they have, loud and clear. We will see at the GOP debate Wed. if this argument is introduced by some brave soul.If so, Maybe dominoes will fall!
Brilliant! I want to add 1 thing that I learned from one of the scholars on YouTube. I apologize that I can't remember which one. He was asked how the clause could be applied. Didn't someone have to be innocent until proven guilty?
The scholar explained that Innocent until proven guilty is the standard when being tried in a court of law, and subject to punishment If found guilty. There is no punishment involved when an authority recognizes. someone as disqualified from becoming president and does not allow them to be included on the ballot. Let's do this!
In a sane world, the piece by two Constitutional heavyweights - Luttig (right) and Tribe (left) - would be front page news, carried by all the networks, and discussed by all GOP candidates.
Just the way I feel Diane. Bravo again for this important message Dr. Richardson. We cheer your repeats of this truth because we live in a disinformation society. We must hear truth, over and over, to know that lies have not won, not yet.
Why would they want to print a cut and paste article from The Atlantic? Even worse on that is factual untrue.
Trump wasn't charged with Sedition or Insurrection. None of the indictment was tied to Jan 6th.
As the NY Times points out in its headline
"The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment
An indictment this week did not accuse former President Donald Trump of inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol, but it did show that some close to him knew violence might be coming."
Hi James, I wasn’t referring to the Atlantic article but to Dr Richardson’s masterly explanation of the 14th amendment clause in the context of a living history. She does use facts and anecdotes from US history to inform us when our present circumstances seem so obscure to most of us. She is an historian first, a political commentator second. Certainly you can admire her thinking or you wouldn’t subscribe to her letter.
I can read Atlantic articles for myself. I don't need more political spin.
Once I'd like to read her opinion. Not leftist group think. Academics are the least interesting writers today. Every word is carefully tailored to avoid any peer objection.
Professors are the most cowardly people in America. Even worse, the most boring.
BTW, I subscribe to people I disagree with. I don't live in a bubble.
Hmmmm, actual cowards are those who hit and run with angry comments and actions. Not an apt description of any professors I know, most of whom are published authors of important issues and discoveries. Name calling is not a form of conversation that assures your success in influencing others who you seem to want to influence. Or just insult!
JL, the problem as I see it is that the federal government has been so delinquent for so long in its responsibility to assert appropriate authority over the states that large percentages of people in red states have come to accept these “state’s rights” arguments (again). Abbott’s flat refusal to obey federal orders to remove the floating barriers in the Texas Rio Grande is one recent example. De Santis’ flagrant disregard in Florida for respecting federal law and the U.S. Constitution is another. And these people keep getting elected, which is a direct reflection of the views of the electorate in these states. If there is a common theme expressed by people in red Republican controlled states, it’s the theme of “federal overreach by the deep state”, which is code for “Waaaa, I don’t wanna I don’t wanna and YOU CANT MAKE ME)! What does a responsible parent do with a spoiled, petulant brat when he or she stages a public loon like this? It’s called “discipline”. And what should the federal government do in the case of states disregarding its constitutional authority? It’s called “enforcement”. I’m not a historian but the last time I recall the US government applying the belt in a serious way was in Selma, Alabama. And of course we know what happened in the 1860’s. Are we there yet? How much longer will we tolerate this behavior? Because you know, if we don’t do something stern, and soon, it’s just going to get worse!
Yes. And add to your list the refusal of the Alabama legislature to OBEY the Supreme Court on a gerrymandered district. That in itself, should have set off Federal Law enforcement alarm bells. Marshalls should have been sent to remove the legislature and enforce the decision.
It harks back to the idea of Federal troops remaining in the South to enforce the end of the Civil War. The question you point to is: "Are we a nation of laws or are we just a confederation of states that can violate human rights as defined by our Constitution?"
The Border Patrol in conjunction with other Federal agencies should have removed those floating barriers immediately. And if Abbott were to resist, arrest him.
If we believe in a republic, composed of government of the people, by the people, for the people, who can ever be above the law?
I very much acknowledge the legitimacy of peaceful civil disobedience BTW, such as in women's suffrage, and civil rights, but those people were arrested and so far Abbot has not been.
Yes, I think what you identify here is crucial. I mark the preemptive pardon of Nixon as a serious rupture of rule of law in our society, but of course anything that affects societies as a whole tends to be a confluence of circumstances, among them the fact that Reagan was an accomplished, if vapid, TV star, and Carter wasn't. Not accidentally TV performance increasingly became a prime influence on who gets elected, and the availability of big money with it. Reagan was caught with his pants down on Iran-Contra, but was able to brazen it out. "The Great Communicator" and "The Teflon President" crowed the press, and somehow the sort of "Woodward and Bernstein" investigative reporting of old took a back seat.
Power tends to corrupt, and with Reagan and a new legion of repurposed Confederate-wannabee dixiecrats, the former "Party of Lincoln" partywide sold it soul for absolute power. Dusting off the Joe McCarthy playbook, they have been pushing back on "decency" and rule of law ever since, and Democrats have mostly let them. The popular quip of composer Frank Wilhoit, that “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” hardly exaggerates; and we have watched as this philosophy (AKA tyranny) has become more and more aggressive. No, we cannot wait for Abbott to attack Ft. Sumpter. Trump and his RICO crew already has, with the a blessing of the RNC. We will defend rule of law and equal protection, or slide into tyranny.
Republicans seem to think that democrats are responsible for every thing that happened back in the civil war era. If you want to get semantic it was the republicans that instituted all the things in the Constitution. What are they crying about?
I have been waiting for this 14th Amendment argument to gain traction, and keep Trump and his loyal Senators and Congressional Representatives (eg, Jim Jordan) off the ballot in 2024. I remain skeptical, but even if only a few states can enforce these provisions, that would be most welcome, establishing the meaning of Section 3 once and for all. -- And if some jurisdiction (even a blue state could do this) does comply with the obvious meaning of Section 3, this will undoubtedly be challenged and rise to the Supreme Court. How will the originalists on the court deal with this??
New Mexico has done it. Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, was forced out of his seat as a Commissioner in Otero County, using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The decision stands.
Gail, trying to respond to your question; I’m seriously hopelessly lost in all these threads so will say my posts as an activist must now go to legal constitutional scholars to determine if this Section 3 Amendment #14 is actionable. As for immigrants, or asylum seekers, I don’t see how anyone could accuse Biden of “giving ....comfort....to the enemy”.
These people seek shelter, they are not criminals although there are the Fentynyl carriers ......which route do they take? Slips my tired mind at present. So there are exceptions I’m sure but doubt to the extent that the GOP would have us believe. At some point due to the climate crisis displacing so many, we must as a nation CLARIFY AND UPDATE POLICIES AND BORDER SUPPORT.
If replying to my comment on another thread, this goes without saying. The performative nonsense, (remember the caravans?) will continue. When has truth formed a basis for MAGA skyscreaming?
Carolyn, I can dream like everyone else here, but I agree - I don't either. I don't see how there are anywhere near the committed numbers that could make this happen.
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
Unfortunately, HCR is not "simply reporting." She is applying what the scholars concluded to the particular case of Trump, without telling her readers that the critical word in the 14th Amendment is INSURRECTION. (But Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection.)
You are misreading HRC. She is reporting how the scholars are applying the 14th amendment. Read the articles. Both constitutional scholars, Michael J. Lutig and Lawrence Tribe, hold the position that DT is disqualified under the 14th amendment.
My thanks for your cool-headed reply. It's not easy to respond to such commentary; it reeks of McCarthy's accusatory "dialogue" during those infamous 1953 hearings.
Today, some emulate the GOP's absurd "talking-points" example of argument. They answer rebuttal with their previous statement, perhaps believing that argument is nothing more than repeatedly positing one's opinion — which is not argument, but arguing.
More cynically, these folks know this and their design is to perpetuate their opinion — knowing that with Gatling-gun repetition and dissemination, much of the population will mistake harping opinion for fact.
"They answer rebuttal with their previous statement, perhaps believing that argument is nothing more than repeatedly positing one's opinion — which is not argument, but arguing." This is a fine and important distinction to make. Real argument gets us somewhere; arguing often just goes in circles and frustrates good thinking and progress.
"The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
I hear what you're saying, and although I dread Trump being on the ballot, I'm not sure we want to go down this slippery slope. I'm not sure why Trump has not been charged with insurrection. Did Liz Cheney's committee provide enough evidence to keep Trump off the ballots?
Yes. The list of Senators openly assisting the insurrection is long: to start Cruz, Hawley, Johnson, Graham, etc. The list of Republican Members of Congress is too long to even enumerate but they would all be disqualified from holding office.
As a practical matter, as opposed to meat for a law review article and lots and lots of commentary, I don’t see any effective way to enforce that “self-executing” provision of the Constitution against trump on the basis of his having engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.
Hypothetically the republican party could still designate trump as the official republican candidate EVEN IF he’s convicted of one or more of the charges concerning his actions with respect to trying to overthrow the 2020 election (not just Jan 6 but everything he did or caused his minions to do to try to steal that election, as delineated so clearly in the Georgia indictment), since none of the charges pending against him (so far) is in so many words for having engaged in an insurrection or rebellion under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3 (or the broader nature and number of charges that could be brought under 18 USC §2383). If the Party of No does so, I can't see any Secretary of State acting to keep him off the ballot or refusing to include trump votes in deciding who won that state’s election UNLESS there is a ruling by SCOTUS, either as the result of some civil petition to the courts of one or more states (which will certainly be appealed to SCOTUS regardless of the state court's decision) or following a criminal conviction under either the Amendment 14 or 18 USC §2383, that he is incapable of holding any office. To get such a ruling prior to the 2024 election seems almost impossible, since as far as I know no civil action to determine that he's incapable of holding office has been initiated in any state, and trump hasn’t yet been indicted or charged expressly with having engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion anywhere. Even if he were, it’s almost impossible that a final ruling by SCOTUS on a civil petition would be reached, or that he’d be convicted of having engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion AND have exhausted all appeals (including the probably inevitable appeal to SCOTUS of any conviction) before the 2024 election.
I just can’t see any Secretary of State in even the bluest of Blue States unilaterally deciding that trump can’t be on that state’s official ballot, or refusing to count trump votes in deciding who won the 2024 election in that state. Can you?
And if one or more of them did, an unholy mess would ensue, which would benefit no one, although the Qwing of the republican party would probably rejoice.
Perhaps you are correct..... but as Danielle commented (above): "New Mexico has done it. Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, was forced out of his seat as a Commissioner in Otero County, using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The decision stands."
'Trials Are About Facts. That's Bad For Trump. '(Time) excerpts
'The mournful lesson of the GOP primaries in 2016 was summed up by the hashtag “LOL, nothing matters.” It captured the vertiginous sense among traditional Republicans that the political world had been loosed from its moorings; that damning facts no longer had purchase with voters because a critical mass of Americans had, for whatever reason, chosen to trust the least honest man in America.'
'The series of indictments against Donald Trump may mark a turning point.'
'From day one, when the president’s press secretary lied to reporters about Trump’s inaugural crowd size, the Trump presidency amounted to a systematic assault on truth. Though at times almost amusing—as in “Sharpiegate” when the commander-in-chief displayed a doctored weather map to support his erroneous claim about a hurricane’s path—most of Trump’s lies were no laughing matter. They served as an acid eating away at the already frayed bonds of affection among Americans.'
'The chaotic and dishonest federal response to COVID-19 response was a steep price Americans paid for Trump’s assault on truth. But it may not have been the most consequential. The lies did even more damage to social trust. The deluge of deceit undermined faith in every institution that Trump suspected might thwart him—the press, the intelligence services, the courts, government employees, public health authorities, the military, and finally, the electoral system.'
'Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
'Trump has not achieved this alone. Elected Republicans, party functionaries, and the organs of right wing influence have played a large (if sometimes expensive) role in this, serving as Trump’s phalanx of falsehood. The gaslighting has demoralized those Republicans who remain immune, to say nothing of independents and Democrats.'
'Which brings us to the indictments. The one realm of American life that has shown itself impervious to Trump’s assault on truth is the courts. The tactics of lying, whataboutism, distraction, and insults may succeed on NewsMax or in the pages of the Federalist. They don’t work as well in front of a judge. As Stefanos Bibas, a Trump-appointed judge on the Third Circuit, ruled after rejecting the Trump campaign’s effort to disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvania’s voters: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
“Specific allegations and proof.” That is unfamiliar territory for Trump. Courts are not perfect truth detectors, but they are a helluva lot better at separating fact from fiction than talk radio, social media, or cable TV. Just ask E. Jean Carroll or the plaintiffs in the Trump University case.'
'Trials have a unique power to rivet attention. A trial of a former president will be an unprecedented national moment with the capacity – perhaps the unique capacity – to penetrate America’s information silos. The upcoming trials in Florida for willful retention of classified documents and in DC for a conspiracy to disenfranchise the American people probably will not budge the Trump faithful. But the segments of the Republican party that are not in Trump’s thrall may yet be persuadable. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who get most of their information from right-leaning sources may have only the haziest notion of what Trump is accused of. They will have forgotten that all of the chief witnesses against Trump at the January 6 congressional hearings and those likely to testify in upcoming trials are fellow Republicans and former Trump associates. They will hear from Republicans, like former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who voted for Trump twice but could not in conscience steal the election for him, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who would not lie to subvert the 2020 election outcome.'
'Courtrooms don’t run like TV studios. Irrelevant testimony is not permitted. Changing the subject won’t fly. Cross examination reveals contradictions. Failure to answer a question will get a rebuke from the judge. Lying under oath is a crime. So is witness tampering. Trump will not have the scope, so often exploited in the past, to create diversions from this drama. It will hold us and him in its grip. With any luck, some Republicans will get their first inkling of the avalanche of lies Trump has told.'
'And just maybe, some Republicans will be a bit inspired by the patriotism and integrity of Americans like Rusty Bowers, who withstood pressure from Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Trump to falsify Arizona’s electoral votes. “I took an oath,” he explained simply. And in his diary he noted: “I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.”
‘Republicans like Bowers, Raffensperger, and Pence saved America from chaos in January 2021. Perhaps they can do the same for 2024.’ (TIME: By Mona Charen, August 14, 2023) See link to article below.
That's a really well written piece. From Time magazine!? If ever there was a publication to be considered old school mainstream...wouldn't it be Time? I guess I need to pay better attention to this "mag". I had the impression it was just a step above "People". But even if that were the case, upon reflection, that makes Mona Charon's opinion piece all the more important.
It's fine for us to get riled up on sites like this where we are preaching to our own choir. But things change when the general public gets the message. So kudos to "Time" for employing Bulwark representatives. If there is hope for a center right party with integrity, for democracy, it lies with those courageous writers.
Bill, Mona Charen is an American columnist, journalist, and political commentator. She has written three books: Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First. Currently, she is Policy Editor of The Bulwark, and host of its Beg to Differ podcast. Her excellent work may appear in any number of sources.
Agreed. But rathensburger is throwing a lot of people off the voting rolls in effect doing the job for the next election. I did the right thing then but he is no hero
I think his father, Fred, was his first and most effective teacher, then came Cohn. Hitler, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Duterte...they came later as models for the type of power and amount of wealth he aimed to amass.
But... this may be surmise, yet I'd be surprised if there were no direct link with Putin.
That is why I wrote "his exemplar and probable master".
Meaning that he could be to the Russian dictator what Lenin was to the German high command, a tool to disable a powerful adversary. With this difference: the Germans enabled Lenin by transporting him across their territory so that he could reach Petrograd, nothing more. They viewed his revolutionary politics as dangerous poison. I suspect the former US president of being rather more: the Russian's purpose-primed instrument.
Even if this is not so, he will have learned plenty from that quarter. And there are so many resemblances, so many coincidences.
DJT may indeed have direct ties with Putin. I thought the subject of your initial comment was the strongest influences on the former president's behavior/character. It was necessary to emphasize his father and then Cohn on that score.
Fern, hasn’t tfg had a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table for quite a while? I think I read that during his faux presidency. That should have told us everything we needed to know.
Marge, I do not think that such a claim was ever verified. Trump said and then denied that he read speeches of Hitler's. The former president's behavior during his presidency and afterward tells us very clearly about the nature of his leadership and destruction of our institutions in his goal to tear down democracy in the US.
When you have 'citizens' of this great nation who would lie to your face, .. "FACTS" to that crowd of spinelss twits (tailgators et al) are 'your facts' not theirs.
Thank you, Karen Hall, for reading it. The former president is well drawn in the piece, a reminder of what a low-life, destructive force that liar continues to be.
Absolutely. In my wildest dreams, I never imagined this would be our nation’s collective nightmare to this horrific scope. I worry endlessly, but the hope I get from writers, historians and others that post here, is how I middle through the muck. Thank you again, and thanks to Dr. HCR.
There seem to be several members of Congress who should also be ineligible to hold office as senators or representatives because of their roles in attempting to keep Trump** in office. I, for one, look forward to hearing that, indeed, they may no longer serve in our government. (Fingers crossed!)
Josh Hawley & Ted Cruz: 'But your honor, I can not be held as aiding the insurrection mob, here are videos of running from the mobs! Note the wet marks in my pants'!
Not to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene kneeling before a J6 insurrectionist, inside his prison cell - was she washing his feet? Kind of looked like 'providing comfort' to me.
How could I ??? It's helpful for me to consider all the current trials that will happen are like a snowball rolling down a long, long snowy mountain. "Discoveries" will be made... Result: Avalanche (s).
Thank you Heather. Some State Legislatures and Congress would look very different without fringe extremists and incompetents looking to destroy the Federal government from the inside. Who can forget Grover Norquist’s “I want a government so small I can drown it in a bathtub?”
The well-funded GOP march to the extreme concentration of wealth and minority control plays out in states where wealthy benefactors can readily drop in a million dollars and decimate any societal aspirations of equity, democracy, and justice. It is also an important reminder that meaningful democracy and extreme wealth inequality cannot co-exist.
I would submit that their idea of small government is really just eliminating expenditures that benefit society and padding their own coffers. It definitely wouldn’t include reducing taxes on the people.
George, agreed. It's not just the wealthy that want practically non-existent Federal government. It's the heavily armed wackos, militia types, that blatantly want the Federal government eliminated. Constitutional arguments don't count for a thing to an alarming percentage of the population.
Yup. And when the air we breathe becomes 'un-breathe-able'.. clearly, "the Gov't" is to blame. Don't waste your time asking "them" to write rules. Rules? For what?? hahahaahaa.. choke..gasp!!
Like Reagan, Norquist real target was democracy. The right wing adores government so long as it promotes and protects THEIR agenda, and helps them lord over everyone else.
"They (old school Republicans) rejected ... (the idea) that American democracy meant that power resided not in the federal government but in the states, where a small, wealthy minority could insulate itself from the majority rule that controlled Congress."
I think that's the reality of our political system nowadays. It's ideal to think that politicians care about the population, but a Princeton study showed that we're actually more of a oligarchy than an actual democracy
We are very much an "oligarchy". And that IS the war going on right now. The Battle supreme for the Supreme Court comes to mind.
But to suggest that lunatics like RFK, Jr and fascists like DeSantis somehow have the answer is beyond absurd. I am chuckling so hard at the concept, I just choked on my coffee.
I don't see how one can hold individual transgressors accountable without holding the organization they served in committing the transgression accountable. Wasn't the Confederacy held accountable by recognizing it as an illegitimate government and abolishing it? Accountability is necessary for all political parties too.
Wasserman-Shultz asserted successfully in court that the Democratic Party is a corporation. The Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people.
Now, with respect to the Republican Party, which it seems to me should be held responsible, does the Democratic Party's established right to try to rig a primary election extend to another party's right to rig a presidential election? I would hope not. If not, it seems that those convicted of sedition were working at the behest of the operatives of the Republican Party. If a corporation really is a person, why can't it be tried and convicted of same?
Only one mentions the word corporation. And the case was correctly decided - political parties are private corporations.
Re-litigating Sanders' defeat brings us where?
Truth be told, if the Republican Party (RNC, to be exact) had been more responsible in 2016 and rigged its primary for Jeb Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess.
None of the case law regarding Sanders' suit against DNC has any precedential value here - the issue wasn't whether DNC was or wasn't a corporation, but rather who benefits from its bylaws and how enforceable those bylaws are in favor of a candidate like Sanders who has never been a Democrat. Part of the ruling was if you aren't a party member, your rights under/within the party are a lot weaker than if you are, and maybe non-existent.
And of course, corporations may be held criminally liable, like Trump's was in New York last year. What good did that do?
Getting RNC convicted wouldn't serve a much greater purpose than convicting the Trump Org, IMO.
Primary reason for convicting a corporation of a crime is to make it pay restitution. How does that fit in with RNC in the J 6 context, especially if RNC is broke?
The original court transcript did mention the word "corporation." I read it years ago after it happened and might still have it on a hard drive, but I don't think I can send it as an attachment on Substack if I still do. Also, it is not accurate to claim "Sanders...has never been a Democrat." He registered as a Democrat to run for the election and then reverted to Independent after the election ended. It is my understanding that to run as a Democrat, he also had signed an agreement that he would not run as an Independent after the primary. He kept that agreement.
This was a class action civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, so please do not distort that. Part of the ruling was the lawsuit had no standing because the supporters could not claim damages because they were never guaranteed the party wouldn't violate its own Bylaws. As a corporation, its operatives had a right to make the changes...not so different I suppose when a corporation changes its customer agreements by notification to you, not with your permission. You are not their employee; members of parties are not employees. There is no contract to violate.
This is such a dismal event for "democracy." It formalized that voters don't have any right to pick their candidates; their parties can do that regardless of the expressed will of the members. The Party operatives have no legal obligation to be honest with the members. It seems not so different from recent rulings that enshrined politicians' right to lie. Technically the parties are not our government, even though two parties exist as a cartel that forms our government. The three articles are consistent in agreeing this is nothing to be proud of. I agree with that. Do you? Like legitimate black history, it must now be taught and acknowledged as a real event and what it means. If it is not, it is as bad as DeSantis's pushing of revisionist history as legitimate scholarship. It is not.
However I believe you are correct that corporations can be held criminally liable and their operative employees convicted and imprisoned. In the case of trying to overturn a legitimate election, weren't operatives of the Republican Party involved? Sedition is a criminal offense. Like any other rogue corporation could it be dissolved or put into some type of receivership?
Fascinating. Of course in deciding what parts of the Constitution to follow, Republicans pick and choose based on their self-interest in the moment, despite the oath they take when sworn in. In other words, they respect the Constitution like they respect the rule of law.
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
From the Tribe and Luttig article. Please read it: "The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup."
The problem with this is, if you take out the requirement of a court verdict, who decides?
In the 1860s, Congress decided not to re-admit known Confederates. Today, who decides, without a guilty verdict of insurrection, to remove Trump from the ballot?
I think you're saying that it takes 2/3 of the House to decide not to admit a congressman. That's different from taking a presidential candidate off the ballot.
Angelica, what FERN MCBRIDE posted (excerpted from Time magazine) explains John’s strategy:
'Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
This should also apply to the traitors sitting in Congress. BTW, imagining history this way (I mean, no sitting Congress for 8-9 months 😳) information distributed by newspapers, travel restricted to horse, really emphasizes the huge differences between then and now ...
To those who argue the 3rd section of the 14th Amendment applies only to Civil War era rebels and seditionists; let us remind them that many Confederate flags were present in various forms during the Jan. 6 assault on the capital, thereby, to my mind, extending the Civil War era into today and rendering their argument moot.
In other words, the Civil War continues to this day and the 14th Amendment, all of it, absolutely applies to those who participated in and encouraged, aided, and abetted those who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Ralph, the entire debacle of the MAGAt movement is absolutely founded on the tenents of the Confederacy, and your conclusion that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is in play is accurate. I would add as argument (without directly addressing a particularly repetitive poster directly) that the activity of insurrection is identified and as people are being convicted of crimes for engaging in that insurrection. The person who "kept his hands clean" by not directly engaging in the actions but in creating the maelstrom that allowed it to occur does not need to be charged with and convicted of the insurrection. That the people who engaged in insurrection activities that day who have PLED GUILTY to insurrection is enough to establish that an insurrection occurred. Plus, there's the waving of the Confederate Battle Flag in the rotunda. That activity alone establishes that the ties of today link to the southern perspective of the Civil War and should cement any originalist's belief that Sect. 3 Amendment 14 is valid today.
Four indictments may eventually lead to one jail cell, but it's a powerful shame that the Senate did not use the power it had on two occasions to mete out the justice most needed, which was to prevent the would-be emperor from ever holding high office again. As much as I would like to see the former president in a striped suit, the nations security depends far more on the assurance that he and his ilk never reach that office again. He's had ample time for the bad seed he has sewn to sprout and take root all over the country, making it far more difficult and dangerous to put down the white supremacist/fascist movement than had he been impeached the first time.
Perhaps too much to expect that knowledge of the Constitution and understanding of the oath each is required to uphold would be a basic requirement for ALL seated in Congress.
Given the state of Congress today, I, sadly, cannot imagine Republicans voting against the former president under ANY circumstance. If I am misinterpreting how this works, I would be absolutely delighted to be wrong.
Carolyn -- Awaiting some legal scholars to comment, but my understanding is that state or local jurisdictions could implement Section 3. It does not need to be a national Congressional decision.
Congress can remove the disqualification by a two thirds majority in each chamber, but they do not appear to play any necessary role in its application to specific persons.
Yes Steve, you are correct. Each Secretary of State or Election Supervisor certifies those that qualify and are the ones to make the determination. Once a determination is made, it is an administrative decision, appeals-litigation ensue. THUS the question is when will the challenges begin and by whom? Are people going to wait for the moment ballots are printed or upon initial filing? Guessing only GOP registered voters would have standing to sue. Thus it may be a bit early to see challenges as they must wait for someone to file with election supervisor. Can not figure out deadlines for Iowa. New Hampshire: "655:43 Filing Deadline. –I. Nomination papers shall be filed with the secretary of state no later than 5:00 p.m. on the
The primaries should all be held on the same day. Otherwise, the early states have an advantage over the others to select the nominee, and to assert their rights.
I "like" the fact that you so clearly explained how it works, but distinctly dislike the answer, in that it is so unwieldy that it's practically unworkable 🤔😢.
I was misreading the part in Section Three that says a vote of 2/3 of Congress can remove the disqualification--so, I got that now, but really don't see any way for it to be enforced; e.g. for DJT to be prevented from taking office.
Logically, then, you too regard the Constitution of the United States as a dead letter.
This is understandable, given the Big Show you, like all the world, have been watching, day in day out, since November 2016.
This is understandable, given the way we have all been conditioned to take appearances for realities. (Thank heaven there are many for whom this has never worked...)
This is understandable, given the way in which the former President and seditious Congressmen have continued to strut around as though nothing amiss had ever happened and their oath of office meant whatever they want it to mean at any given moment, while scared office-holders have been reduced to parroting every lie handed down from above, and credulous true believers well-brainwashed-and-bamboozled threaten neighbors, clean their guns and practice using them, secure in their well-fed prejudices, their hatreds, their rage and resentments.
The ringleaders know perfectly well that you can't fool all of the people all of the time but believe -- understandably -- that they can so arrange matters that those they can't fool... don't count.
Secretary of a state could enforce it but it no doubt would be challenged. Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig explain it in their Atlantic article. Gifted article and well worth the read.
If you read section III of original article, they claim the provision is self-executing. the same as the age limit is self-executing. But the reality of something being self-executing is a bit baffling. It probably are people at state level who say you can't be on the ballot because you are not 35 years old. The same hear. But it seems that any voter should have "standing" in objecting to someone being on the ballot. On the other hand, it seems to me that this could easily be abused by someone wanting to keep a legiitimate candidate off the ballot, e.g., a veto-proof legislature in a red state claiming that Biden supported a insurrection. Just as Trump showed us that most "guardrails" in our democracy are conventions and not laws and should be made into laws, I think their should be laws about how 14th amendment violations are enforced. Good luck with that in a legislature paralyzed by MAGA Repubs.
BUT… doesn’t this offer rejection of a Blue candidate in a Red state for more specious reasons? I.e. Biden is denied the ballot in Texas as his immigration policies “give aid and comfort to the enemy”, the enemy being immigrants?
I believe the authors are absolutely right, and that this clause of the Constitution bars DJT from running for office for the rest of his life. Ditto any other politician who committed "insurrection, rebellion, or gave aid and comfort" to those who did.
They argue that no conviction or even criminal charges are necessary for the prohibition to be in force--it's automatic. How would it be applied in practice? The authors say that every secretary of state or state election official must approve or reject any candidate for the ballot. The first one that rejects DJT will surely be sued by DJT, which will send the test case up the ladder to the Supreme Court. Its ruling will be swift and decisive. No way of knowing which way the Supremes will jump, but my guess is they'll uphold the ban.
Those who believe keeping DJT off the ballot will spark the Second Civil War? First, that's not worth considering. He needs to be kept off no matter what the backlash. Second and more important, there will be no Second Civil War over anything he does or doesn't do. There may be pockets of riots or violence in parts of the country, but for the most part, MAGAs will steam and shout, then they will move on as DJT joins the dustbin of history.
His sell-by date is expiring fast, even MAGAs know it, and they will not risk being shot and/or imprisoned to save his bacon on a second term.
Plus people don’t want to die in the streets for trump. They are too busy being glued their cell phones, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook. But if you take those things away that might cause an insurrection!!
I fully agree with the article, & would add that enforcing this would likely trigger the 2nd civil war; especially with "Proud Boys" escaping before sentencing. If it wasn't for the fact that the world really is about to become uninhabitable due to Climate change, this would worry me even more than it does. We are so screwed.............
Seeing how people reacted in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, I sometimes fear that we’ll all kill each other off before climate change has a chance to do it… (keyword: toilet paper…)
Dr. Richardson, Thank you for explaining the fourteenth amendment from an historical perspective. I have never seen the word “beavering” used previously. Your use of it was perfect in the context of your description. The word caused me a fond memory of years living next to beavers. They are wonderful animals. They mate for life and work to support their families and improve their supporting. We lived on a small ten acre pond with a few mountain steams feeding the pond and a man made dam creating the pond depth and a spillway and stream providing the outlet for the pond. We watched our beaver neighbors constantly damming the incoming streams, and we spent a lot of time undoing their attempts to dam the spillway and the outflow stream. From our bedroom window, we could watch an older large beaver swim up the outflow stream each twilight evening, climb out of the stream, walk up the bank and over the dam and slip into the pond. He would work all night trimming saplings and brush from the banks surrounding the pond and place those sticks and branches in front of the dam outflow spillway. Then, at sunrise, we’d watch him climb out of the pond, walk over the dam, slip back into the outflow stream and swim down stream to his hut home to rest so he could return to work in the evening and begin his assignment to dam the pond spillway again. That old beaver and I spent more than fifteen years working to undo each other’s work. The word “beavering” perfectly describes that old guy’s behavior. He was relentless. If I couldn’t keep up and undo he work to raise the level of our pond, we had to employ others to help us keep the spillway clear of his plans to clog it up. Eventually, he stopped coming to work each night and a new pond appeared and expanded along the outflow stream filling the low land down stream. When a trapper knocked on our front door one day and asked permission to set his beaver traps in our pond and streams, we told him that we couldn’t give him that permission. The beavers were our neighbors, and they were doing what they do, and we did not agree with the term many locals used to define them as “nuisance beavers”. They were simply beavering. What a great word that I had never heard until I read your essay.
J.P., thank you for your delightful personal story. You brought a tear to my eye when you said the beavers were your neighbors. I don't have beavers but I have many animal neighbors who I share the land with and I too revere.
Thank you for this story, J. P. I’ve never had the chance to observe beavers in this way, and I’m humbled by their industriousness and tenacity in the face of human interference.
WOW WOW WOW! This is what I have been waiting to hear and you explain it perfectly in the context of a living history. Bravo, once again, Dr Richardson. Will it make the front pages of the WP and NYT.? Do the editors read your column? Praying they do.
I join you Diane, in a hearty thank you and share your feeling of WOW.
The NY Times did report on Baude's upcoming paper on August 11th BUT, it did not even come close to being as good as Dr. Richardson's home run writing today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html
The Times article simply said that some conservatives I never heard of from law schools had concluded what any 8th grader would conclude by reading the 14th amendment in history class. It was a surface story that left me befuddled because, lots of people were writing the same thing on January 7th 2021.
Dr. Richardson's letter today? Now THIS is real background, real history and offers anyone, including those folks who claim to be "originalists", an origin story around the 14th amendment and Trump's disqualification.
Today's letter is, without a doubt, the best letter I have read so far from Prof Richardson, and, I must have written this same sentence 10 times, about 10 letters, since I started reading Dr. Richardson here.
I have saved this and will send it to all my dwindling Republican friends. I don't know if they can concentrate for the 5 minutes needed to read the entire letter, so many Americans cannot, but, I will try.
Last comment about "originalists". IF we are going to treat gun LAWS by originalist thinking THEN we need to outlaw ALL GUNS in existence today, that did not EXIST at the time of the formation of the country. So, the only guns for sale can be single shot muzzle loaders that take 2 minutes reload.
This, returning to the ORIGINAL guns that were present at the birth of the nation, will solve the mass shooting problem. I am an ORIGINALIST where gun sales are concerned.
:-)
Same for abortion, no laws against it in 1789. It was women's issues and women didn't exist in the original Constitution.
The all male founders of the American nation, undoubtedly, were not interested in being presented children they would be forced to raise, that were not of their own marriages by women they were not married to.
In those days, a married male would be a pariah if a woman came forward with a kid that looked like, say, John Adams but, the kid and the woman were not of his wife. Victorian morality was still in place. Not that Victorian morality was any different from any other time in human evolution. Folks enjoyed sex. It was just supposed to be invisible.
So, it is no surprise that abortion is not mentioned in any early laws. Men fully supported it (abortion).
One update to abortion laws, or their absence, in the early part of the nation's history:
In the southern states, beginning with Virginia, the laws on the books for female slaves were: Rape by a white man was legal (reference: The 1619 Book Project arranged by Nicole Hannah Jones. )
So, in THAT case, when the slave came forward pregnant, the male slave owner was not only PROUD of the outcome, he could SELL the resultant light colored slave for a lot of money.
Just to add clarity about abortion in the early days of the nation. For female slaves, abortion was probably illegal.
Gosh, all those nearly white kids who looked likeJefferson making nails at Monticello. I always laugh about Victorian morality which applied only to women as there was quite an underworld of Victorian sexuality going on with the men. Victorian hypocrisy actually. Victoria enjoyed sex, but not the result as she didn't enjoy being PG at least nine times.
excellent point Michele.
Men could do what they wanted, but, women had to be way more circumspect and discreet.
Women and children belonged to the father. And they couldn't inherit. Think about Pride and Prejudice....all daughters and Downton Abbey....all daughters. My mother-in-law was the first woman to get a credit card in her own name at a certain department store here in Salem. Not Victorian times, but the idea that a woman couldn't be responsible. It took a certain type of woman to defy the standards of Victorian England. I am thinking of George Eliot for example.
Posting this again:
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
PLUS: UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS:
ALL STATES HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT, PROTECT AND FULFILL WOMEN’S RIGHTS RELATED TO ABORTION SERVICES
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/SexualHealth/INFO_Abortion_WEB.pdf
What SCOTUS has done is against the Constitution and against what was agreed to in The United Nations.
That's an interesting argument.
So, why hasn't been made??
We need to teach women to get every male sex partner's ID and DNA. When they start getting nailed for "damages" and 20 years worth of support ....maybe they will not be so Okay with voting that women get stuck with the results of a little fun.
Women were not able to vote & only property holders could vote & blacks were slaves.
just watched CIDER HOUSE RULES. Personal freedom is important.
And Vera Drake. Read Margaret Sanger's bio. And "Pro" by Katha Pollitt.
I’m glad we have the obvious constitutional safeguard against insurrectionists holding office. But I wonder how the enforcement of this looks… only kicking in after said traitor is elected?? Not a good situation. Much better to nip this in the bud with one of a hundred counts of felony. Felons can’t hold office, can they?
Actually they freaking can. In many states felons can’t vote, but they can become president from jail!! Eugene Debs tried and received a million votes from jail.
This needs a constitutional amendment, or Voting/Democracy Restoration Act ASAP.
Can you imagine an anti-democratic insurrectionist leader and convicted multiple felon with a mafioso authoritarian nepotistic regime holding the office of president?
Revolting. Deplorable.
As you may have noticed, many provisions of the Constitution were ignored by Trump and his fellows. The Emoluments Clause, for one. The Constitution must be enforced by either any of the 3 branches of government, or directly by us, the People.
Under Trump, the Executive was run by him corruptly, so no enforcement there. No cases were brought before the Judiciary -- till now! And the Legislative branch, while doing an excellent job on the January 6 insurrection, really didn't even investigate a lot of the violations of the Constitution.
For example, why all the investigations of Hunter Biden but none of Jared Kushner and Ivanka? The Dems generally don't push hard enough for accountability, and now that Repubs have a House Majority, they push conspiracy theories to damage Dems politically.
You are right on Cheryl
Ryan McCormick, the last six years have been dominated by an anti-democratic mafioso authoritarian nepotistic regime holding the office of president for four years, and now he will, hopefully, be convicted of multiple felonies as an insurrectionist. The first four years have brought most of us to the brink of mental breakdown, and I fervently pray that his current campaign won't be successful. How we manage to survive his cretinous spawn, even if he loses, is another matter.
Prayers, and lots of work, I agree.
Since Biden inauguration, I've taken a mental break from my political anguish... kind of like how I did with Obama, trusting and noting that their administrations were doing the right things that beneficent governance can achieve.
And like the burnout and PTSD I feel from taking care of people during the darkest days of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, I'm not ready for another pandemic, although we might have to be.
I'm not psychologically prepared for the kind of regime you mention, either. Trump or similar.
Ryan, I can only imagine how stressed these years during and since TFG have been for you, having to deal with the angst of your patients, as well as the pandemic.
I, too, have been much less anxious since Biden's presidency, and I'm trying to give short shrift to all of the gloom mongers who are predicting a win for the dark side next year.
Take care of your patients, and I'll do what I can to encourage sane people to vote. I haven't given up on optimism - yet.
How sane! This horrific predicament should've been nipped in the bud when the orange man announced a second run. What's great here is that Luttig and Tribe, both highly esteemed and with diametrically opposed political views, are saying the same thing. Section 3 is there for a reason and ignoring it is irresponsible. Evoking it lays the groundwork to eject the traitor. It imbues me with a bit of hope....
I agree. However, I believe it would be up to individual secretaries of state to determine Defendant Don's qualification to be on their state's ballot. If so, I wonder: how many have the courage to disqualify him? Unless this becomes a movement to rid ourselves of the scourge of this tyrant, I find it unlikely to happen.
If they don't, we Dems must take them to court to challenge them. We can't just sit here and let them do it.
I'll bet Marc Elias and Democracy Docket will be working for us on this. Let's support them!
Interesting, so many tests of our civic system that shouldn't be happening at all.
It disqualifies one from being on the ticket.
The Republicans will have to come up with a Qualified candidate.
They only have losers. Maybe Romney?
This will be the most insane Presidential election ever.
There will be NO enforcement. No court, not judge, no USSC Justice will act in any way to prevent the GOP from having Trump as their Presidential candidate.
Why not?
Any Judge or Justice who voted to keep Trump off the ballot of any state would immediately be targeted - for death - by the MAGA cult. The Judge/Justice would need a security detail for the rest of his/her life
It's atrocious that these justices are held hostage by these thugs' threats! However, many people have shown great courage and have done their jobs despite threats....
We don't have to outlaw all guns.
We just need to require all gun owners have to spend one weekend a month drilling in the National Guard.
And that like other National Guard members, they can be called up for service in an emergency.
". . .well-ordered militia. . ." is originalism.
Bridget, this sounds like a logical solution for gun ownership. Show up once a month for duty and be available to be called up in emergencies. And follow only the orders of your military leaders.
And no exceptions for women.
Which might cut back on straw man purchases as well.
Which would probably prevent anyone under 18 legally possessing (not merely owning, it has to cover possession as well) any kind of firearm.
And of course that would only apply to people who acquired and otherwise possess their guns lawfully, not to the skillions of illegally produced and circulated guns or "adaptive mechanisms" (auto sear, for example, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/business/auto-sear-handgun-automatic.html).
But it would be a start.
Bridget,
Makes sense to me!
‘Home run ‘ WOWS 👏👏👏👏👏
Everyone should try to read at least part of the document HCR focuses on today. In the first 10 pages I learned something from the "originalist" authors namely originalism doesn't mean everything in the Constitution is carved in stone. They say that some rules either overshoot or undershoot the supposed intuition of the.rule authors, but once it's past it is what it is.
That's how these originalist conservatives defend Sec 3's validity today with regard to "insurrections or rebellions". Not saying I support the originalist view, it was obvious the Framers created an organic document by allowing for Amendments, but I appreciate the explanation on pg 10 about the consequences of written language and how untended consequences may arrive or give reason for future realities not considered at the time.
It's not all black and white.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Somehow - as much as that is actual truth - I have much faith (?) in this SC that they can manage to deconstruct it in order for their reading of it.
Before we get too excited about djt not being able to run - remember all the "norms" that he blew thru & ignored? Whats to stop him? WHO will stop him and all the other up and coming dictators running?
Mike S -- " IF we are going to treat gun LAWS by originalist thinking THEN we need to outlaw ALL GUNS in existence today, that did not EXIST at the time of the formation of the country. So, the only guns for sale can be single shot muzzle loaders that take 2 minutes reload."
"𝘈 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢, 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥." 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution
So "Arms" are limited to "single shot muzzle loaders that take 2 minutes reload"? Interesting.
(FWIW, I definitely don't agree with (nor defend) the NRA's interpretation of that Amendment.)
Mike S
"dwindling Republican friends" 😂
I have a bunch of longterm friends who, as it turns out, are Republican. We have avoided much political talk for the sake of the friendships. I'm included in an occasional group post of right nonsense (that I ignore.) I've sent some Heather/ Robert Reich/ Joyce Vance Substacks their way that apparently do get read. Lo and behold! Just last week, more than one have said "I can't vote for him ever again!" They are dwindling Republicans, but not dwindling friends. Changing hearts, one at a time.
If you think there is any internal consistency to originalism, you are mistaken. It's a complete sham, a mere papering over of retrograde thinking about rights, citizenship, and inclusivity. I am a little disturbed that it was used as a seeming bolster to these papers in HCR's post.
I am also very puzzled why so many commenters in Dr Richardson's substack go out of their way to insult the reading, powers of concentration and sometimes general intelligence of their "friends". If you read these comments regularly, you'll see it's a common theme.
Tom...agree...internal consistency to the "originalism" in interpretation of our laws is confusing...not a sham as you suggest but merely transactional...a concept I am sure you (respectfully) are familiar with...as with the reactions to its interpretations.
True...the "insult" theme is often part of a resident thread here. It is widely suggested...and even accepted...if you must judge people...base it on their actions...and then temper that judgement with an effort at a deeper understanding of their motivations. Of course their actions -> must/should be a major result of that person's ability to process and choice of reading sources, powers of concentration and sometimes general intelligence. You cannot avoid some assessments of your "friends" who so willingly fill in the gaps of their minds with cognitive dissonance and self-supporting fairy tales. Ready fodder for a media ecosystem that both shelters securely its viewers in an ideological bubble, free from facts, while also pumping lies and hate into our society like poison 24-7.
But I don’t feel compelled to judge others. Not a morality thing, but a practicality thing. Unless you’re a mind reader, you’re bound to get it wrong. And beyond that, what is the use?
I am friends with a lot of people, and about half of them I have no idea of their politics.
As for originalism, it is sheer intellectual dishonest, a pretense erected to give pseudo-intellectual cover for retrograde thinking. Good heavens, read A Court of One. Or Scalia’s dissents, many of them.
He is proof that sterling academic and legal credentials don’t make a moral man.
My “favorite” Scalia quote in a majority opinion? “The Constitution guarantees every man a trial when accused of a crime. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial.”
Thank you and for your more clarifying comments on the absurdity of so called Originalists on the Court today. Logic and critical thinking are obviously not part of their repertoire or qualifications for the Court.
I thought the exact thing about today’s letter ... and ... your comment on the 2nd amendment as applied to modern times!
Agreed. There's this quote I love, "there's a reason they teach history to us as KIDS, when we CAN'T do anything about it, versus, teaching history to us as ADULTS when we CAN do something about it"
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-esoteric-philosophy-is-vital-329
And especially as "Republicans" would have it, a sharply abridged if not falsified history in the primary schools. But genuine DIY democracy means lifelong learning and engagement. We just can't safely pilot the ship of state without keeping a sharp watch, and doing our "homework", at any age.
J.L., I love your words DIY (do it yourself) Democracy. That should be taught to us from the time we are little: We live in a Representative Democracy AND a DIY Democracy. DIY because some representatives are more self-serving than public-serving and so each of us has to consciously work in whatever we can to build a stronger democracy.
DIY because if we are not responsible for our own society's choices, who is? If it is not we who are not setting the agenda for our hired fiduciary agents to champion, then who is? To the degree that our representatives use the powers entrusted to them to enrich or further empower themselves is classic corruption, and corruption is the road to tyranny. History bristles with object lessons of that. The naked conflict of interest of Clarence Thomas in a role that demands avoiding even the appearance of corruption is a constitutional crisis on it's own. Government employees or even private in similar circumstances are often fired on the spot, not for proven malfeasance, but for violating safeguards proscribing conflicts of interest. With greater power comes greater responsibly. That's true when we decide to give a kid car keys or a pocket knife. It's all the more true in roles that profoundly affect the lives of many.
Democracy, certainly "liberty and justice of all" is not a spectator sport where winner takes all. It is not a menu prepared by others from which we choose, with "no substitutions". It is not supposed to be "One dollar, one vote". When we make bad choices or cede them to those with an axe to grind, we suffer as a whole, and those already most deprived most of all. If you look at the big picture of what is occurring, as we speak, to our planet's climate, it is terrifying, and yet not entirely inevitable. Like knowing, based on age, I am approaching the end of my life, I can't dwell on the reality of that all the time, but it's crazy to let our quality of life, or even existence as a species, drift toward the edge. It's crazy to tolerate blatant and destructive abuses of power, and shrug. And yes, I'm crazy too, but try to improve my focus. We are at a point where focus is increasingly necessary.
J.L., I agree. We have a lot of corruption that causes so much suffering. And it is quite absurd as we experience greater and greater death and destruction of nature (including us) and we draw closer to doom, some in power still cling to short-sighted and irrational greed. I know that we as a nation are also going to experience increasing political violence as one party seems intent on it, by constantly watering the seeds of violence against each and every of its perceived enemies.
As you say, we need to stay focused. I hope you will get to stay here with us as long as you wish. Some helpful reminders for my focus are: Discern truth from lie. Don't go down rabbit holes or stay too long in the weeds. Care for myself and others. Do everything I can. Stay present to my fear and anger but don't let them guide me. Never see anyone as an enemy, opponent yes. And remember we must go through great pain for our egos to be rattled and diminished so America can emerge even more beautiful than she is!
The things that matter most.
OOPS! I meant DIY.
You should read what he wrote. We have a troll.
Sorry, who is the troll? JL Graham? Franklin O'Kanu?
???? Who?
I was just asking for clarification from Gail Adams (above); I'm well aware of john schmeekel, but was surprised at what seemed to be a random comment.
Yes we do.
This website https://thinkingispower.com/ is run by Melanie Trecek-King, an associate professor of biology at Massasoit Community College in Massachusetts. She nails it, i.e., the process of what excellent teaching entails. Misinformation and disinformation are a formidable problem today. When I was in Texas at the family reunion a nephew of mine was convinced beyond any doubt that Trump had won the election. What are his sources of disinformation/misinformation? Fox News, OAN (One American Network) and Newsmax, the latter two being undeniable conspiracy spreading vehicles.
Thank you for naming those websites. I would add that RT is equally available (Russian propaganda channel).
How does one access this Russian propaganda channel?
Richard, I googled “RT” and there it was.
Thank you, Virginia. I did, too, and this is what I got: https://www.rt.com/
Thanks for sharing Thinking is Power!
I’m sure there are also practical reasons why they teach all children rather than all adults, such as:
•kids brain cells absorb more information, while adults brain cells run off in droves and die after having kids
•employers might get upset when their employees have to skip work for history class
•many adults might have trouble attending class if their babysitter or elder care aid canceled at the last minute
•farmers who don’t even have time to go see a doctor even if they suspect they’re having a heart attack, certainly wouldn’t have time to squeeze in history class.
•ER’s, Hospitals, and Emergency First Responders everywhere might have something to say about being too busy to help people when they’re stuck taking history a quiz.
However, this is not to say that adults from all walks of life wouldn’t benefit from being slapped with timely relevant history history lessons, like the Continuing Education requirements of certain professions.
What is life without learning as much as possible every day?
That is my main entertainment: figuring stuff out. researching, learning new skills, making almost everything from scratch, traveled 5-6-7 months solo budget. You couldn't pay me to go on cruise or a tour. From 50-70: like a backpacker. I have never met an American who did that. I thrive on insecurity.
Doing a lot of catch up on politics; I never paid much attention to it before Trump. It was running well enough with me as an uninformed voter.
Great post Lisa. Brought a huge smile and then a good laugh.
:-)
Glad to hear it. I aim to wheeze.
Not to mention that kids in schools are a captive audience, while kids in college - to the extent they are adults - are not, and except for history majors are probably too busy pursuing their own interests to graduate well and get jobs afterward to study history in any depth - and that is really what is needed to understand how we got where we are. Thank goodness for HCR and other historians keeping history alive and comprehensible for those of us who pursued other studies.
That kids ARE captives makes it easy to teach them "alternate history/alternate facts", to indoctrinate them in dreadful foolishness such as "slaves gained personal skills", etc., and "the earth is only 6000 years old", and "Jews have horns" (heard that one?), and other such trash. "Moms for Liberty" (WHAT a name!) have GOT to be gotten rid of, as does deStructis and the rest of this bunch.
HCR really deserves an award.
Perfect: deStructis. TY!
The value of staying connected , in a Civil Discourse, refreshing our application to the complexities of a nowaday world. YES! YES! YES.
I have been as guilty of succumbing to the plod of mendacity (wrongly perceived ) , the hum-drum of trying to keep my head ( and family) above water BUT now see staying up with current events , watch-dogging even, is so very necessary AND EXCITING!
The steady creep is exposed , the creep(s😉) of autocracy ..pardon the pun people..we MUST stay vigilant.
I applaud this Letter ( on top of yet again thanking Heather for such excellent writing technique).
One does not just have to write , teach or publish while also making sense, but provide truth in an appealing,entertaining way.
It’s an ART FORM.
Let us carry this through the drudgery pounded ..what now 7 years..maybe even it’s been longer ? Through 2024 ( FOREVER works for me) which is expectedly going to continue the MO of the MAGA -let us underscore the principle of this Letter ..originalisms of our constitution ...and hold this GREAT AMERICA ‘s leadership to its intended focus.
I so love my country 🫶 and the American Dream😌🙏🥰
💙💙VOTE💙💙
When one reads the 2nd Amendment it is impossible to understand how tortured the logic was to rationalize giving everyone the right to be armed to the teeth with all kinds of guns. People especially intelligent people are capable of rationalizing anything.
Got it. It’s the Rothchilds. And the Fed. What pablum.
Diane I agree with you and with Dr. Richardson. I'm sure your reasoning will impress open minded and moral citizens that read the NYT and WP. However, no matter what rational and ethical people believe and will act on, too many of our elected representatives and now Supreme Court justices are wearing signs that say "For Sale to the Highest Bidder." Justice Clarence Thomas at least has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar, so we must realistically consider that it is possible that In the United States we are no longer ruled and adjudicated by rational and strongly moral individuals who are immune to the lure of wealth. They have proven that they will lower their standards of morality when the rewards they are offered are too great to resist.
Even If Trump is not elected, there are still legions of the ultra wealthy who will utilize their wealth and power to continue to subvert the Constitution to suit their own ends. They employ brilliant individuals who are focused on subverting our Constitution and our justice system.
Just as those who lived in Maui had not planned for the unthinkable, so must we. They had no Plan B for the possibility that the existing Plan A would fail to save them from death by fire.
We need to have a Plan B for our government and economic system. As of now, those ruled by rationality and morality are losing ground to the ultra wealthy people who follow no moral code no matter how strong the rational arguments. Just as our "Founding Fathers" created a better system than any other system that existed at that time, it is our moral imperative to focus on new and better forms of governance and economics. Now is the time to plan for a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.
Marc, I agree with your assessment about our economy: we have $32 trillion of debt that has been siphoned out of the pockets of working Americans and funneled into the pockets of wealthy Americans, starting with Ronald Reagan. We MUST turn this around and revise the tax codes to retrieve that money. Otherwise, succeeding generations will be miserable and the government might fail.
I feel I must work on alternatives now, as I am very concerned for the future How? challenges of my four children and seven grandchildren. This is not just an intellectual discussion, it is about very real problems. We are now facing. I grew up with the specter of a potential nuclear war, and what it might do to our planet. Our children are growing up with the specter of ecological, economic and political disaster, and anything I can do now to provide alternative plans, and roadmaps is the best thing I can do for them, and the rest of the generation.
..I hear a suitable candidate for office here...pay attention elected officers...this is the likes of what is coming to run for your seat ( AND SHOULD!! ) Hear Hear! HEAR?
It’s time this intent REALLY a took front seat THE DRIVERS SEAT in that oath too many have what????forgotten about? Overlook? Set Aside?
Well I really never think ‘it’s too late’ ....however it seems too many are about to hit the tree in their unfortunate falling asleep at the wheel ...
💙💙take it across the finish line folks ....VOTE💙💙
Marc...have you thought about running? I mean really! No , don’t laugh, please ....I’m serious!🫶
Patricia, thanks for the compliment about running for an office. However, I prefer to look and work further down the road on a Plan B as the juice gets sucked out of our current democracy. So far, I think the best Plan B is offered by something called economic democracy. It offers a path to the future.
I looked it up…I’m gonna have to read through that a few more times!!!! LOL!
I don’t recall hearing about this but will look into it. Plan B’s are great too. I’m hoping for a sweep , but if not , worst case and all -I’ll still find room for me too. Yeh to Plan B’s.🙌
In addition to the $32 Trillion in debt we ALSO have more than $10 Trillion on the books of the Federal Reserve after folly (extended by the government ATM machine for banks, Ben Bernanke) of "experimenting" with the Federal Reserve printing money to buy bonds during the last Republican sponsored economic crash of 2007.
So, the total actual debt is $42 Trillion dollars.
I am not familiar with this, Mike. I knew that Obama spent money to bail out the banks and Wall Street, without requiring or demanding that the money be repaid, adding to the burden born by ordinary Americans. This on top of the hundreds of thousands who lost their homes through the bank swindles.
Richard….AND not holding bank/WS top brass accountable in any meaningful/deterrent way. I do not understand the financially gluttonous more-more-more….sigh, haven’t those folks heard of the concept “enough”? Tho’ I do recall hearing the phrase “too much is never enough”….wondering what lack such folks are trying to fill.
Barbara, all I know is this: the one thing one can never have enough of is money. It must be true. One can be satiated with wine and food, but the appetite for money never seems to be satisfied.
A viable "Plan B" may be the "Progressive Utilization Theory" originated by P.R. Sarkar. Here is a Wikipedia Link for more information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_utilization_theory
I like the idea of Sarkar's PUT; but, it is complicated, isn't it? I suppose the takeaway is: there is no easy or simple solution ensuring "fairness."
In my 83rd year I've come to this realization, this conclusion: there will never be a completely fair system, one in which everyone is made whole. But still, Frances Perkins may have had the best idea: "The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life." All the people and not just a select few or those who are white, or Christian, or whatever. Health care. Jobs. Security. Education. Opportunity.
I agree wholeheartedly. Joe Manchin has finally joined those ranks of those determined to undermine our democracy for personal gain. By potentially running as a third party candidate to insure the wealthy survival of the fittest.( In this case, definably NOT fittest.) his lack of care for world politics will lead us towards the authoritatian regimes, ie, wealth and power for the few, misery for many. Bad Joe running against Good Joe. We have to stop him.
EDIT: Deleted first paragraph (see below)
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
She did no such thing. The 14th bars from federal office anyone who ". . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Trump certainly gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists of January 6.
On top of that, the Constitution does not demand criminal conviction or even formal charges of insurrection, rebellion, or aid and comfort.
PLUS Trump has vowed in his rallies that, if elected, he will pardon all the insurgents of their crimes. Isn’t that giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Yes. Yes it is.
I'd certainly say so.
Shane, Amendment 14, Section 3 is "self executing" meaning tfg is barred from being President as a matter of Constitutional law & that prohibition is not dependent on how well the cases go for Jack Smith or Fani Willis.
And it doesn’t matter if he believed his own lies, which I don’t for a moment think is true, but may be the basis for his defense in the federal and GA cases.
I'm glad to see we agree on this, Bryan!
Thank you for putting some thought to your rebuttal of my post.
I answer as follows: The 14th Amendment bars from office those who give aid and comfort "to the enemies" of the United States. Are the (deluded?) Jan. 6 rioters properly considered enemies of the U.S.? Didn't they think of themselves as patriots? (And that question drags us down the rabbit hole of each individual rioter's motivation.)
And what evidence is there that Trump gave them aid and comfort? Isn't that a question for a judge to decide? If not, then who decides?
The Confederates who fired on Fort Sumter and indeed, John Wilkes Booth and his band of conspirators, all thought of themselves as "patriots" in the sense of their loyalty to the original American idea, as THEY saw it. You opened the rabbit hole by posing such an absurd question, as if Charles Manson's crime could be explained away by what he thought of himself. To pretend that Trump did not encourage the January 6th INSURRECTION and RIOT in the capitol with the express aim of illegally installing him as president ids equally absurd. The forthcoming trials will no doubt prove his role in not just aiding and abetting but in initiating and sponsoring an attempted coup d'etat. Yes, my dear sir, people who attempt to undermine the Constitution to perpetuate political power by an individual who has most emphatically lost an election are indeed "enemies" of the United States. It sounds like a concept that you and certainly a whole lot of white Christian nationalists deny, probably because you think the country "belongs" exclusively to your tribe.
Kerry, if what you say is true, then why wasn't Trump charged with insurrection?
If Trump is guilty, then why wasn't he convicted in the impeachment trial? (It’s a rhetorical question. The impeachment trial over the insurrection was a political, not judicial trial. Which is what your question is…a political, not judicial one.) Prosecutors are charging him with RICOs and everything else for which they have ample evidence in a court of law. The trial itself will prove that he was guilty of insurrection, even if he isn't convicted of it. Al Capone was charged and convicted of tax fraud. Does that mean he didn't kill anybody?
Trump wasn't convicted in the two impeachment proceedings because the Republican politicians protected him, putting Trump above country. Make no mistake about it, they, too, are seditionists and insurrectionists. Trump should have been charged already with insurrection and even now should be.
John, the grand jury is still sitting in DC. Jack Smith still seems to be presenting witnesses.
Given that we didn't know there was a grand jury in Florida until they were ready to charge, I'm not willing to bet there isn't another one looking at a different set of crimes.
The rioters certainly were insurrectionists, gullibly incited by the lawless narcissism of their cult leader who knew he had lost, but couldn't bear to admit it. As to who decides, that is a question I have too, although his his and their guilt is obvious to any honest and fair-minded person based on the carefully detailed evidence presented to the public by the Jan 6th committee.
Lisa, the bias of the nakedly partisan Jan. 6 committee was clear for all to see.
John,
Biased people come to fair conclusions from real data all day every day in the sciences, in the arts, at your house (assuming you are not a sad dude living all alone on the lousy pay from Russia you are getting).
There is no such thing as an UNBIASED human being John.
There are, however, quite often, those that can be fair and just WHILE also being biased.
Like, for example, the Jan 06 committee.
Please uncover the patch from your eye that somehow prevents you from seeing these "partisans" who served on the J6 committee: Republicans Liz Cheney (Wyo) and Adam Kitzinger (Il).
Please, please put your energies into work that will heal our country. I think you have lost sight of what we Americans have and stand to lose because of a clever minority focused on the desires of a few and in their effort to “win”, they have lost the art of compromise.
Okey doke 😵💫
All who testified were republicans
I didn't see the "nakedly partisan[ship] of the Jan. 6 Committee, John. Is there any chance that you could elaborate?
The rioters, and their leader Trump, clearly intended to disrupt the electoral vote count. Their only exoneration is to prove that Biden stole the election and the electoral vote was fraudulent so they were acting to STOP an insurrection.
I'm waiting to see what happens when Trump and Company get their day in court. However, if these cases drag on, the Secretaries of State in the 50 states will have the authority to decide for themselves to block Trump from the ballot in the upcoming Republican primaries. If Trump gets blocked in, say, ten states states with Democratic Secretaries of State, then he might not be able to win the nomination.
There was a lot more to Trump, et. al.'s plan to over turn the 2020 election (meaning: we will stay in power in perpetuity - will of the people be damned), than the events that took place on Jan 6 2021. There were 62 fake law suits, with 61 losses - done solely to sew doubt about the electoral process. There was the attempt to have the army confiscate voting machines in PA. Exhortations to declare martial law by several top advisors - this is the least reported on and most chilling aspect of this whole misbegotten adventure. Sending fake electors to contest the electoral confirmation vote, resulting the the near lynching of then Vice President Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and likely several others. I am sure there are things I have left out, as all of this, plus a penchant for keeping classified documents, and sexually abusing female associates, has resulted in 62 indictments (so far). Convictions on many of these will arrive soon, I'm sure.
I don't see things the same way as you.
It's obvious that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, so it's not far-fetched to imagine that he also stole the general election from Trump.
But I'm not going there without some solid evidence. Trump will have his day (or week or month) in court, and I'll be paying attention.
As far as the 2020 election goes, Trump had his day in court - 62 of them in fact. No solid evidence was presented to support his claims in any of them. If Biden stole the 2020 nomination from Bernie Sanders, it is incumbent on Sanders or his team to bring proof of that to the attention of the American public. They have not. In fact, Sanders sat in a fairly prominent position during Biden's inauguration.
Trump, his phalanx of lawyers, nor anyone else with an R for their party affiliation (some of whom are people of astounding ability), have been able to produce any evidence that Biden stole anything, much less an election. There is, however, ample evidence that Trump attempted a coup to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. If the powers that be were really arrayed against Trump, he would have been quietly liquidated sometime in the spring of 2016. He was not. He instead went on the become POTUS 45. This is proof enough that there was/is no grand conspiracy lead by pizza parlor pedophiles, or any other group, real or imagined, against Trump or the Right in general. It is proof that our system of elective government works.
Yes, pay attention, think critically, you may see something the rest of us miss. Please do not present any claims not backed by solid evidence. It will not help your cause. Please accept evidence that is presented when forming your opinions. They will be much weightier for it.
As Judge Luttig pointed out last evening in an MSNBC interview, Article 3 requires no criminal conviction to be enforced. Any state's election officials, having evidence of violation of any of the article's provisions (such as the thousands of hours of sworn testimony before the Jan-6 Committee) can refuse to certify a candidate, and refuse therefore to put him (or her) on the ballot. Fortunately, there seems to be no end run around that before the fact.
I agree with your basic point, and I imagined how that might play out in this post:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
It is Not my point. It is the considered opinion of now several constitutional scholars, that trump is constitutionally unqualified to run for president, just as if he was too young or not a citizen. How it plays out is to be determined. Not by forum contributors, by the way, but by voters and if we're lucky, honest citizens who are charged with awesome responsibility of seeing to it that our election process is fair, honest and legitimate.
Trump pardoned his co conspirators. Is this not aid and comfort
Could be; I'd be delighted to see a judge weigh in on that one.
You're welcome, John. I put up another post that summarized what the two professors wrote in The Atlantic about "who decides?" You're correct: judges will decide. How it works, I gather, is that the first state election official to bar Trump from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds will be sued by the candidate. That will go up the appellate ladder to the Supremes, who will make the final call on whether the 14th applies to Trump.
Fortunately, we only have to go down the J6 rabbit hole if one of the jailbirds decides to run for federal office. I hope they don't, it will save us the headache.
As for repeating your answer, I was only pulling your leg :-) Post it as many times as you believe worthy, of course.
Won't it be fascinating to see watch the "originalists" in the Supreme Court twist themselves into pretzels to deal with this conundrum.
My thought exactly. How do originalists respond to other originalists if they don't like the arguments presented by those originalists? It is also impossible to actually be an originalist since no one today can possibly understand how people actually experienced life back then. We are all shaped by the era in which we're born. So claiming to be an originalist is cover for "I'm going to interpret this in a way that serves my patrons."
It sure will. Ironically, since this scenario has never happened until Trump, originalism is going to be tough for them to find.
I imagined what will happen as the 50 Secretaries of State decide whether to reject Trump from the ballot here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
It will be a panicked, unholy mess at the state level, with election officials, governors, legislatures, courts, and their lawyers beating each other to pieces to "win" the right to decide the ballot issue. But once a state does make a decision on Trump, the case goes to the courts. Supreme Court will make the final call.
I hope we manage to HAVE an election in 2024, because the first ballot in the first primary states will have to be finalized shortly after New Year's, and that's when the war will start.
Yes, the question is: who decides, and then, who enforces? It may be so ambiguous that it is unenforceable. But, to the issue of whether Trump participated or promoted insurrection: as to that I have no doubt - guilty. His frame of mind and his conduct coincide to make him guilty of the charge of insurrection.
I suggested answers to those questions on this reply to HCR (which means it is also in my "notes" for future reference):
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
I will be writing letters to various Secretaries of State suggesting that they commence the process of disqualifying the Insurrectionist in Chief, Donald John Trump.
"Enemies of the U.S." read "those who intend or attempt to overthrow the Constitution." Those are "the enemies" in mind.
Yes indeed. Does this apply to Biden and Co. as much as it does to Trump?
The chain of reasoning here starts with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders.
What are the facts that you rely on for the proposition that "Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders?" What are your sources of information?
While I agree with Judge Luttig and Prof. Tribe, I read a post that questioned whether or not election officials in a state could, on their own authority, in line with the Constitution, decide a candidate was ineligible to be on the ballot in their jurisdiction. While tRump committed his insurrection in plain sight ( "You have to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore.") What if an election official decided candidate A was ineligible to run because that candidate's views did not line up with the views of the election official? A candidate's age, citizenship, or place of residency are straight forward. Is a candidate 35 years of age or older? The Senate could have voted to disqualify tRump, but the Republicans refused to do so. I am simply asking questions here. This forum has lots of learned people with more knowledge and insight than I have. What are your thoughts?
Yes. It is not inconceivable that a Sec. of State could declare Biden, or any candidate, ineligible because they don’t like his policy. “Beau” of the Fifth has a good video arguing the same.
They certainly can try, and states with grandstanding governors probably WILL for the publicity. But as will happen with a Trump ballot ban, a Biden ban will wind up before the Supreme Court.
Beau of the Fifth Column is my go-to video option for political discourse - he's so calm, there are no other talking heads, he vcasts from his shed - what's not to like?!
Subverting democracy is more your brand than democrats. It is not legal to disqualify a candidate because you disagree with him/her, just like it is not legal to cancel millions of votes because you didn’t like the outcome.
See how I brought that back around? 🤨
I think you have misunderstood my comment. And no, as anyone around here for the past several years will attest, Red is not my color.
Thanks for asking, JennSH, appreciate it.
States can bar Trump from the 2024 primary ballot if they choose. They've kept other candidates off the ballots for other reasons; they can do it here, too.
It only takes one state to declare that Trump violated the "insurrection and rebellion" clause of the Constitution so his name will not be printed on its ballot. Trump will sue, courts will hear the case, and appeals will wind up at the Supreme Court, which will make the final and binding decision.
That will all be pretty straightforward: decision; lawsuit; appeals; SCOTUS ruling.
The biggest and most complicated fights will be in each state, where election officials, governors, legislators, and courts will beat each other half to death to claim the final say for the state. If the state constitution doesn't spell out that final authority in crisp, irrefutable language, the food fight will make the one in Animal House quiet in comparison.
I have also seen that. It would be up to the state’s Governor and/Or Secretary of State to make that determination. It would however cause a great deal of state in-fighting, and in PA, where I live, it would be politically impossible.
But not in Texass or Floriduh.
While there is room for interpretation (as always), if confronted with the question of what constitutes "rebellion against [the Constitution]", a court could reasonably and unassailably conclude that the actions of trump and his minions surrounding the 2020 election constituted "rebellion". Insurrection is not required, and secret plots and conspiracies can just as easily constitute rebellion as openly calling for fighting to "take" the White House. And telling his jock straps to come to the Capitol for the "wild" Jan 6 "protest"? Sounds like engaging in either rebellion or insurrection to me. One doesn't get to wriggle out of charges of engaging in either by being an eminence gris, either: telling people to come to CDC, to go "wild" at the Capitol, telling them you'll "walk down" with them to the Capitol to, as January 6 Defendant 1078 put it in his tweets, "stop the steal", even when one has no actual intention of physically leading them or participating in the subsequent violence, sounds A LOT like "engaging in rebellion".
I agree, Lynn.
So, Shane, without some formal finding, how is one deemed to be disqualified, and then how is the disqualification enforced?
"Disqualified" is in the eye of the beholder, so the courts will decide.
More specifically: A state election director will announce that the "insurrection and rebellion" clause of the Constitution prevents Donald Trump from being on the 2024 ballot. The Trump campaign will sue, and the court system will take it from there.
The Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination on whether the 14th bars him from holding any federal or state office; whether that ban is dependent on a conviction; and whether it's dependent on a specific *type* of conviction: i.e., does the conviction need to be rebellion or insurrection, or will any related felony suffice?
This is all new ground, so the courts will have their hands full untanbling out this hairball.
Disqualification is enforced by states, per the Supreme Court ruling, not printing his name on the ballot. If a state defies the court and prints his name anyway, and he wins the state, Congress can refuse to recognize the legitimacy of his electors. And more lawyers will receive more Trump Bingo Bux.
I like it. Let's "get it on."
I have a feeling some secretary of state is going to start that gigantic ball rolling sooner rather than later, so all we'll have to do is sit back and watch who gets flattened!
Does Schmeeckle deserve any more of our time and energy to generate a response? He clearly will distort just to provoke, and responding feeds his desire to post here to provoke the "libs". Just as many here bemoan the media giving Trump oxygen to spread his lies, why give Schmeeckle oxygen?
He can post what he likes. It is his First Amendment right. It is my First Amendment right to respond to him one last time and then my First Amendment right to not read what he says and not respond further.
Absolutely! Going by the contents of his profile, his existence on Substack seems to consist of reposting HRC’s letters with his own rebuttal*, attempting to provoke the rest of us with his delusional representation of HRC’s daily history lesson*, and copy/pasting the same faux intellectual comment* over and over until someone tells him to stop.
Ignoring his ilk and their bad faith intent is working over on Threads. We would be remiss not to employ the same tactic on Substack. Our time and sanity are worthy of more IMO.
*I usually find his contributions to twist the truth (at a minimum) since they rarely stand up to the barest fact checking by this Aussie.
please see my reply to Georgia also
Agree.
please see my reply to Georgia also
He frequently likes to copy/paste his comments, besides calling people "thugly"--which sadly he doesn't do much anymore. Maybe the numbers of complaints to the admin team about him caused him to be repremanded.
My suggestion (which I posted above) is since people feel compelled to engage with him (which I think is a form of Viagra to him) is to either post empty replies, or ones with repetition of meaningless characters, ie:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thank you Georgia! 👏👏👏👏👏
Georgia Fisanick,
I made a gross error in my earlier post, and I deleted the offending paragraph and added a correction.
🙌 Georgia , I stopped even reading him long ago- as someone said in FB once ‘just keep on scrolling’ this is none of your business ‘ ( GOT THAT RIGHT!) after he quoted -or professed to- a Russian newspaper writer.LOL!
Heather calls them ‘trolls’ says ...’do not ‘feed’ the trolls’ . I almost remember some childhood book about trolls under the bridge...Billy Goat’s Gruff? I m not sure that’s it.
Some in every facet ...😵💫
No way does HCR concoct a fraudulent insinuation. Read the Atlantic article by constitution scholars Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig: "The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup."
Once again, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: The conclusion could equally apply to a presidential candidate who was at the head of a nationwide effort to corrupt the reporting of computerized vote totals and "stuff" the mail-in ballots. Trump will have his day (or week or month) in court, and we will be paying careful attention to what he says and doesn't say.
Say - were you ever considering law? Yes you are right - in the absence of such a charge - the rest is moot.
I studied the history of legal ideas in grad school, focusing on the Declaration of Independence. Here's a fun fact: the preambles to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the original May 1776 Independence resolution were all cut from the same cloth.
RYou will see that HCR has accurately report on this if you read the article in The Bulwark regarding this or the original paper "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" by Federalist Society legal scholars William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen available as abstrat and PDF download at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
John, are you conveniently overlooking the rest of the Amendment’s wording? “…shall have engaged in insurrection OR rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Conveniently overlooking such “small details” to hold on to their arguments is what those right-wing, authoritarianism-supporting types do best…
Yes, Dutch Mike! The following excerpt from Time Magazine that FERN MCBRIDE posted today explains this so well: “Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
Yep, it is definitely a standard Russian tactic: not trying to convince with arguments, but sowing discord and doubt as much as possible. Gaslighting in its purest sense...
I just had a thought: I've never seen him take on frequent commenter here, Fern, as she is one smart cookie. I think she'd do to him what Christie would do to Trump---if Trump wasn't too scared to debate him.
That's also how they read the Bible.
Rose, has Trump been indicted for insurrection or for "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States?
Was Hillary Clinton indicted for any crime whatsoever, let alone convicted? Yet she was presumed guilty of holy mackerel! capital offenses, such that the GOP you (presumably) belong to demanded that she be incarcerated, let alone prohibited from candidacy for public office. But I guess your "kind" twists itself into knots attempting to perfume your orange cult hero with the aroma of innocence until actually proven guilty, while defaming your opposition with lies and innuendos (pizza parlor sex trafficking, Benghazi, Kenyan birth). Go away, just go away, and take your ridiculous self-rationalizations and specious arguments with you.
Kerry,
The same type of evidence (a pattern of discrepancies between the exit polls and the official results) supporting the conclusion that Biden stole the 2020 Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders also supports the conclusion that Trump stole the 2016 election from Hillary.
p.s. I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, and for Obama in the general election.
He’s been indicted more or
Less as head of a crime
Family whose one and only goal was to get him back in power. Anyway, that is how I see it.
If that is the case, more indictments will likely be coming.
The question is, whose payroll are you on?
Nobody's. I'm barely surviving, and I'm not looking for a handout.
The historic review given by Dr. Richardson illustrates that Civil War Confederate participants were not tried in a court of law for insurrection. They were guilty by joining an army whose purpose was to divide and leave the US. For this, a trial was not necessary. And so it is with Trump. We all saw what he did and to cooperate our beliefs we have testimony of his Republican Administration.
Perhaps this is where the phrase "self-executing" comes in. There always has to be an authority who makes a decision. For example, each house of Congress decides if an alleged insurrectionist, after being elected, will be seated.
The 50 Secretaries of State decide if an alleged insurrectionist will be on the ballot for the upcoming Republican primary, state by state. (Who decides if an alleged insurrectionist gets to be a presidential elector...?)
Tribe and Lutig both state that the 14th amendment does not require that DT, or anyone, be convicted of insurrection only that they commit the act. Were all the southerners barred from holding office convicted in a court of law? I don’ believe they were. Please watch this interview.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj2l-f7g-uAAxX8OkQIHbKoCKMQwqsBegQIDhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.com%2Fweekends-with-alex-witt%2Fwatch%2Fwhy-it-s-nearly-impossible-for-trump-to-run-presidential-campaign-while-facing-3-prosecutors-in-4-different-cities-191176261611&usg=AOvVaw3_ZUBqSB5GCP9qmZPhdlzg&opi=89978449
The southerners barred from sitting in Congress were barred by Congress, which had the authority to decide. Likewise, the Secretaries of State in the 50 States have the authority to decide to exclude Trump from the ballot in the upcoming Republican primaries. I imagined how that might play out here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
Now we will hear the rationalizations that Jan 6 was not an insurrection.
Trump would have to provide compelling evidence to a judge that Biden stole the election. Seeing that Biden obviously stole the nomination from Bernie, I'm not ruling out the possibility.
John, thank you.
Bridget Collins, I saw your brief post about the 2nd Amendment and then couldn't find it, so I'll post this here:
My solution is "original originalism," which goes like this:
1. The Founders knew, from their law books, that "rights" correspond to duties.
2. It was every man's duty to attend militia training.
3. Therefore, everybody has a right to own any gun that could be reasonably brought to militia training.
I appreciate your edit and I have deleted my response since you have made it unnecessary.
After all your posts, this one I agree 💯 %; so let’s do this!
Bridget Collins,
I edited my earlier post to admit my error.
"When the elephant is in a courtroom, even judges have to pause for a while"
The presence of Donal Trump in American politics is similar to the story of an elephant. In an African perspective, Folklore have often and often told of the story of an elephant who is feared and at the same time respected. You are in a jungle and you have brilliant ideas that you think they can be good for the greater jungle community. But, again, you are a small species in such an ecosystem and can't present them as your own less you face the wrath of an elephant. With fear rather respect for the elephant, you frame such ideas as belonging to the elephant for him to accept and agree to execute them. You cautiously weigh your words by saying "Mr. David, by being with you, I have learned a lot from you and I found this ideas from you." Here, you have already won the ego the elephant and you can do anything that you want.
Similarly, the American political system is faced with the same story of an elephant: Donald Trump. Both in the Republican Party and in the courtroom. The elephant is feared if you don't dance to his ego. Republicans have to mumbled from time to time and muttered inwardly what they fear to say publicly. Even the courts have had difficulties locating which clause to use to convict Donald Trump. When they are close to the Fourteenth Amendment, they have to read a tone of literature to unravel which verdict should they bite and arrive at. Even with the glaring evidence of the intention to manipulate elections, the court is still struggling to find how to prosecute Donald Trump. It must be hard serving or prosecuting an elephant. The ramifications of any court decision are tied to politics. Barring Donald Trump from running in 2024 can attract the rattle of its ardent supporters which can be hard sometimes to contain.
But, though it can take time to prosecute and determine if Donald Trump can be tried, Americans should be thankful of its legal institutions which are somehow immune from external pressure. Donald Trump tried to intimidate judges and elections officials in 2020, but he didn't succeed. If Donald Trump was vying in any African country, he would have walked away with the presidency of the minority for being the elephant that he is. And it would have also applied to America in 2020.
The case of a rat is easy to execute. Think about it.
I welcome you to subscribe to my newsletter. It is free being my subscriber. I only rely on donations to sustain it. If you find that my posts are educative, you can donate to support my newsletter.
Yup, I agree, Diane! This is monumental, especially coming from Luttig and Tribe as they “applaud” the Baude-Paulsen article. What ain’t gonna be pretty is watching masses of Trump-supporters and Trump-apologists as they scramble for an off-ramp. Lynn Cheney and Adam Kinzinger didn’t scramble for a safe, soft, smooth surface when they boldly bucked the bad@$$ BS that Trump and his ilk were (AND STILL ARE) bull-horning out there. Mitch McConnell stays silent, but, lordy, Chris Christie is barreling down the highway not even lookin’ in his rearview mirror.
It’s gonna be difficult, but there are many folks who will be hopping off the Trump Train, but we also need to expect to see and read tons of excuse-making and whoa-is-me-ism going on.
Thanks, Paul, and I agree that this new twist might surface at the GOP debates Wed this week if ANYONE has the courage to bring it up. It’s a chess game for sure as positions change the closer we get to checkmating their King. Hoping someone will finally shout “The Emperor has no clothes!”
Even though Dr. Richardson is a fantastic writer this information has been around awhile.
This was in the New York times on August 10, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html#:~:text=Conservative%20Case%20Emerges%20to%20Disqualify%20Trump%20for%20Role%20on%20Jan.%206
and
Time August 15, 2023
and
LA Times August 18, 2023
and
https://www.vox.com/23828477/trump-2024-14th-amendment-banned#:~:text=The%20constitutional%20case%20that%20Donald%20Trump%20is%20already%20banned%20from%20being%20president
and
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/feb/04/Unpacking-theory-14th-Amendment-could/#:~:text=Join%20Now-,Unpacking%20the%20theory%20that%20the%2014th%20Amendment%20could%20keep%20Donald%20Trump%20out%20of%20the%20Oval%20Office%20in%202024,-CONGRESS
Agreed, Diane, such a stellar lesson from the professor.
The logic feels self evident to those of use who read HCR daily.
I recommend listening to the Substack “Decoding Fox News” for an eye-opening understanding of what our Republican friends and family are marinating in.
https://open.substack.com/pub/decodingfoxnews/p/how-fox-news-covered-the-4th-indictment?r=4j5a4&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
(It’s a week of Fox News boiled down to 45 minutes.)
The ridiculous arguments here are so thoroughly concentrated in an onslaught of fear-baited hysterics that... you can forgive the MAGA-blinded.
I deeply appreciate knowing the Fox POV. Hearing the crazy presented as news gives me empathy for the victims of their misinformation.
And most importantly, I have an understanding that the light that HCR spreads is no match for the unending pummeling of obfuscation championed by the media-savvy, ratings-leading, money-making machine that is Fox News.
Will do! Thanks so much. I have a family member or three embroiled in that station all day long. I have some empathy as well, but still puzzle at the lack of critical thinking skills in that group. Oh well, it’s a fools errand to try to change them. Luckily they are a distinct minority…for now. Vote on!!!
Not sure what all the responses to this say, so this might be redundant.
I highly recommend sharing this article with your local newspaper, local TV news stations, and with papers and TV shows that have a national following. THIS is something we can do!!
The problem is: did Trump's activities constitute "participating" in an insurrection? Who decides? Who enforces?
Should a lawsuit have been brought on those specific charges? Who has standing to sue?
And then, what about those in Congress? Jim Jordan, Ted Cruz, MTG, Josh (run-for-your-life) Hawley, et al.?
Read the recent article in The Atlantic that Heather referenced. It answers your questions.
You don't have to go to trial and get a conviction to establish disqualification.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
If a state official allows Trump to be on the ballot, litigation will be necessary.
Actually, Robert Hubbell brings up similar objections as you. I rarely disagree with him, and in this case, only want to add that it’s the seed of doubt that is the important issue here, coming from the Federalist Society. That gives the Supreme Court, hand picked by that body, some hint of where the real GOP stands on Trump’s Re-election. The MAGA crowd’s only power exists because the other GOP hasn’t spoken. Now they have, loud and clear. We will see at the GOP debate Wed. if this argument is introduced by some brave soul.If so, Maybe dominoes will fall!
Hope does spring eternal, Diane. I wish that I had any confidence that such could happen.
Brilliant! I want to add 1 thing that I learned from one of the scholars on YouTube. I apologize that I can't remember which one. He was asked how the clause could be applied. Didn't someone have to be innocent until proven guilty?
The scholar explained that Innocent until proven guilty is the standard when being tried in a court of law, and subject to punishment If found guilty. There is no punishment involved when an authority recognizes. someone as disqualified from becoming president and does not allow them to be included on the ballot. Let's do this!
This article that Heather referred to says what you are saying.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
Thank you! Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe are my two new heroes!
In a sane world, the piece by two Constitutional heavyweights - Luttig (right) and Tribe (left) - would be front page news, carried by all the networks, and discussed by all GOP candidates.
Just the way I feel Diane. Bravo again for this important message Dr. Richardson. We cheer your repeats of this truth because we live in a disinformation society. We must hear truth, over and over, to know that lies have not won, not yet.
YES!!!
Why would they want to print a cut and paste article from The Atlantic? Even worse on that is factual untrue.
Trump wasn't charged with Sedition or Insurrection. None of the indictment was tied to Jan 6th.
As the NY Times points out in its headline
"The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment
An indictment this week did not accuse former President Donald Trump of inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol, but it did show that some close to him knew violence might be coming."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/indictment-trump-jan-6-violence.html
Time to stop lying and get your head out of the bubble.
Smith charged Trump under the Klu Klux Klan and Enron Act. He invented new law
and is using it in a way that's never been done before.
Sound familiar?
As Stalin head of secret police said "Show me the man & I'll find the crime"
THis is GOING TO BLOW UP in your face.
The Democrats lied about Russia-gate, COVID vaccine, Biden Censorship, and Hunter Biden Laptop.
Hi James, I wasn’t referring to the Atlantic article but to Dr Richardson’s masterly explanation of the 14th amendment clause in the context of a living history. She does use facts and anecdotes from US history to inform us when our present circumstances seem so obscure to most of us. She is an historian first, a political commentator second. Certainly you can admire her thinking or you wouldn’t subscribe to her letter.
I can read Atlantic articles for myself. I don't need more political spin.
Once I'd like to read her opinion. Not leftist group think. Academics are the least interesting writers today. Every word is carefully tailored to avoid any peer objection.
Professors are the most cowardly people in America. Even worse, the most boring.
BTW, I subscribe to people I disagree with. I don't live in a bubble.
Hmmmm, actual cowards are those who hit and run with angry comments and actions. Not an apt description of any professors I know, most of whom are published authors of important issues and discoveries. Name calling is not a form of conversation that assures your success in influencing others who you seem to want to influence. Or just insult!
So very much agree with you!! Is it possible to send this to WP and NYT????
Are Republicans obliged to obey the Constitution? They don't seem to think so. We will see.
JL, the problem as I see it is that the federal government has been so delinquent for so long in its responsibility to assert appropriate authority over the states that large percentages of people in red states have come to accept these “state’s rights” arguments (again). Abbott’s flat refusal to obey federal orders to remove the floating barriers in the Texas Rio Grande is one recent example. De Santis’ flagrant disregard in Florida for respecting federal law and the U.S. Constitution is another. And these people keep getting elected, which is a direct reflection of the views of the electorate in these states. If there is a common theme expressed by people in red Republican controlled states, it’s the theme of “federal overreach by the deep state”, which is code for “Waaaa, I don’t wanna I don’t wanna and YOU CANT MAKE ME)! What does a responsible parent do with a spoiled, petulant brat when he or she stages a public loon like this? It’s called “discipline”. And what should the federal government do in the case of states disregarding its constitutional authority? It’s called “enforcement”. I’m not a historian but the last time I recall the US government applying the belt in a serious way was in Selma, Alabama. And of course we know what happened in the 1860’s. Are we there yet? How much longer will we tolerate this behavior? Because you know, if we don’t do something stern, and soon, it’s just going to get worse!
Yes. And add to your list the refusal of the Alabama legislature to OBEY the Supreme Court on a gerrymandered district. That in itself, should have set off Federal Law enforcement alarm bells. Marshalls should have been sent to remove the legislature and enforce the decision.
It harks back to the idea of Federal troops remaining in the South to enforce the end of the Civil War. The question you point to is: "Are we a nation of laws or are we just a confederation of states that can violate human rights as defined by our Constitution?"
The Border Patrol in conjunction with other Federal agencies should have removed those floating barriers immediately. And if Abbott were to resist, arrest him.
If we believe in a republic, composed of government of the people, by the people, for the people, who can ever be above the law?
I very much acknowledge the legitimacy of peaceful civil disobedience BTW, such as in women's suffrage, and civil rights, but those people were arrested and so far Abbot has not been.
Yes, I think what you identify here is crucial. I mark the preemptive pardon of Nixon as a serious rupture of rule of law in our society, but of course anything that affects societies as a whole tends to be a confluence of circumstances, among them the fact that Reagan was an accomplished, if vapid, TV star, and Carter wasn't. Not accidentally TV performance increasingly became a prime influence on who gets elected, and the availability of big money with it. Reagan was caught with his pants down on Iran-Contra, but was able to brazen it out. "The Great Communicator" and "The Teflon President" crowed the press, and somehow the sort of "Woodward and Bernstein" investigative reporting of old took a back seat.
Power tends to corrupt, and with Reagan and a new legion of repurposed Confederate-wannabee dixiecrats, the former "Party of Lincoln" partywide sold it soul for absolute power. Dusting off the Joe McCarthy playbook, they have been pushing back on "decency" and rule of law ever since, and Democrats have mostly let them. The popular quip of composer Frank Wilhoit, that “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” hardly exaggerates; and we have watched as this philosophy (AKA tyranny) has become more and more aggressive. No, we cannot wait for Abbott to attack Ft. Sumpter. Trump and his RICO crew already has, with the a blessing of the RNC. We will defend rule of law and equal protection, or slide into tyranny.
Very well expressed and spot on, Mr Graham. Thank you.
They love the Constitution when it suits them. Lookat meadows trying to use federal supremacy as a reason to drop his charges.
Isn’t this a double edged blade? If Trump runs and wins, and suddenly MAGA supports this provision, then who would be an insurrectionist?
Anyone who opposes the Divine Right of Republicans.
Republicans seem to think that democrats are responsible for every thing that happened back in the civil war era. If you want to get semantic it was the republicans that instituted all the things in the Constitution. What are they crying about?
Not always, ALWAYS, getting their way!
I have been waiting for this 14th Amendment argument to gain traction, and keep Trump and his loyal Senators and Congressional Representatives (eg, Jim Jordan) off the ballot in 2024. I remain skeptical, but even if only a few states can enforce these provisions, that would be most welcome, establishing the meaning of Section 3 once and for all. -- And if some jurisdiction (even a blue state could do this) does comply with the obvious meaning of Section 3, this will undoubtedly be challenged and rise to the Supreme Court. How will the originalists on the court deal with this??
New Mexico has done it. Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, was forced out of his seat as a Commissioner in Otero County, using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The decision stands.
But he has a conviction. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088057064/cowboys-for-trump-leader-is-given-a-mixed-verdict-in-his-jan-6-capitol-riot-tria
True, but at least it shows that the amendment is valid for more than just the Civil War.
Gail, trying to respond to your question; I’m seriously hopelessly lost in all these threads so will say my posts as an activist must now go to legal constitutional scholars to determine if this Section 3 Amendment #14 is actionable. As for immigrants, or asylum seekers, I don’t see how anyone could accuse Biden of “giving ....comfort....to the enemy”.
These people seek shelter, they are not criminals although there are the Fentynyl carriers ......which route do they take? Slips my tired mind at present. So there are exceptions I’m sure but doubt to the extent that the GOP would have us believe. At some point due to the climate crisis displacing so many, we must as a nation CLARIFY AND UPDATE POLICIES AND BORDER SUPPORT.
If replying to my comment on another thread, this goes without saying. The performative nonsense, (remember the caravans?) will continue. When has truth formed a basis for MAGA skyscreaming?
This Supreme Court cares not for stare decisis, precedents, or their sworn oaths.
Originalism for Republicans is like the deficit -- something they only care about when they're in the minority.
I don't see how this gets done, so I will be waiting for the experts to weigh in.
Carolyn, I can dream like everyone else here, but I agree - I don't either. I don't see how there are anywhere near the committed numbers that could make this happen.
EDIT: Deleted first paragraph (see below)
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
HCR is reporting what the legal experts concluded. She didn't make this up. It's unfair for you to imply she was paid to report this.
You're right and I was wrong.
Howevet, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection.
I hate to give you any attention at all but Are you an idiot?? Haven’t you read any of the response? A charge of insurrection is not necessary.
I will try to be civil.
I thought through how the question of blocking Trump from the ballot might play out in this post.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
Why and how do you chose to disagree with Dr Richardsons simply reporting on a reasonable writing by educated originalist scholars.
Unfortunately, HCR is not "simply reporting." She is applying what the scholars concluded to the particular case of Trump, without telling her readers that the critical word in the 14th Amendment is INSURRECTION. (But Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection.)
You are misreading HRC. She is reporting how the scholars are applying the 14th amendment. Read the articles. Both constitutional scholars, Michael J. Lutig and Lawrence Tribe, hold the position that DT is disqualified under the 14th amendment.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
My thanks for your cool-headed reply. It's not easy to respond to such commentary; it reeks of McCarthy's accusatory "dialogue" during those infamous 1953 hearings.
Today, some emulate the GOP's absurd "talking-points" example of argument. They answer rebuttal with their previous statement, perhaps believing that argument is nothing more than repeatedly positing one's opinion — which is not argument, but arguing.
More cynically, these folks know this and their design is to perpetuate their opinion — knowing that with Gatling-gun repetition and dissemination, much of the population will mistake harping opinion for fact.
"They answer rebuttal with their previous statement, perhaps believing that argument is nothing more than repeatedly positing one's opinion — which is not argument, but arguing." This is a fine and important distinction to make. Real argument gets us somewhere; arguing often just goes in circles and frustrates good thinking and progress.
Whew we, Russell, your last paragraph nailed it! I loved the imagery of gaitlin gun repetition confusing people with fiction/opinion over fact.
Yes, but as John S says - Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection - until he is, the the 14 becomes irrelevant.
Yes I am (or was).
Tribe and Luttig say:
"The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
I hear what you're saying, and although I dread Trump being on the ballot, I'm not sure we want to go down this slippery slope. I'm not sure why Trump has not been charged with insurrection. Did Liz Cheney's committee provide enough evidence to keep Trump off the ballots?
I imagined what might happen when efforts are made to keep Trump off the ballot here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2023/comment/36816431
Yes. The list of Senators openly assisting the insurrection is long: to start Cruz, Hawley, Johnson, Graham, etc. The list of Republican Members of Congress is too long to even enumerate but they would all be disqualified from holding office.
I will be extremely happy keeping Trump off the ballot(s) in some states, but the more the merrrier!
Like the scum that six of them are
Say insurrection is free speech?
As a practical matter, as opposed to meat for a law review article and lots and lots of commentary, I don’t see any effective way to enforce that “self-executing” provision of the Constitution against trump on the basis of his having engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.
Hypothetically the republican party could still designate trump as the official republican candidate EVEN IF he’s convicted of one or more of the charges concerning his actions with respect to trying to overthrow the 2020 election (not just Jan 6 but everything he did or caused his minions to do to try to steal that election, as delineated so clearly in the Georgia indictment), since none of the charges pending against him (so far) is in so many words for having engaged in an insurrection or rebellion under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3 (or the broader nature and number of charges that could be brought under 18 USC §2383). If the Party of No does so, I can't see any Secretary of State acting to keep him off the ballot or refusing to include trump votes in deciding who won that state’s election UNLESS there is a ruling by SCOTUS, either as the result of some civil petition to the courts of one or more states (which will certainly be appealed to SCOTUS regardless of the state court's decision) or following a criminal conviction under either the Amendment 14 or 18 USC §2383, that he is incapable of holding any office. To get such a ruling prior to the 2024 election seems almost impossible, since as far as I know no civil action to determine that he's incapable of holding office has been initiated in any state, and trump hasn’t yet been indicted or charged expressly with having engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion anywhere. Even if he were, it’s almost impossible that a final ruling by SCOTUS on a civil petition would be reached, or that he’d be convicted of having engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion AND have exhausted all appeals (including the probably inevitable appeal to SCOTUS of any conviction) before the 2024 election.
I just can’t see any Secretary of State in even the bluest of Blue States unilaterally deciding that trump can’t be on that state’s official ballot, or refusing to count trump votes in deciding who won the 2024 election in that state. Can you?
And if one or more of them did, an unholy mess would ensue, which would benefit no one, although the Qwing of the republican party would probably rejoice.
Perhaps you are correct..... but as Danielle commented (above): "New Mexico has done it. Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, was forced out of his seat as a Commissioner in Otero County, using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The decision stands."
'Trials Are About Facts. That's Bad For Trump. '(Time) excerpts
'The mournful lesson of the GOP primaries in 2016 was summed up by the hashtag “LOL, nothing matters.” It captured the vertiginous sense among traditional Republicans that the political world had been loosed from its moorings; that damning facts no longer had purchase with voters because a critical mass of Americans had, for whatever reason, chosen to trust the least honest man in America.'
'The series of indictments against Donald Trump may mark a turning point.'
'From day one, when the president’s press secretary lied to reporters about Trump’s inaugural crowd size, the Trump presidency amounted to a systematic assault on truth. Though at times almost amusing—as in “Sharpiegate” when the commander-in-chief displayed a doctored weather map to support his erroneous claim about a hurricane’s path—most of Trump’s lies were no laughing matter. They served as an acid eating away at the already frayed bonds of affection among Americans.'
'The chaotic and dishonest federal response to COVID-19 response was a steep price Americans paid for Trump’s assault on truth. But it may not have been the most consequential. The lies did even more damage to social trust. The deluge of deceit undermined faith in every institution that Trump suspected might thwart him—the press, the intelligence services, the courts, government employees, public health authorities, the military, and finally, the electoral system.'
'Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
'Trump has not achieved this alone. Elected Republicans, party functionaries, and the organs of right wing influence have played a large (if sometimes expensive) role in this, serving as Trump’s phalanx of falsehood. The gaslighting has demoralized those Republicans who remain immune, to say nothing of independents and Democrats.'
'Which brings us to the indictments. The one realm of American life that has shown itself impervious to Trump’s assault on truth is the courts. The tactics of lying, whataboutism, distraction, and insults may succeed on NewsMax or in the pages of the Federalist. They don’t work as well in front of a judge. As Stefanos Bibas, a Trump-appointed judge on the Third Circuit, ruled after rejecting the Trump campaign’s effort to disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvania’s voters: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
“Specific allegations and proof.” That is unfamiliar territory for Trump. Courts are not perfect truth detectors, but they are a helluva lot better at separating fact from fiction than talk radio, social media, or cable TV. Just ask E. Jean Carroll or the plaintiffs in the Trump University case.'
'Trials have a unique power to rivet attention. A trial of a former president will be an unprecedented national moment with the capacity – perhaps the unique capacity – to penetrate America’s information silos. The upcoming trials in Florida for willful retention of classified documents and in DC for a conspiracy to disenfranchise the American people probably will not budge the Trump faithful. But the segments of the Republican party that are not in Trump’s thrall may yet be persuadable. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who get most of their information from right-leaning sources may have only the haziest notion of what Trump is accused of. They will have forgotten that all of the chief witnesses against Trump at the January 6 congressional hearings and those likely to testify in upcoming trials are fellow Republicans and former Trump associates. They will hear from Republicans, like former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who voted for Trump twice but could not in conscience steal the election for him, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who would not lie to subvert the 2020 election outcome.'
'Courtrooms don’t run like TV studios. Irrelevant testimony is not permitted. Changing the subject won’t fly. Cross examination reveals contradictions. Failure to answer a question will get a rebuke from the judge. Lying under oath is a crime. So is witness tampering. Trump will not have the scope, so often exploited in the past, to create diversions from this drama. It will hold us and him in its grip. With any luck, some Republicans will get their first inkling of the avalanche of lies Trump has told.'
'And just maybe, some Republicans will be a bit inspired by the patriotism and integrity of Americans like Rusty Bowers, who withstood pressure from Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Trump to falsify Arizona’s electoral votes. “I took an oath,” he explained simply. And in his diary he noted: “I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to.”
‘Republicans like Bowers, Raffensperger, and Pence saved America from chaos in January 2021. Perhaps they can do the same for 2024.’ (TIME: By Mona Charen, August 14, 2023) See link to article below.
https://time.com/6304478/donald-trump-trials-indictments-essay/
Thank you Fern ! Awesome complement for tonight's lesson. Brava !
Thank you, D4N. Good to see you!
Ditto
I've never made an apology for adoring woman-kind Zella; Best creation ever shared !
Fern!
That's a really well written piece. From Time magazine!? If ever there was a publication to be considered old school mainstream...wouldn't it be Time? I guess I need to pay better attention to this "mag". I had the impression it was just a step above "People". But even if that were the case, upon reflection, that makes Mona Charon's opinion piece all the more important.
It's fine for us to get riled up on sites like this where we are preaching to our own choir. But things change when the general public gets the message. So kudos to "Time" for employing Bulwark representatives. If there is hope for a center right party with integrity, for democracy, it lies with those courageous writers.
Thanks for this.
Bill, Mona Charen is an American columnist, journalist, and political commentator. She has written three books: Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First. Currently, she is Policy Editor of The Bulwark, and host of its Beg to Differ podcast. Her excellent work may appear in any number of sources.
Thank you Fern for the great defense of Democratic freedom. It would appear that truth does not set well with some unnamed persons.
I'm in favor of naming the liars and traitors to democracy, Bill.
Absolutely!!!
Agreed. But rathensburger is throwing a lot of people off the voting rolls in effect doing the job for the next election. I did the right thing then but he is no hero
Sorry he did the right thing
Great link and excerpt, Fern. I love that you find the articles that augment what Professor Richardson writes.
Thank you, Ally.
Case admirably set forth. DT learned well from his mentor Roy Cohn and his exemplar and probable master Vladimir Putin.
Their master, mentor and exemplar has been called The Father of Lies.
I think his father, Fred, was his first and most effective teacher, then came Cohn. Hitler, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Duterte...they came later as models for the type of power and amount of wealth he aimed to amass.
Yes.
But... this may be surmise, yet I'd be surprised if there were no direct link with Putin.
That is why I wrote "his exemplar and probable master".
Meaning that he could be to the Russian dictator what Lenin was to the German high command, a tool to disable a powerful adversary. With this difference: the Germans enabled Lenin by transporting him across their territory so that he could reach Petrograd, nothing more. They viewed his revolutionary politics as dangerous poison. I suspect the former US president of being rather more: the Russian's purpose-primed instrument.
Even if this is not so, he will have learned plenty from that quarter. And there are so many resemblances, so many coincidences.
DJT may indeed have direct ties with Putin. I thought the subject of your initial comment was the strongest influences on the former president's behavior/character. It was necessary to emphasize his father and then Cohn on that score.
Roy Cohn, Sen. Joe McCarthy's sidekick. If you spell it with an e, there may arise some confusion with DT's attorney and fixer.
I had in mind more than influences or psychological kinship.
A horrible, horrible thought.
Fern, hasn’t tfg had a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table for quite a while? I think I read that during his faux presidency. That should have told us everything we needed to know.
Marge, I do not think that such a claim was ever verified. Trump said and then denied that he read speeches of Hitler's. The former president's behavior during his presidency and afterward tells us very clearly about the nature of his leadership and destruction of our institutions in his goal to tear down democracy in the US.
Thanks, Peter. I corrected my misspellings of Roy Cohn's last name.
Fern, thank you (again)☮️💟!
Thank you, Fern. Heartening that Time has published this truth. Eventually, we will swing back to sanity and a shared vision of America. 🤞
When you have 'citizens' of this great nation who would lie to your face, .. "FACTS" to that crowd of spinelss twits (tailgators et al) are 'your facts' not theirs.
Thank you for this!
Thank you, Karen Hall, for reading it. The former president is well drawn in the piece, a reminder of what a low-life, destructive force that liar continues to be.
Absolutely. In my wildest dreams, I never imagined this would be our nation’s collective nightmare to this horrific scope. I worry endlessly, but the hope I get from writers, historians and others that post here, is how I middle through the muck. Thank you again, and thanks to Dr. HCR.
* ... and other WHO post here ...
There seem to be several members of Congress who should also be ineligible to hold office as senators or representatives because of their roles in attempting to keep Trump** in office. I, for one, look forward to hearing that, indeed, they may no longer serve in our government. (Fingers crossed!)
I would eject Josh "Bambi Trotting" Hawley and Ted "Cancun" Cruz first and foremost
First among equals.
Jim Jordan
Scott Perry
Lindsey Graham
...
It's a looong list
Ha! True that, Sheila.
Jim Jordan might earn a double ejection. Both for being an insurrectionist and for being the worst dressed man in Congress 🙃 🤣
Love the nicknames!
Thanks, Anne-Louise and Julia Marie.
We have to laugh about these clowns, so as not to cry at their perfidy
Josh Hawley & Ted Cruz: 'But your honor, I can not be held as aiding the insurrection mob, here are videos of running from the mobs! Note the wet marks in my pants'!
Not to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene kneeling before a J6 insurrectionist, inside his prison cell - was she washing his feet? Kind of looked like 'providing comfort' to me.
Will you ever forget the brief sight of Hawley running for his life?
Running for his life from a peaceful group of patriots taking a guided tour of the Capital building? Preposterous!
Now, we just don't know - he might have had a sudden, urgent call of nature....
I've heard about those. You may be right.
And Jim Jordan hiding on his knees.
lol !
Please don't forget Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert and their enabler Kevin McCarthy. I'd hate to see them Left Behind.
How could I ??? It's helpful for me to consider all the current trials that will happen are like a snowball rolling down a long, long snowy mountain. "Discoveries" will be made... Result: Avalanche (s).
🤣🤣🤣
It does seem mad that Trump, after all his posturing and anti-democratic rhetoric, should be allowed to hold Office ever again.
Not just "seem".
I am recalling that enough Republicans were willing to vote with Democrats to convict Nixon for substantial yet far lesser abuses of power.
The republicans of yesteryear had more than two with a conscience
That was back when we had enough sane repubs.
Not so much these days.
Sad isn't it.
Good point.
Thank you Heather. Some State Legislatures and Congress would look very different without fringe extremists and incompetents looking to destroy the Federal government from the inside. Who can forget Grover Norquist’s “I want a government so small I can drown it in a bathtub?”
The well-funded GOP march to the extreme concentration of wealth and minority control plays out in states where wealthy benefactors can readily drop in a million dollars and decimate any societal aspirations of equity, democracy, and justice. It is also an important reminder that meaningful democracy and extreme wealth inequality cannot co-exist.
I would submit that their idea of small government is really just eliminating expenditures that benefit society and padding their own coffers. It definitely wouldn’t include reducing taxes on the people.
Excellent explanation.
George, agreed. It's not just the wealthy that want practically non-existent Federal government. It's the heavily armed wackos, militia types, that blatantly want the Federal government eliminated. Constitutional arguments don't count for a thing to an alarming percentage of the population.
Yup. And when the air we breathe becomes 'un-breathe-able'.. clearly, "the Gov't" is to blame. Don't waste your time asking "them" to write rules. Rules? For what?? hahahaahaa.. choke..gasp!!
Like Reagan, Norquist real target was democracy. The right wing adores government so long as it promotes and protects THEIR agenda, and helps them lord over everyone else.
"They (old school Republicans) rejected ... (the idea) that American democracy meant that power resided not in the federal government but in the states, where a small, wealthy minority could insulate itself from the majority rule that controlled Congress."
Deja vu all over again.
Accountability Professor ⭐ is necessary and important, for all transgressors.
As you've no doubt observed, an awful lot of politicians seem to think that accountability is for everyone *but* them
True especially those with an R (for Reprobate) after their names. Exactly what a "republic" (or a "republican") isn't.
I think that's the reality of our political system nowadays. It's ideal to think that politicians care about the population, but a Princeton study showed that we're actually more of a oligarchy than an actual democracy
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/who-are-the-bad-guys
I can appreciate what RFK Jr. is doing as it's shedding some light to the corruption we're seeing in American Society
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-we-should-appreciate-desantis
Appreciate RFKJr, really. Whose payroll are you on.
We are very much an "oligarchy". And that IS the war going on right now. The Battle supreme for the Supreme Court comes to mind.
But to suggest that lunatics like RFK, Jr and fascists like DeSantis somehow have the answer is beyond absurd. I am chuckling so hard at the concept, I just choked on my coffee.
You’re joking, right? DeSantis a champion of individual freedom, and RFK Jr. railing against 5G and vaccines? What nonsense.
I don't see how one can hold individual transgressors accountable without holding the organization they served in committing the transgression accountable. Wasn't the Confederacy held accountable by recognizing it as an illegitimate government and abolishing it? Accountability is necessary for all political parties too.
Wasserman-Shultz asserted successfully in court that the Democratic Party is a corporation. The Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people.
So...? What are we waiting for?
Do you have a link to a source for "Wasserman-Shultz asserted successfully in court that the Democratic Party is a corporation."?
And what organization do you propose holding accountable?
Steve Lord, Seriously…this history did happen.
https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
https://inthesetimes.com/article/in-its-defense-against-fraud-suit-from-bernie-supporters-the-dnc-just-dug-i
Now, with respect to the Republican Party, which it seems to me should be held responsible, does the Democratic Party's established right to try to rig a primary election extend to another party's right to rig a presidential election? I would hope not. If not, it seems that those convicted of sedition were working at the behest of the operatives of the Republican Party. If a corporation really is a person, why can't it be tried and convicted of same?
I read through all three entire articles.
Only one mentions the word corporation. And the case was correctly decided - political parties are private corporations.
Re-litigating Sanders' defeat brings us where?
Truth be told, if the Republican Party (RNC, to be exact) had been more responsible in 2016 and rigged its primary for Jeb Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess.
None of the case law regarding Sanders' suit against DNC has any precedential value here - the issue wasn't whether DNC was or wasn't a corporation, but rather who benefits from its bylaws and how enforceable those bylaws are in favor of a candidate like Sanders who has never been a Democrat. Part of the ruling was if you aren't a party member, your rights under/within the party are a lot weaker than if you are, and maybe non-existent.
And of course, corporations may be held criminally liable, like Trump's was in New York last year. What good did that do?
Getting RNC convicted wouldn't serve a much greater purpose than convicting the Trump Org, IMO.
Primary reason for convicting a corporation of a crime is to make it pay restitution. How does that fit in with RNC in the J 6 context, especially if RNC is broke?
The original court transcript did mention the word "corporation." I read it years ago after it happened and might still have it on a hard drive, but I don't think I can send it as an attachment on Substack if I still do. Also, it is not accurate to claim "Sanders...has never been a Democrat." He registered as a Democrat to run for the election and then reverted to Independent after the election ended. It is my understanding that to run as a Democrat, he also had signed an agreement that he would not run as an Independent after the primary. He kept that agreement.
This was a class action civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, so please do not distort that. Part of the ruling was the lawsuit had no standing because the supporters could not claim damages because they were never guaranteed the party wouldn't violate its own Bylaws. As a corporation, its operatives had a right to make the changes...not so different I suppose when a corporation changes its customer agreements by notification to you, not with your permission. You are not their employee; members of parties are not employees. There is no contract to violate.
This is such a dismal event for "democracy." It formalized that voters don't have any right to pick their candidates; their parties can do that regardless of the expressed will of the members. The Party operatives have no legal obligation to be honest with the members. It seems not so different from recent rulings that enshrined politicians' right to lie. Technically the parties are not our government, even though two parties exist as a cartel that forms our government. The three articles are consistent in agreeing this is nothing to be proud of. I agree with that. Do you? Like legitimate black history, it must now be taught and acknowledged as a real event and what it means. If it is not, it is as bad as DeSantis's pushing of revisionist history as legitimate scholarship. It is not.
However I believe you are correct that corporations can be held criminally liable and their operative employees convicted and imprisoned. In the case of trying to overturn a legitimate election, weren't operatives of the Republican Party involved? Sedition is a criminal offense. Like any other rogue corporation could it be dissolved or put into some type of receivership?
Fascinating. Of course in deciding what parts of the Constitution to follow, Republicans pick and choose based on their self-interest in the moment, despite the oath they take when sworn in. In other words, they respect the Constitution like they respect the rule of law.
"Republicans pick and choose based on their self-interest in the moment,"
Bingo! Except for when they just make it all up.
EDIT: Deleted first paragraph (see below)
The 14 th Amendment provides that those who commit INSURRECTION are barred from running for federal office (including President). Legal experts have recently concluded the obvious, that this prohibition is still in force today.
However, Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty.
EDIT: I was wrong. Luttig and Tribe do indeed write: "The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause."
From the Tribe and Luttig article. Please read it: "The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup."
The problem with this is, if you take out the requirement of a court verdict, who decides?
In the 1860s, Congress decided not to re-admit known Confederates. Today, who decides, without a guilty verdict of insurrection, to remove Trump from the ballot?
Guess you didn't read the whole thing because the answer you refuse is that it takes 2/3 of the house to make that decision.
But go on with your bs.
You have the right to spout bs and I have every right to call you out on your bs.
Only reason I replied .
Hey, does anyone think HCR can sue this PAB for slander?
I think you're saying that it takes 2/3 of the House to decide not to admit a congressman. That's different from taking a presidential candidate off the ballot.
The Secretaries of State!
John, I read it the first time. No need to keep repeating. Thanks.
Angelica, what FERN MCBRIDE posted (excerpted from Time magazine) explains John’s strategy:
'Self-styled Trump grand strategist Steve Bannon has implied that the lying is strategic; that “flooding the zone with s—” is part of a plan, similar to that employed by Vladimir Putin, to confuse the public to the point where they give up attempting to separate truth from falsehood. In the long eight years that Trump has dominated our national life, he has succeeded in transforming a third of the GOP into a hermetically sealed cult and persuading a fair share of the remainder to treat negative information about him as politically-motivated dirt (even if also possibly true).'
Angelica, I replied to several different people, and the replies aren't all the same.
PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM...
This should also apply to the traitors sitting in Congress. BTW, imagining history this way (I mean, no sitting Congress for 8-9 months 😳) information distributed by newspapers, travel restricted to horse, really emphasizes the huge differences between then and now ...
Very different and not so different.
To those who argue the 3rd section of the 14th Amendment applies only to Civil War era rebels and seditionists; let us remind them that many Confederate flags were present in various forms during the Jan. 6 assault on the capital, thereby, to my mind, extending the Civil War era into today and rendering their argument moot.
In other words, the Civil War continues to this day and the 14th Amendment, all of it, absolutely applies to those who participated in and encouraged, aided, and abetted those who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Ralph, the entire debacle of the MAGAt movement is absolutely founded on the tenents of the Confederacy, and your conclusion that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is in play is accurate. I would add as argument (without directly addressing a particularly repetitive poster directly) that the activity of insurrection is identified and as people are being convicted of crimes for engaging in that insurrection. The person who "kept his hands clean" by not directly engaging in the actions but in creating the maelstrom that allowed it to occur does not need to be charged with and convicted of the insurrection. That the people who engaged in insurrection activities that day who have PLED GUILTY to insurrection is enough to establish that an insurrection occurred. Plus, there's the waving of the Confederate Battle Flag in the rotunda. That activity alone establishes that the ties of today link to the southern perspective of the Civil War and should cement any originalist's belief that Sect. 3 Amendment 14 is valid today.
Have you read Dr. Richardson's book - "How the South Won the Civil War?"
Check it out.
Planning to do that myself. Robert Stephens, a nephew of Alexander, was a Georgia representative in Congress from 1961-1977.
It is a good one.
Four indictments may eventually lead to one jail cell, but it's a powerful shame that the Senate did not use the power it had on two occasions to mete out the justice most needed, which was to prevent the would-be emperor from ever holding high office again. As much as I would like to see the former president in a striped suit, the nations security depends far more on the assurance that he and his ilk never reach that office again. He's had ample time for the bad seed he has sewn to sprout and take root all over the country, making it far more difficult and dangerous to put down the white supremacist/fascist movement than had he been impeached the first time.
Perhaps too much to expect that knowledge of the Constitution and understanding of the oath each is required to uphold would be a basic requirement for ALL seated in Congress.
Given the state of Congress today, I, sadly, cannot imagine Republicans voting against the former president under ANY circumstance. If I am misinterpreting how this works, I would be absolutely delighted to be wrong.
Carolyn -- Awaiting some legal scholars to comment, but my understanding is that state or local jurisdictions could implement Section 3. It does not need to be a national Congressional decision.
Congress can remove the disqualification by a two thirds majority in each chamber, but they do not appear to play any necessary role in its application to specific persons.
Yes Steve, you are correct. Each Secretary of State or Election Supervisor certifies those that qualify and are the ones to make the determination. Once a determination is made, it is an administrative decision, appeals-litigation ensue. THUS the question is when will the challenges begin and by whom? Are people going to wait for the moment ballots are printed or upon initial filing? Guessing only GOP registered voters would have standing to sue. Thus it may be a bit early to see challenges as they must wait for someone to file with election supervisor. Can not figure out deadlines for Iowa. New Hampshire: "655:43 Filing Deadline. –I. Nomination papers shall be filed with the secretary of state no later than 5:00 p.m. on the
Wednesday one week before the primary." https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/inline-documents/sonh/running-for-office-for-web.pdf
The primaries should all be held on the same day. Otherwise, the early states have an advantage over the others to select the nominee, and to assert their rights.
Thanks! Much as I imagined.
I "like" the fact that you so clearly explained how it works, but distinctly dislike the answer, in that it is so unwieldy that it's practically unworkable 🤔😢.
Don’t be a buzz killer! This is possible! Robert Reich and Inequality Media are on top of this and fund raising now!
I was misreading the part in Section Three that says a vote of 2/3 of Congress can remove the disqualification--so, I got that now, but really don't see any way for it to be enforced; e.g. for DJT to be prevented from taking office.
Logically, then, you too regard the Constitution of the United States as a dead letter.
This is understandable, given the Big Show you, like all the world, have been watching, day in day out, since November 2016.
This is understandable, given the way we have all been conditioned to take appearances for realities. (Thank heaven there are many for whom this has never worked...)
This is understandable, given the way in which the former President and seditious Congressmen have continued to strut around as though nothing amiss had ever happened and their oath of office meant whatever they want it to mean at any given moment, while scared office-holders have been reduced to parroting every lie handed down from above, and credulous true believers well-brainwashed-and-bamboozled threaten neighbors, clean their guns and practice using them, secure in their well-fed prejudices, their hatreds, their rage and resentments.
The ringleaders know perfectly well that you can't fool all of the people all of the time but believe -- understandably -- that they can so arrange matters that those they can't fool... don't count.
There's tyrannical oligarchy for you.
Money counts, you don't.
Excellence points, Peter!
Thank you, Rose.
The question remains:
Is the Constitution a dead letter?
It does all too often seem to have been treated as an object of worship, duly perverted by High Priests like so much religious doctrine.
Is an oath of office meaningful?
Established practice by successive generations of conmen suggests it is indeed meaningless.
But then, the art of suchlike is to dissolve meaning itself in an acid bath.
Secretary of a state could enforce it but it no doubt would be challenged. Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig explain it in their Atlantic article. Gifted article and well worth the read.
Some states have Sec of States & other state officials that are spreading disinformation like butter!
If you read section III of original article, they claim the provision is self-executing. the same as the age limit is self-executing. But the reality of something being self-executing is a bit baffling. It probably are people at state level who say you can't be on the ballot because you are not 35 years old. The same hear. But it seems that any voter should have "standing" in objecting to someone being on the ballot. On the other hand, it seems to me that this could easily be abused by someone wanting to keep a legiitimate candidate off the ballot, e.g., a veto-proof legislature in a red state claiming that Biden supported a insurrection. Just as Trump showed us that most "guardrails" in our democracy are conventions and not laws and should be made into laws, I think their should be laws about how 14th amendment violations are enforced. Good luck with that in a legislature paralyzed by MAGA Repubs.
Thanks Steve. I hope you’re right. I have been wondering who or what has the power to enforce it. We can’t count on the Supreme Court.
The 14th amendment says 2/3 of a vote in each house can disable this provision. We won’t get 2/3 of a vote in either house.
🤞I think we have a chance.
This is the solution, folks! Can we hear some excitement here? Ready to contact Secretaries of State? Do NOT assume you are beaten without TRYING!
BUT… doesn’t this offer rejection of a Blue candidate in a Red state for more specious reasons? I.e. Biden is denied the ballot in Texas as his immigration policies “give aid and comfort to the enemy”, the enemy being immigrants?
Immigrants have not previously held office, another caveat. Not applicable. ie They did not take an oath and violate it.
😊
Nonetheless, in the eyes of some they are invaders which Joe is not rebuffing. Florida would do the same I fear.
It’s not just the cult anymore. As MSM has followed Fox down the “entertainment” path, the two-sides crap snares even the sane.
Here's the link to The Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
I believe the authors are absolutely right, and that this clause of the Constitution bars DJT from running for office for the rest of his life. Ditto any other politician who committed "insurrection, rebellion, or gave aid and comfort" to those who did.
They argue that no conviction or even criminal charges are necessary for the prohibition to be in force--it's automatic. How would it be applied in practice? The authors say that every secretary of state or state election official must approve or reject any candidate for the ballot. The first one that rejects DJT will surely be sued by DJT, which will send the test case up the ladder to the Supreme Court. Its ruling will be swift and decisive. No way of knowing which way the Supremes will jump, but my guess is they'll uphold the ban.
Those who believe keeping DJT off the ballot will spark the Second Civil War? First, that's not worth considering. He needs to be kept off no matter what the backlash. Second and more important, there will be no Second Civil War over anything he does or doesn't do. There may be pockets of riots or violence in parts of the country, but for the most part, MAGAs will steam and shout, then they will move on as DJT joins the dustbin of history.
His sell-by date is expiring fast, even MAGAs know it, and they will not risk being shot and/or imprisoned to save his bacon on a second term.
Hope so!
Plus people don’t want to die in the streets for trump. They are too busy being glued their cell phones, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook. But if you take those things away that might cause an insurrection!!
I fully agree with the article, & would add that enforcing this would likely trigger the 2nd civil war; especially with "Proud Boys" escaping before sentencing. If it wasn't for the fact that the world really is about to become uninhabitable due to Climate change, this would worry me even more than it does. We are so screwed.............
Seeing how people reacted in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, I sometimes fear that we’ll all kill each other off before climate change has a chance to do it… (keyword: toilet paper…)
That's my fear too, Geff. Both fears.
Hopefully, quite a few of the proud boys are in jail!
For now, maybe! Proud boys - Future mercenaries.
Dr. Richardson, Thank you for explaining the fourteenth amendment from an historical perspective. I have never seen the word “beavering” used previously. Your use of it was perfect in the context of your description. The word caused me a fond memory of years living next to beavers. They are wonderful animals. They mate for life and work to support their families and improve their supporting. We lived on a small ten acre pond with a few mountain steams feeding the pond and a man made dam creating the pond depth and a spillway and stream providing the outlet for the pond. We watched our beaver neighbors constantly damming the incoming streams, and we spent a lot of time undoing their attempts to dam the spillway and the outflow stream. From our bedroom window, we could watch an older large beaver swim up the outflow stream each twilight evening, climb out of the stream, walk up the bank and over the dam and slip into the pond. He would work all night trimming saplings and brush from the banks surrounding the pond and place those sticks and branches in front of the dam outflow spillway. Then, at sunrise, we’d watch him climb out of the pond, walk over the dam, slip back into the outflow stream and swim down stream to his hut home to rest so he could return to work in the evening and begin his assignment to dam the pond spillway again. That old beaver and I spent more than fifteen years working to undo each other’s work. The word “beavering” perfectly describes that old guy’s behavior. He was relentless. If I couldn’t keep up and undo he work to raise the level of our pond, we had to employ others to help us keep the spillway clear of his plans to clog it up. Eventually, he stopped coming to work each night and a new pond appeared and expanded along the outflow stream filling the low land down stream. When a trapper knocked on our front door one day and asked permission to set his beaver traps in our pond and streams, we told him that we couldn’t give him that permission. The beavers were our neighbors, and they were doing what they do, and we did not agree with the term many locals used to define them as “nuisance beavers”. They were simply beavering. What a great word that I had never heard until I read your essay.
J.P., thank you for your delightful personal story. You brought a tear to my eye when you said the beavers were your neighbors. I don't have beavers but I have many animal neighbors who I share the land with and I too revere.
Thank you for this story, J. P. I’ve never had the chance to observe beavers in this way, and I’m humbled by their industriousness and tenacity in the face of human interference.
Wonderful story, J.P. Thank you.