So you’d have the same message for Biden, when he is inevitably taken off the ballot in other states in retaliation?
I’m not arguing Trump shouldn’t be taken off the ballot - he should, that’s a correct application of 14A. But if you’re arguing that the only process for appeal should be 2/3 majorities in Congress, then you’re arguing that this should be the only recourse when 14A is unscrupulously misapplied against Biden.
And this is exactly why it bothers me. Without some sort of rigorous bright line, once applied this is going to be abused like mad.
So we’re once again back to “this correct application of the law makes me uncomfortable because the GOP will use it as an excuse to incorrectly apply it, even though they’ve made it clear that they don’t really need excuses in the first place.”
Yeah. Ugh.
When you decide to not exercise the law because you’re scared of the opposition, you’re already in a terrorist state.
This is what I was thinking when Colorado took him off the ballot. But when the other side is going to act in bad faith no matter what I do, I’m not going to overly concern myself with what they think.
The Judicial Branch held up admirably in the post-election frivolous litigation battle. I think we can trust them to reject completely baseless efforts to keep someone like Biden off the ballot under the 14th amendment. If we can’t, we have bigger problems.
Yes we are. Alas.
At the end of the day, all these problems come down to what the electorate is willing to tolerate in the people in office.
What I would want is, if some State officials remove a candidate over a trivial issue (tan suit), in retaliation for another candidate being removed for a real violation (sending a mob to attack Congress), that would sufficiently outrage the electorate that every candidate from that party loses in the next election.
If a state is so partisan that a majority of its voters are willing to tolerate such a blatant violation of democratic norms, they were never going to vote for Biden anyways.
No, we’re not. That’s not the point at all.
The issue here is that the law as it stands taken literally is clearly ridiculous. There is no established process for applying 14A consistently across the country, and there are no established due process rights other than a 2/3 majority of Congress (which effectively means no rights at all) for correcting misapplication.
It’s one thing to say that we should follow the law in (say) prosecuting Trump for stealing documents, while keeping faith in the legal system to reject frivolous Republican attempts to try a revenge stunt on Biden. There is a well established legal due process here. The same due process applies to both well-founded and fabricated prosecutions, and we have faith that the judicial system can distinguish between them.
It’s quite another to say that the current clusterfuck where there really is no established and consistent due process for applying 14A is an acceptable state of affairs. It undermines sensible democratic elections. The point is that cheerleading that the current state of affairs is just fine and that Trump has no recourse other than a 2/3 majority of Congress is stupid, because then that’s the only recourse for anyone else who is excluded without good reason.
Nobody is saying that we should be afraid of Republican attempts at revenge. We’re saying that we should be afraid of a situation where no coherent law governs this process at all, because there will be no way to stop Republican revenge stunts.
This whole situation could sprial out of control into the complete failure of democracy.
But the 14th amendment has been used. Those saying it is “uncharted” and “untested” are demonstrably wrong.
Saying that Trump hasn’t committed an insurrection because he hasn’t been tried for insurrection is poppycock. We all watched it. Hell, I predicted it, and many on this Board participated in the gathering of evidence prior to January 6th, 2021. Just because the laws of this land are so badly written that we don’t have a law against inciting a sack of the capitol doesn’t mean he didn’t incite a sack of the capitol.
I may have used it in this thread, but let’s discuss historical analogies: If Alexander the Great left a governor in charge of Samarkand, and, four years later, decided to replace said governor… and the governor incited a bunch of peasants to attack AtG’s counselor’s, do you think AtG would be warranted in doing nothing merely because he didn’t have an explicit law saying “don’t incite crowds to attack my counselors?” Tis to laugh.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers, one hundred years removed from Cromwell and the English Civil War, or the people (including the states!) who voted for the 14th amendment would declare Trump to be an insurrectionist and therefore ineligible to become President again. Many of these people would wonder why he isn’t swinging from the gallows already.
Claiming that the 14th amendment, part of the highest laws of this land, is somehow unenforceable precisely because one is worried that the opposition would misuse it, is subjecting oneself to terror tactics, the prima facie condition of a terror state.
Then explain what established processes ensure that
(a) there is consistency across all states about who is eligible to be on the ballot for a presidential election, because that is not happening, and because anything else is clearly ridiculous;
(b) what is the process under law to correct malicious misapplication of 14A, other than 2/3 majority of Congress which means “none”?
I completely agree. So what? That has nothing to do with establishing sensible procedures for determining this objectively and consistently for all states, and due process for correcting hypothetical misapplication of 14A.
There are other parts of the process. In Colorado there was a hearing/trial by the trial court, and factual and legal findings and conclusions. Those were reviewed by the state Supreme Court. In Maine, the Secretary of State had an administrative hearing, with both sides represented, and her decision is subject to judicial review. Using the 14th amendment against Obama (birth certificate) or Biden (?) would not survive that process.
What if it did in 15 states?
Point of fact, many other posters react poorly to our existing hodge-podge of rules and laws regarding the Constitution and amendments.
This is NOT a new situation in general (although it is in specifics) and right now (IMHO of course) it’s in the right place to be decided - the courts.
You want to argue that the Constitution is a poorly-written piece of shit, I’ll have to be on your side in this debate.
But to argue that we shouldn’t enforce the 14th amendment just because the Constitution is a poorly-written piece of shit, well, I just disagree. Trump (and Biden, if it comes to that) can appeal their case before Congress.
Or the country can fail and we can start over, hopefully with a less poorly-written piece of shit governing document.
What people react poorly to is the American worship of the Constitution as though it’s an infallible religious text. This is a novel application of the Constitution as a suicide pact, here a suicide pact for democracy.
And I argue that not enforcing the 14th amendment is a suicide pact for democracy, for it is purposely ignoring that the 14th amendment is a law which binds all. Including Trump.
And if we’re going to ignore the 14th, why not the 5th? Or the 1st? After all, if we can pick and choose what laws we want to uphold, why have a Constitution at all?
Any more straw men? Who here is arguing that the 14th should not be enforced?
It should be enforced consistently for all states, and there should be sensible due process. Anything else and the coming election will be a farce.