The Constitution includes criteria that must be met for a citizen to be able to elected to be President of the United States. Then there is the 14th Amendment with its sections that bar an insurrectionist from becoming President. The prevailing counter to the 14th Amendment is, "Let the Voters Decide." Let the voters decide if it is OK for an insurrectionist to be President.
Then there are the Republican Party Presidential debates. In a similar vein to the Constitution's criteria established for a citizen to be qualified to become President, the media establishes criteria presidential candidates must meet to participate in the debates. Because of these criteria, only 2 candidates now meet debate participation criteria.
The point is, it is not anti-democratic for the Constitution to contain qualifying criteria for a citizen to be elected President. This includes the criteria that bars insurrectionists. Likewise, it is not antidemocratic for the media to establish criteria the presidential candidates must meet to be on the Presidential Debate Stage.
The people who advocate that disqualifying Trump would be undemocratic are, in a word, morons. I'm sorry, but there really is no other way to put it. By previously taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engaging in an insurrection, Trump has already disqualified himself.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, just like the provisions that require presidents to be 35 years old and natural born citizens. According to the illogic of these morons, applying the express language of the constitution is undemocratic. Their argument is tantamount to saying that the constitution is itself unconstitutional.
But do you know what actually is undemocratic? The electoral college. The filibuster. Two senators per state, irrespective of population, thus allowing the voters of Wyoming to have five times the voting power of all 40 million Californians. Allowing one Senator to block military promotions or the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, and refusing to provide advice and consent on nominees. Also, not paying our debts.
We allow all of this undemocratic crap to go on every day, with none of the pearl clutching we are seeing now about Trump from the moron class. For the love of God, please stop it.
I see no benefit in speculating about the U S Supreme Court's ultimate decision.
Here's what should happen:
The Senate and the House of Representatives must take initiative and face up to their responsibility to the Republic. I suggest we all write to our senators and representatives to urge them to adopt the following plan.
Move to convene a bipartisan commission in each house to study the constitutional and other issues raised by the former president's actions and neglects to act in the light of the third section of Amendment XIV. Ensure plenty of prime-time national coverage of the hearings and arguments. Promise to arrive at a conclusion in the form of a conditional resolution that will take the form of -- "The sense of the House/Senate is that Donald J Trump is qualified to appear as a presidential candidate on the 2024 ballots of all of the states," BUT ONLY IF at least two-thirds of each house approves.
If the two houses fail to reach two-thirds consensus on the resolution favoring Mr Trump, then one may reasonably assume that he would not qualify for reinstatement if he were to be removed by action of Section Three as an insurrectionist.
The senators and representatives thus will make the decision, as they should.
After all, the Supreme Court may well refuse certiorari. The Court may well say that the application of Section Three to Mr Trump is a political matter, not justiciable in the courts.
I admit, this plan could go badly. Still, I would prefer to see the representatives and senators face the public wrath (or approval), rather than the relatively less responsive branches, the executive and the judiciary.
I hope we can all agree that the ultimate legitimate, answerable venue for political action in our Republic is in the Congress.
Our dear 45th went to a private, expensive Military Academy in New York State.
One of his classmates was a young boy named Fulgencio BATISTA from Cuba.
The indicted former 45th president’s education was hijacked.
Give us names of Military Academy teachers who taught the young 45th president that our U.S. Constitution allowed him to do anything he wanted.
We need to know WHO taught the 45th that it’s legal to REBELL against the U.S. Constitution by planning, organizing, and paying for the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack.
The problem with the Colorado and Maine decisions are not that they are "anti-democratic". The problem is that Trump has not been CONVICTED of any crimes that the 14th amendment might refer to. I do not want a state Supreme Court or a state Secretary of State to be judge and jury for whether a person has committed something like "supporting an insurrection." Yes, like our constitutional process work its way out, but not by short circuiting it because you don't like the candidate in question are are convinced they are guilty, even if not found so.
Yes, the 14th amendment is anti-democratic. It was fully intended to be so. Ask yourself: should Jefferson Davis have been eligible to run for and be elected president? How about Robert E. Lee a senator? The entire purpose of amending the constitution was to avoid the prosecutions of every confederate leader, avoiding the difficulties of governing a population while hanging their most popular leaders. Disempowering those leaders and their supporters by denying access to political power was the least bad option. It remains so today.
A republic IS a democracy. It is indirect. We pass laws via representatives, rather than directly, as via ballot initiatives or referenda. But it is both intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to say that, because our democracy is indirect (republican), it is not a democracy (rule by the people). The distinction only matters in terms of how laws are made, not in terms of whether or not we can legitimately call the U.S. a democracy. You seem to conflate this with the fact that we have a federalist system in which power is shared among federal, local & state governments. BUT, if people are voting to select their representatives, they are participating in a democracy. Period. Stop this. It’s not illuminating, helpful, or true.
He's not saying "not a democracy at all," he's distinguishing between "pure democracy" where the public votes on everything, to the type we have today. Just pointing out the checks and balances to democracy on its own is important for it seems SO MANY people don't understand government at all nor the processes of it when they say using the law is 'unconstitutional.'
Yeah, but I don’t think the underscore should be direct vs indirect democracy. Nor do the Constitution’s constraints on majority rule mean we’re not a democracy. No civilization that I’m aware of has ever practiced direct, pure majority rule democracy. Majority rule/minority rights is the Madisonian model. I get that. But it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply the 14th Amendment. I thought the argument, though it offered some good history lessons, failed to clarify the issue, and I think, when the Visigoths are at the gates, telling the people whom we need to understand what is on the line in 2024 that we don’t live in a democracy undercuts the argument that democracy is at stake. And it definitely, definitely is.
Also I recommend reading David Frum’s article in The Atlantic pointing out the rank hypocrisy and bad faith arguments of the GOP which is all of a sudden professing concern for democracy in regards to Trump getting thrown off the ballot through perfectly legal means which are in no way “anti-democratic”.
I'm sorry but Charlie is wrong here, we are BOTH a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually exclusive. In its most basic sense a republic is simply a nation that is not a monarchy. Republics are ruled by representatives of the people, but there is no requirement that those representatives be popularly elected. If those rulers are populary elected, than it is also a democracy, in this case an indirect democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. No, we are not a direct democracy, where the people rule directly by voting on every law and policy, but then again no other countries are pure direct democracies today either. We are an indirect, or representative democracy, where the people elect their rulers, who then are responsible for making law and policy. We are a republic because our head of state is a president, not a monarch. Please don’t use the expression “We’re a republic, not a democracy”, which is abused by “conservatives” and the GOP whenever someone points out that an anti-democratic aspect of our system of government such as the electoral college or the way senators are apportioned needs to be reformed.
President Abe Lincoln wasn’t “polite” when he had to call out the federal troops to put an end to draft riots in NYC during the War of Rebellion.
Trumpies better watch what they do. They have a false illusion of themselves and their power -- egged-on by these folks in Substack who think the trumpies have a right to vote for their idol again.
Can we think about our status as a Republic differently? When we started we were a group of small states that were not united at all. But over time, the Republic which had Democratic elements has become more and more Democratic.
So I would no longer rely in John Adams (who I admire and who left his family with an inheritance), than I would in Jefferson who was a brilliant dandy who left his heirs with debt.
I don’t rely on our founders re the intelligence of Negros, whether Catholics can be good citizens or on giving women the vote. Nor would I take Adams’s advice re Democracy.
So re democracy, we have become more democratic over the years and we should try to become even more so - thus the electoral college should be ended.
As we can see, the law had no single or real meaning. If it did, if the words were precise like those in a text on chemistry, we would know what the 14th amendment means and how it impacts a beast like Trump.
But the law has no real meaning. Still any way to remove Trump is fine by me.
My 2 cents here. Funny how those who want to limit voting (so Republicans) are worried about something being anti-democratic. Something similar happens when it is proposed to ease some burden, an example is with student load debt. Suddenly the GOP worries about equity (they have no such worries about tax breaks).
Simple. We ar a representative democracy (or republic but that will make me fall asleep). We elect senators, we elect the President, they do their duty and nominate and confirm the Supreme Court judges. It’s up to them. So that’s representative democracy. Whatever the court decides. Nothing undemocratic about it
The Constitution includes criteria that must be met for a citizen to be able to elected to be President of the United States. Then there is the 14th Amendment with its sections that bar an insurrectionist from becoming President. The prevailing counter to the 14th Amendment is, "Let the Voters Decide." Let the voters decide if it is OK for an insurrectionist to be President.
Then there are the Republican Party Presidential debates. In a similar vein to the Constitution's criteria established for a citizen to be qualified to become President, the media establishes criteria presidential candidates must meet to participate in the debates. Because of these criteria, only 2 candidates now meet debate participation criteria.
The point is, it is not anti-democratic for the Constitution to contain qualifying criteria for a citizen to be elected President. This includes the criteria that bars insurrectionists. Likewise, it is not antidemocratic for the media to establish criteria the presidential candidates must meet to be on the Presidential Debate Stage.
The people who advocate that disqualifying Trump would be undemocratic are, in a word, morons. I'm sorry, but there really is no other way to put it. By previously taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engaging in an insurrection, Trump has already disqualified himself.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, just like the provisions that require presidents to be 35 years old and natural born citizens. According to the illogic of these morons, applying the express language of the constitution is undemocratic. Their argument is tantamount to saying that the constitution is itself unconstitutional.
But do you know what actually is undemocratic? The electoral college. The filibuster. Two senators per state, irrespective of population, thus allowing the voters of Wyoming to have five times the voting power of all 40 million Californians. Allowing one Senator to block military promotions or the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, and refusing to provide advice and consent on nominees. Also, not paying our debts.
We allow all of this undemocratic crap to go on every day, with none of the pearl clutching we are seeing now about Trump from the moron class. For the love of God, please stop it.
I see no benefit in speculating about the U S Supreme Court's ultimate decision.
Here's what should happen:
The Senate and the House of Representatives must take initiative and face up to their responsibility to the Republic. I suggest we all write to our senators and representatives to urge them to adopt the following plan.
Move to convene a bipartisan commission in each house to study the constitutional and other issues raised by the former president's actions and neglects to act in the light of the third section of Amendment XIV. Ensure plenty of prime-time national coverage of the hearings and arguments. Promise to arrive at a conclusion in the form of a conditional resolution that will take the form of -- "The sense of the House/Senate is that Donald J Trump is qualified to appear as a presidential candidate on the 2024 ballots of all of the states," BUT ONLY IF at least two-thirds of each house approves.
If the two houses fail to reach two-thirds consensus on the resolution favoring Mr Trump, then one may reasonably assume that he would not qualify for reinstatement if he were to be removed by action of Section Three as an insurrectionist.
The senators and representatives thus will make the decision, as they should.
After all, the Supreme Court may well refuse certiorari. The Court may well say that the application of Section Three to Mr Trump is a political matter, not justiciable in the courts.
I admit, this plan could go badly. Still, I would prefer to see the representatives and senators face the public wrath (or approval), rather than the relatively less responsive branches, the executive and the judiciary.
I hope we can all agree that the ultimate legitimate, answerable venue for political action in our Republic is in the Congress.
4 Jan 24
Our dear 45th went to a private, expensive Military Academy in New York State.
One of his classmates was a young boy named Fulgencio BATISTA from Cuba.
The indicted former 45th president’s education was hijacked.
Give us names of Military Academy teachers who taught the young 45th president that our U.S. Constitution allowed him to do anything he wanted.
We need to know WHO taught the 45th that it’s legal to REBELL against the U.S. Constitution by planning, organizing, and paying for the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack.
The problem with the Colorado and Maine decisions are not that they are "anti-democratic". The problem is that Trump has not been CONVICTED of any crimes that the 14th amendment might refer to. I do not want a state Supreme Court or a state Secretary of State to be judge and jury for whether a person has committed something like "supporting an insurrection." Yes, like our constitutional process work its way out, but not by short circuiting it because you don't like the candidate in question are are convinced they are guilty, even if not found so.
So much to unpack. All f it good
Yes, the 14th amendment is anti-democratic. It was fully intended to be so. Ask yourself: should Jefferson Davis have been eligible to run for and be elected president? How about Robert E. Lee a senator? The entire purpose of amending the constitution was to avoid the prosecutions of every confederate leader, avoiding the difficulties of governing a population while hanging their most popular leaders. Disempowering those leaders and their supporters by denying access to political power was the least bad option. It remains so today.
Disqualification from holding any office is not undemocratic when you consider that it's really nothing more than the minimum penalty for treason.
A republic IS a democracy. It is indirect. We pass laws via representatives, rather than directly, as via ballot initiatives or referenda. But it is both intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to say that, because our democracy is indirect (republican), it is not a democracy (rule by the people). The distinction only matters in terms of how laws are made, not in terms of whether or not we can legitimately call the U.S. a democracy. You seem to conflate this with the fact that we have a federalist system in which power is shared among federal, local & state governments. BUT, if people are voting to select their representatives, they are participating in a democracy. Period. Stop this. It’s not illuminating, helpful, or true.
He's not saying "not a democracy at all," he's distinguishing between "pure democracy" where the public votes on everything, to the type we have today. Just pointing out the checks and balances to democracy on its own is important for it seems SO MANY people don't understand government at all nor the processes of it when they say using the law is 'unconstitutional.'
Yeah, but I don’t think the underscore should be direct vs indirect democracy. Nor do the Constitution’s constraints on majority rule mean we’re not a democracy. No civilization that I’m aware of has ever practiced direct, pure majority rule democracy. Majority rule/minority rights is the Madisonian model. I get that. But it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply the 14th Amendment. I thought the argument, though it offered some good history lessons, failed to clarify the issue, and I think, when the Visigoths are at the gates, telling the people whom we need to understand what is on the line in 2024 that we don’t live in a democracy undercuts the argument that democracy is at stake. And it definitely, definitely is.
Please read Timothy Snyder. He nailed it.
Also I recommend reading David Frum’s article in The Atlantic pointing out the rank hypocrisy and bad faith arguments of the GOP which is all of a sudden professing concern for democracy in regards to Trump getting thrown off the ballot through perfectly legal means which are in no way “anti-democratic”.
I'm sorry but Charlie is wrong here, we are BOTH a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually exclusive. In its most basic sense a republic is simply a nation that is not a monarchy. Republics are ruled by representatives of the people, but there is no requirement that those representatives be popularly elected. If those rulers are populary elected, than it is also a democracy, in this case an indirect democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. No, we are not a direct democracy, where the people rule directly by voting on every law and policy, but then again no other countries are pure direct democracies today either. We are an indirect, or representative democracy, where the people elect their rulers, who then are responsible for making law and policy. We are a republic because our head of state is a president, not a monarch. Please don’t use the expression “We’re a republic, not a democracy”, which is abused by “conservatives” and the GOP whenever someone points out that an anti-democratic aspect of our system of government such as the electoral college or the way senators are apportioned needs to be reformed.
President Abe Lincoln wasn’t “polite” when he had to call out the federal troops to put an end to draft riots in NYC during the War of Rebellion.
Trumpies better watch what they do. They have a false illusion of themselves and their power -- egged-on by these folks in Substack who think the trumpies have a right to vote for their idol again.
Can we think about our status as a Republic differently? When we started we were a group of small states that were not united at all. But over time, the Republic which had Democratic elements has become more and more Democratic.
So I would no longer rely in John Adams (who I admire and who left his family with an inheritance), than I would in Jefferson who was a brilliant dandy who left his heirs with debt.
I don’t rely on our founders re the intelligence of Negros, whether Catholics can be good citizens or on giving women the vote. Nor would I take Adams’s advice re Democracy.
So re democracy, we have become more democratic over the years and we should try to become even more so - thus the electoral college should be ended.
As we can see, the law had no single or real meaning. If it did, if the words were precise like those in a text on chemistry, we would know what the 14th amendment means and how it impacts a beast like Trump.
But the law has no real meaning. Still any way to remove Trump is fine by me.
My 2 cents here. Funny how those who want to limit voting (so Republicans) are worried about something being anti-democratic. Something similar happens when it is proposed to ease some burden, an example is with student load debt. Suddenly the GOP worries about equity (they have no such worries about tax breaks).
Simple. We ar a representative democracy (or republic but that will make me fall asleep). We elect senators, we elect the President, they do their duty and nominate and confirm the Supreme Court judges. It’s up to them. So that’s representative democracy. Whatever the court decides. Nothing undemocratic about it
This should be simple . Dump took an oath , to defend the constitution no less. He failed, period . An oath has to mean someting.!