I should not do this, I should not write about the upcoming Supreme Court case dealing with whether former President Donald Trump can be withheld from the ballot for being an insurrectionist. It's a morass of little more than deep anger and resentment on the part of virtually every player in the game, right, left, and center, bringing out the very worst in politics all the way around. Indeed, the whole thing makes the argument for smaller government all the more obvious. But it is what it is, and it ain't gonna go away.
The crux of the issue is whether state officials have the right to keep candidates off the ballot on their own authority. I don't know all the details as each state runs its own election show, but that's the general idea. In the case of Colorado and Maine, they are using the anti-insurrection clause of one of the Civil War amendments to the Constitution to keep Trump out of their respective state primaries. You can read the exact wording here The 14th Amendment if you like. Section 3 is the critical part, and it is pretty clear: if you violate your oath to the the United States by inciting or aiding insurrection or insurrectionists, you are ineligible to hold further office within it. The question then becomes one of interpretation. What exactly is an insurrection, and who makes that call?
Did Trump call for an insurrection against the United States? He definitely called for protest. He certainly should have accepted things as they were and stepped aside graciously, even with a MacArthurish 'I shall return'. He didn't. Yet even Snopes refused to label anything he said or did as a call for insurrection, opining that the President's words that day were open to subjective interpretation while not actual calls to revolt. I'm not getting into all the ifs ands and wherefores of that. To be blunt, I don't trust the mainstream media (who clearly despise the former President) his staunchest supporters (who love him far too deeply) nor the humble opposition (who themselves have an obvious agenda). I don't trust what any faction says, and I wonder how many of my fellow Americans think similarly. I think we can all agree, though, that what happened January 6, 2021 should not have happened.
All that said, I'm hesitant to call it an insurrection. Mass stupidity, to be sure, a protest gone seriously awry, yet it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination as violent as what was seen in Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle (where some folks actually declared themselves independent, you might recall) among other hot spots in the summer of 2020. What happened 1/6/21 petered out quickly and, in context, rather peacefully. The transfer of power in the United States government was never in real peril, thanks to Mike Pence and cooler, saner heads. The Capitol wasn't burned down like the police precinct in Minnesota or the businesses in Kenosha. The attempts at insurrection in those and other places (which can clearly be called insurrection) were far more dangerous to our body politic.
Are Colorado and Maine playing politics? I believe so, yes. I think their best response would be to allow Trump on the ballot, to rise above the fray. They need to ask, are they helping, or hurting? Are they actually standing for good law or themselves fanning the flames? I really don't doubt that it's the latter. But however you slice it, with an unclear idea of whether a revolt (or attempt at revolt) actually took place, and with supercharged backers supporting a popular candidate who seems unable to choose his words wisely, well, it's better to stay above that. If you make Trump a martyr you're doing him more good than your own cause, such as it might be. And any interfering by a sitting government with a political party choosing its representatives is questionable in itself, and dangerous to the democracy you claim to defend. It's speaking with a forked tongue.
I hope the Supreme Court orders them to allow the former President on their ballots. I think it's the safest and sanest direction to follow. Besides, Taylor Swift is going to decide the upcoming election anyway.
1 comment:
Perhaps we should follow the lead of the Americans who sat on the Grand Juries in his cases and actually heard the evidence and decided the decided in all the different jurisdictions and decided to indict on the evidence they were presented!!
Post a Comment