"The one point where it is helpless, though, is when judges refuse to read and apply its plain language." I wish I had faith that a majority of the Supreme Court justices will apply its "plain language."
I agree that Trump and followers should be held accountable for their actions and that Trump should go to jail. However, hashtagging lock them up bothers me. It feels like stooping to their fascist level. Living in a rural area, lock her up signs during 2016 were so many (along with vote Trump signs) it was like the pictures of living in fascist Italy or Germany with Swastikas and so it is unfortunately quite triggering.
JudgevLuttig called the logic of disqualificatio "unassailable ", as indeed it is. It certainly seems to be broadly convincing. A recent ABC/Ipsos poll had approval of Supreme Court upholding Anderson at 56%. I think that is because the analog of that logic is all but universally understood and accepted, that is, rulebreakers must be expelled from the game to protect it. Many may remember the case of Pete Rose who the Commissioners of baseball were forced to ban for gambling. No one wanted that to happen, but it was understood and accepted. There was no vote, such matters cannot be at the whim of a vote. So it will be in this matter, if the Court has the sense to act.
I am pessimistic. In a country that allows a political candidate to raise money for a political campaign that is then used to pay the bond in order to appeal a legal judgement, there is little hope for justice.
Are none of those small donors to Trump’s super PACs protesting his use of their donations for personal expenses? Can this really be legal?
It seems like someone should be contesting the existence of the Republican Party. No tax deductions for donations to the party because it is not constitutionally sound. Perhaps the moment to do that is when either Trump or Haley becomes the nominee, then point out the things they do that are unconstitutional. Should also be used as a means to get rid of members of the Supreme Court.
We can’t change the alternative reality Trumpers, fascists and domestic terrorists, but make sure they are held responsible for their actions. #Lock’emUp!
The central strength and weakness of all democracies ever since the ancient Athenians invented it on a substantial scale is its insistence on individual rights. One cannot have a democracy without protection for individual rights, but at the same time, when individual rights are placed above the safety and stability of the community they can lead to some of the kinds of issues we face today. But of course there is a much older political debate going on in the background - that of the proper place of the individual within the state. This has always resulted in a state of greater or lesser tension between the two, not helped by the fact that it is individuals who make up the state. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, a radical if ever there was one, noted that it is the right of the individual to alter or abolish the form of any government that does not secure the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So what happens when half of a state's individuals decide that the government is not only not protecting these right for them, but is at the same time actively promoting the rights of the other half of the individuals who make up that state. If insurrection against this apparent discrepancy is the wish of a substantial portion of the individuals, how can they not be justified in pursuing that end. Whose rights are the proper rights? This is one of the central conundrums of all democracies.
The Founders did take some of this into account, particularly in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which is now under constant attack by Christian Nationalists, aided and abetted by the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court. But what protects us from a man who has convinced his supporters that their Constitutionally protected rights are under attack and that, as all through history including our own their only defense is insurrection, or at least voting into the Oval Office a man who is promising to enforce those rights by prosecuting those who oppose them? Is it is a right in a democracy to end that right in the voting booth.
While it's wonderful that a wide audience has the opportunity to read Timothy's views, I believe his writings on the intent, purpose, meaning and history of Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment are really intended to be read by a limited group of people, namely, the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court and particularly those comprising the conservative wing of the Court. What Timothy is artfully doing is crafting and presenting arguments that, if read by the Justices, will compel at least five of them to conclude that Trump must be held to be disqualified under Article 3. Timothy's writings invite the Supreme Court's conservative Justices to employ the interpretational theory they proclaim they are bound by---originalism---and then demonstrate that, under that theory, only one conclusion is permissible, namely, that Trump is disqualified. Timothy then puts on the squeeze by demonstrating that any departure by the conservative Justices from their darling theory would be hypocritical in the extreme. Nice job Timothy. My concern is that the conservative majority might not be embarrassed by proof that they are acting hypocritically.
Part of what first got Hitler elected was fear of radicals and Communism, which Hitler exploited. Trump almost won reelection in 2020. Why was that? He should have been the dream candidate to run against. But the far left did everything they could to get him the win. It looks like this time they will succeed. The Republicans right now are using the border crisis to hold up funding for Ukraine. This helps Trump and Putin. The extreme right will always use the fear of hordes of illegal immigrants to rile up people. Reducing the flow of border crossings does not make you a bigot. The people most in favor of open borders (for us) are likely Russian trolls.
Terrific analysis and writing. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.
It’s stunning that Substack, with the exception of Snyder’s “Constitutional Self-Defense” this AM, is DEVOID of comments which document what happened yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court:
CREW filed its BRIEF (70 pages) Friday on “Merits of Disqualification.”
CREW’s Brief supports the Colorado Decision and opposes Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.
In a short 2 weeks, the Court will hear arguments.
So far, Substack seems to be oblivious to all that.
Following the suggestion of Mark R. Graber, Regents Professor of Law at the University of the University of Maryland, there is in fact something that reads like an enabling statute for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. A provision of the 1862 law Abraham Lincoln based The Emancipation Proclamation (talk about provenance!) and which survives in pertinent part to this day, the Second Confiscation Act of 1862, re-enacted by Congress in 1907 and last amended in 1994, 18 USC Section 2383, Rebellion or insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That said, the statute is getting little play in the current debate, probably because it’s found in Title 18 (Crimes) and may be read to require a criminal conviction, which is s pity, because the Emancipation Proclamation certainly did not.
I have a question. But first I should stipulate that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump clearly incited and directly participated in insurrection, and also, the constitutional language is unambiguous.
The problem is that my opinion that trump meets the requirements for disqualification is not yet a legal fact. He must be judged guilty by an impartial criminal court. Just because over half the country believes him guilty as sin simply doesn't count. In the eyes of the law, Mr. Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I know, very difficult to swallow, but removing Trump from the ballot simply because a lot of people believe him guilty and no trial needed is commonly referred to as a lynching.
I predict the Supreme Court will make a similar argument and invalidate Colorado's action.
Once Trump is brought to trail I have every reason to believe he will be found guilty. Of course, it is his strategy to delay, delay, delay, until after January 2025, and if he is successful he will, through various shenanigans beat the rap. The very best assurance that Trump gets what he deserves is for the country to deny him the Presidency. In that case, all 91 indictments will proceed apace.
"A constitution can defend itself against almost any threat. The one point where it is helpless, though, is when judges refuse to read and apply its plain language. As German judges have just reminded us, the relevant verdict has to be issued at the relevant time."
Did the Velvet Revolution, the Maidan -- perhaps even the American Revolutionary War -- teach us that when our institutions fail, the people must rise up to preserve democracy?
Do we have a strategy to challenge Project 2025? If not, we need one, to pursue now, and not unless and until Trump or someone like him is elected.
"The one point where it is helpless, though, is when judges refuse to read and apply its plain language." I wish I had faith that a majority of the Supreme Court justices will apply its "plain language."
I agree that Trump and followers should be held accountable for their actions and that Trump should go to jail. However, hashtagging lock them up bothers me. It feels like stooping to their fascist level. Living in a rural area, lock her up signs during 2016 were so many (along with vote Trump signs) it was like the pictures of living in fascist Italy or Germany with Swastikas and so it is unfortunately quite triggering.
JudgevLuttig called the logic of disqualificatio "unassailable ", as indeed it is. It certainly seems to be broadly convincing. A recent ABC/Ipsos poll had approval of Supreme Court upholding Anderson at 56%. I think that is because the analog of that logic is all but universally understood and accepted, that is, rulebreakers must be expelled from the game to protect it. Many may remember the case of Pete Rose who the Commissioners of baseball were forced to ban for gambling. No one wanted that to happen, but it was understood and accepted. There was no vote, such matters cannot be at the whim of a vote. So it will be in this matter, if the Court has the sense to act.
I am pessimistic. In a country that allows a political candidate to raise money for a political campaign that is then used to pay the bond in order to appeal a legal judgement, there is little hope for justice.
Are none of those small donors to Trump’s super PACs protesting his use of their donations for personal expenses? Can this really be legal?
It seems like someone should be contesting the existence of the Republican Party. No tax deductions for donations to the party because it is not constitutionally sound. Perhaps the moment to do that is when either Trump or Haley becomes the nominee, then point out the things they do that are unconstitutional. Should also be used as a means to get rid of members of the Supreme Court.
We can’t change the alternative reality Trumpers, fascists and domestic terrorists, but make sure they are held responsible for their actions. #Lock’emUp!
The central strength and weakness of all democracies ever since the ancient Athenians invented it on a substantial scale is its insistence on individual rights. One cannot have a democracy without protection for individual rights, but at the same time, when individual rights are placed above the safety and stability of the community they can lead to some of the kinds of issues we face today. But of course there is a much older political debate going on in the background - that of the proper place of the individual within the state. This has always resulted in a state of greater or lesser tension between the two, not helped by the fact that it is individuals who make up the state. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, a radical if ever there was one, noted that it is the right of the individual to alter or abolish the form of any government that does not secure the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So what happens when half of a state's individuals decide that the government is not only not protecting these right for them, but is at the same time actively promoting the rights of the other half of the individuals who make up that state. If insurrection against this apparent discrepancy is the wish of a substantial portion of the individuals, how can they not be justified in pursuing that end. Whose rights are the proper rights? This is one of the central conundrums of all democracies.
The Founders did take some of this into account, particularly in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which is now under constant attack by Christian Nationalists, aided and abetted by the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court. But what protects us from a man who has convinced his supporters that their Constitutionally protected rights are under attack and that, as all through history including our own their only defense is insurrection, or at least voting into the Oval Office a man who is promising to enforce those rights by prosecuting those who oppose them? Is it is a right in a democracy to end that right in the voting booth.
While it's wonderful that a wide audience has the opportunity to read Timothy's views, I believe his writings on the intent, purpose, meaning and history of Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment are really intended to be read by a limited group of people, namely, the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court and particularly those comprising the conservative wing of the Court. What Timothy is artfully doing is crafting and presenting arguments that, if read by the Justices, will compel at least five of them to conclude that Trump must be held to be disqualified under Article 3. Timothy's writings invite the Supreme Court's conservative Justices to employ the interpretational theory they proclaim they are bound by---originalism---and then demonstrate that, under that theory, only one conclusion is permissible, namely, that Trump is disqualified. Timothy then puts on the squeeze by demonstrating that any departure by the conservative Justices from their darling theory would be hypocritical in the extreme. Nice job Timothy. My concern is that the conservative majority might not be embarrassed by proof that they are acting hypocritically.
Part of what first got Hitler elected was fear of radicals and Communism, which Hitler exploited. Trump almost won reelection in 2020. Why was that? He should have been the dream candidate to run against. But the far left did everything they could to get him the win. It looks like this time they will succeed. The Republicans right now are using the border crisis to hold up funding for Ukraine. This helps Trump and Putin. The extreme right will always use the fear of hordes of illegal immigrants to rile up people. Reducing the flow of border crossings does not make you a bigot. The people most in favor of open borders (for us) are likely Russian trolls.
I hope You are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court?
Terrific analysis and writing. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.
It’s stunning that Substack, with the exception of Snyder’s “Constitutional Self-Defense” this AM, is DEVOID of comments which document what happened yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court:
CREW filed its BRIEF (70 pages) Friday on “Merits of Disqualification.”
CREW’s Brief supports the Colorado Decision and opposes Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.
In a short 2 weeks, the Court will hear arguments.
So far, Substack seems to be oblivious to all that.
Am I wrong?
https://johnadamsingram.substack.com
Following the suggestion of Mark R. Graber, Regents Professor of Law at the University of the University of Maryland, there is in fact something that reads like an enabling statute for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. A provision of the 1862 law Abraham Lincoln based The Emancipation Proclamation (talk about provenance!) and which survives in pertinent part to this day, the Second Confiscation Act of 1862, re-enacted by Congress in 1907 and last amended in 1994, 18 USC Section 2383, Rebellion or insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/html/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115-sec2383.htm
That said, the statute is getting little play in the current debate, probably because it’s found in Title 18 (Crimes) and may be read to require a criminal conviction, which is s pity, because the Emancipation Proclamation certainly did not.
I have a question. But first I should stipulate that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump clearly incited and directly participated in insurrection, and also, the constitutional language is unambiguous.
The problem is that my opinion that trump meets the requirements for disqualification is not yet a legal fact. He must be judged guilty by an impartial criminal court. Just because over half the country believes him guilty as sin simply doesn't count. In the eyes of the law, Mr. Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I know, very difficult to swallow, but removing Trump from the ballot simply because a lot of people believe him guilty and no trial needed is commonly referred to as a lynching.
I predict the Supreme Court will make a similar argument and invalidate Colorado's action.
Once Trump is brought to trail I have every reason to believe he will be found guilty. Of course, it is his strategy to delay, delay, delay, until after January 2025, and if he is successful he will, through various shenanigans beat the rap. The very best assurance that Trump gets what he deserves is for the country to deny him the Presidency. In that case, all 91 indictments will proceed apace.
"A constitution can defend itself against almost any threat. The one point where it is helpless, though, is when judges refuse to read and apply its plain language. As German judges have just reminded us, the relevant verdict has to be issued at the relevant time."
Did the Velvet Revolution, the Maidan -- perhaps even the American Revolutionary War -- teach us that when our institutions fail, the people must rise up to preserve democracy?
Lidia—You missed my point. The slogan suggests punishment before being found to be lawbreakers, before even being brought to trial.
Punishment of the outsider by virtue simply of being an outsider is indeed characteristic of tribal behaviour.