The Civil War is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment but the word "insurrection" is. So it's hard to see how SCOTUS can go along with Trump's claim that this section of the 14th Amendment only applies to the Civil War. Of course, all this could have been avoided if enough Republican Senators had had the courage to convict him of the impeachment charges.
Spot on, Kit. Mitch McConnell and 37 Senate Republicans displayed cowardice and contempt for our Constitution when they claimed jurisdictional boundaries prevented them from convicting Trump: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”
As far as I'm concerned, all 37 of these Senators are oath-breaking insurrectionists too.
We shall soon learn whether Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett are also oath-breaking insurrectionists or demonstrate their fidelity to the Constitution.
At my ripe old age, I have no faith in Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have surprised me a few times in the past. I have never disrespected SCOTUS more than I do now.
It’s hard to be a SCOTUS when your appointment is dependent upon an ideological predisposition to favor conservative and libertarian public policy solutions to all SCOTAL determinations; that’s not being able to be dispassionately unbiased when considering legal issues before the court, ideological interpretative prejudices circumstantially prevail.
“When you have faced an existential challenge, your thought is to prevent such a calamity in the future.” No need to excuse your focus on Trump as he is a danger to all democracies.
“Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bans oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding office.” Seems this should not only include trump but the Republican congressmen and others who participated in planning the insurrection. It shouldn’t be that hard for the court. We all are witnesses.
Agree. Not sure what to do about Ginni Thomas. But how can Clarence Thomas not recuse here? His wife was part of the conspiracy with Chief of Staff Meadows.
As an aside to my main point which follows, I envision with some interest the plight in which the Colorado case places the three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court. I wonder if, after the controversies already stirred up by their abortion decision, the case of the Christian baker who didn't actually exist, their continued blurring of the separation of church and state, and their enlargement of guns rights in the face of increasing slaughter on our streets, in our churches, schools, malls, businesses, synagogues, mosques, and elsewhere, how much time they spend wishing they'd never accepted the 'honor'.
I do not expect them to uphold the Colorado court's decision, although even at 78, I'm not disposed to disallow the possibility of surprise.
The primary argument from the right seems to be twofold. First, that the Amendment doesn't apply to Trump for various reasons with which I won't further belabor anyone, and second that it is anti-democratic to take from the voters the chance to decide this election. It is this second argument that intrigues me. Like the right's holy embrace of the Sacred Second Amendment which they consistently misread as did Antonin Scalia in the Heller case, they place an almighty faith in the wisdom of the American voter. Not that I deny the right of the franchise as being essential to our republic, but as I look back at the record, I am reminded that American voters denied that same right to our entire female citizenry for over one hundred and thirty years until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. I further recall that a significant portion of American voters denied the humanity of, let alone the valid citizenship of the vast majority of the black and Native American population of this country for over three hundred years.
So the question remains, at least to me, how do we deal with the possibility that a sufficient number of American voters, their power enhanced by the anachronism of the Electoral College, may well put into the Oval Office a man who was and remains willing to deny the validity of the same franchise they claim as sacrosanct?
Trump is a danger to your international readers, also.
P.S. Thank you for the links to the historians'/authorities' briefs. I downloaded them all into a folder and am reading through them, comparing and contrasting - kinda like I used to do with my 4th graders 😉
Your apologies to international readers are, in my opinion, completely unnecessary, dear Mr. Snyder. I assume these readers are well aware that the election of the President of the United States is of great international importance. After all, it is also in the interest of the international community that this president supports and promotes the need to preserve democracy, reliability and the fight against corruption and dictatorship.
This is a most important argument for disallowing tRump to hold elected office, one so clear that I think that any denial must be deliberate, as of course it is. As I have witnessed since the late 60's, anytime that constitutional rules prevent right-wing extremists from having it as they want it, these people simply change the rules, insist, based on some conjured technicality that the rules do not apply in "this instance" or look (as only they are capable) deep into the minds of the sometimes revered "founders" to tell the rest of us what the words were originally intended to convey. I sit here impatiently trying to imagine what dodge they will choose this time. To draw inspiration from my favourite Dylan ballad: they take whatever they want and they lay it all to waste. "Could you kindly tell me, friend, what time the show begins?"
It’s so disconcerting to hear/read so many legal scholars who are convinced that SCOTUS is looking for a convincing off ramp so they won’t have to deal forcefully with what has become such a political “hot potato” at this time when we need them to take a clear stand for the democratic principles stated in the Fourteenth Amendment!
Oath breakers: what appropriate terminology! And it underscores the irony of the participation in the insurrection of January 6th by the self-proclaimed "Oath Keepers", who, as an illegal militia according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, should have been disbanded long ago.
I’m listening to your discussion this morning on NPR. Kudos for a discussion that all rational Americans (including members of the Supreme Court) should hear. (Dream on…). Thank you and congrats for your totally clear communication of an issue that is vital to the continuation of our Democracy.
But just wait until the sophistry unfolds among some of the folks in black robes. Reason, common sense,, logic be damned...Alito, Thomas, and their cronies will find a way to ignore the clear import of this provision of the law. " Fair is foul and foul is fair"...".Up is down, in is out"..the plain meaning of the text bedamned....But thank you Professor Snyder. ...
The Civil War is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment but the word "insurrection" is. So it's hard to see how SCOTUS can go along with Trump's claim that this section of the 14th Amendment only applies to the Civil War. Of course, all this could have been avoided if enough Republican Senators had had the courage to convict him of the impeachment charges.
Spot on, Kit. Mitch McConnell and 37 Senate Republicans displayed cowardice and contempt for our Constitution when they claimed jurisdictional boundaries prevented them from convicting Trump: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”
As far as I'm concerned, all 37 of these Senators are oath-breaking insurrectionists too.
We shall soon learn whether Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett are also oath-breaking insurrectionists or demonstrate their fidelity to the Constitution.
At my ripe old age, I have no faith in Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have surprised me a few times in the past. I have never disrespected SCOTUS more than I do now.
I agree.
It’s hard to be a SCOTUS when your appointment is dependent upon an ideological predisposition to favor conservative and libertarian public policy solutions to all SCOTAL determinations; that’s not being able to be dispassionately unbiased when considering legal issues before the court, ideological interpretative prejudices circumstantially prevail.
It's disturbing, Kit, that 40 people here liked your comment even though it was (you'll pardon me) historically grossly inaccurate.
Now it's 57!
Actually "rebellion" is in the text of 14.3.
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
“When you have faced an existential challenge, your thought is to prevent such a calamity in the future.” No need to excuse your focus on Trump as he is a danger to all democracies.
Godspeed, SC Jack Smith 🦅
“Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bans oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding office.” Seems this should not only include trump but the Republican congressmen and others who participated in planning the insurrection. It shouldn’t be that hard for the court. We all are witnesses.
Agree. Not sure what to do about Ginni Thomas. But how can Clarence Thomas not recuse here? His wife was part of the conspiracy with Chief of Staff Meadows.
No need to apologise to international readers for your current focus. Your needless tragedy will be our needless tragedy.
Trump’s appeal likely to fail # 1-# 9 — johnadamsingram.substack.com
As an aside to my main point which follows, I envision with some interest the plight in which the Colorado case places the three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court. I wonder if, after the controversies already stirred up by their abortion decision, the case of the Christian baker who didn't actually exist, their continued blurring of the separation of church and state, and their enlargement of guns rights in the face of increasing slaughter on our streets, in our churches, schools, malls, businesses, synagogues, mosques, and elsewhere, how much time they spend wishing they'd never accepted the 'honor'.
I do not expect them to uphold the Colorado court's decision, although even at 78, I'm not disposed to disallow the possibility of surprise.
The primary argument from the right seems to be twofold. First, that the Amendment doesn't apply to Trump for various reasons with which I won't further belabor anyone, and second that it is anti-democratic to take from the voters the chance to decide this election. It is this second argument that intrigues me. Like the right's holy embrace of the Sacred Second Amendment which they consistently misread as did Antonin Scalia in the Heller case, they place an almighty faith in the wisdom of the American voter. Not that I deny the right of the franchise as being essential to our republic, but as I look back at the record, I am reminded that American voters denied that same right to our entire female citizenry for over one hundred and thirty years until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. I further recall that a significant portion of American voters denied the humanity of, let alone the valid citizenship of the vast majority of the black and Native American population of this country for over three hundred years.
So the question remains, at least to me, how do we deal with the possibility that a sufficient number of American voters, their power enhanced by the anachronism of the Electoral College, may well put into the Oval Office a man who was and remains willing to deny the validity of the same franchise they claim as sacrosanct?
Trump is a danger to your international readers, also.
P.S. Thank you for the links to the historians'/authorities' briefs. I downloaded them all into a folder and am reading through them, comparing and contrasting - kinda like I used to do with my 4th graders 😉
Your apologies to international readers are, in my opinion, completely unnecessary, dear Mr. Snyder. I assume these readers are well aware that the election of the President of the United States is of great international importance. After all, it is also in the interest of the international community that this president supports and promotes the need to preserve democracy, reliability and the fight against corruption and dictatorship.
5 Feb 24
NORMA ANDERSON is the face of democracy. 91-yrs-old, the leading plaintiff in Supreme Court case to BAN TRUMP FROM BALLOT says:
“TRUMP tried to overturn an election. The first time I ran, I didn’t win. I said, ‘Whoops, work harder next time, lady.’”
http://www.strongsisters.org/norma-anderson/
This is a most important argument for disallowing tRump to hold elected office, one so clear that I think that any denial must be deliberate, as of course it is. As I have witnessed since the late 60's, anytime that constitutional rules prevent right-wing extremists from having it as they want it, these people simply change the rules, insist, based on some conjured technicality that the rules do not apply in "this instance" or look (as only they are capable) deep into the minds of the sometimes revered "founders" to tell the rest of us what the words were originally intended to convey. I sit here impatiently trying to imagine what dodge they will choose this time. To draw inspiration from my favourite Dylan ballad: they take whatever they want and they lay it all to waste. "Could you kindly tell me, friend, what time the show begins?"
It’s so disconcerting to hear/read so many legal scholars who are convinced that SCOTUS is looking for a convincing off ramp so they won’t have to deal forcefully with what has become such a political “hot potato” at this time when we need them to take a clear stand for the democratic principles stated in the Fourteenth Amendment!
Oath breakers: what appropriate terminology! And it underscores the irony of the participation in the insurrection of January 6th by the self-proclaimed "Oath Keepers", who, as an illegal militia according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, should have been disbanded long ago.
Why not draw a line from Trump to the KGB strategy of creating a civil war as outlined by Yuri Bezmenov during the 1980s?
Thank you, Professor Snyder.
While I agree with your assessment of Article 14 Sec. 3 in reference to Trump and also those in the congress and senate who aided him,
and the amicus briefs filed
in support, I'm not betting on
SCOTUS to uphold our Constitution. Perhaps I'll be
pleasantly surprised.
I’m listening to your discussion this morning on NPR. Kudos for a discussion that all rational Americans (including members of the Supreme Court) should hear. (Dream on…). Thank you and congrats for your totally clear communication of an issue that is vital to the continuation of our Democracy.
But just wait until the sophistry unfolds among some of the folks in black robes. Reason, common sense,, logic be damned...Alito, Thomas, and their cronies will find a way to ignore the clear import of this provision of the law. " Fair is foul and foul is fair"...".Up is down, in is out"..the plain meaning of the text bedamned....But thank you Professor Snyder. ...
Typo? The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, not 1888? (See your final paragraph)