Below is my column in the Hill on the Maine decision and how it is illustrative of Justice Louis Brandeis’ warning of the danger of zealots. Shenna Bellows has long embraced extreme political and historical viewpoints, including denouncing the electoral college as a “relic of white supremacy.” Bellows also declared that voter ID laws are “rooted in white supremacy.” Challengers knew that they “had her at hello” in seeking to disqualify former president Donald Trump. The coming week will likely show how the Supreme Court will address the issue.
Here is the column:
“You had me at hello.” That line from the movie “Jerry Maguire” came to mind this week after yet another Democratic secretary of state moved to prevent citizens from voting for former president Donald Trump.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows issued a “decision” that declared Trump an “insurrectionist” and ineligible to be president. She joined an ignoble list of Democratic officials in states such as Colorado who claim to safeguard democracy by denying its exercise to millions of Americans.
Yet the most striking aspect of this poorly crafted decision was not its litany of conclusory findings, but rather Bellow’s implausible suggestion that she struggled over the decision. Bellows was a natural choice for challengers, who have been searching for any officials or courts willing to embrace this dangerous theory under the Fourteenth Amendment that they can unilaterally bar candidates deemed rebellious or insurrectionist.
Challengers knew that they had Bellows at hello. She was one of the first officials to declare the Jan. 6 riot to be an “insurrection” prompted by Trump’s speech.
Bellows previously declared that “the Jan. 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election…The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
Of course, in the 1996 movie, Jerry Maguire reminded Dorothy that ” we live in a cynical world — a cynical, cynical world — and we work in a business of tough competitors.” However, he added “you complete me.”
In our cynical politics, Bellows and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, among others, have become wildly popular for seeking to complete the effort to defeat Trump by removing him from the ballot. This cynicism is captured in statements from pundits who warn that Democrats can no longer rely on the election process, given Trump’s soaring popularity.
While not calling for legal disqualification, one law professor declared that Trump sought to “overthrow” democracy and his actions “disqualify him.” Thus, he wrote the “first and best start” is for Democrats to switch parties to engineer a defeat in the primary: “Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it…Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes.”*
Many Democratic jurists and officials have refused to participate in this cynical effort to win the election through the courts. Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) warned Democrats against embracing this legal theory. His state’s secretary of state Shirley Weber (D) had refused to do what Bellows just did.
Yet Democrats know that they need only to remove Trump from the ballots of a couple of key states to make him constitutionally incapable of becoming president, due to the electoral college. Thus, Trump could be the overwhelming choice of the voters but still be effectively barred from assuming office.
To achieve this end, advocates are willing to adopt the type of ballot-cleansing powers long associated with authoritarian countries such as Iran. That is why this theory of disqualification remains one of the most dangerous to arise in our nation’s history.
The U.S. stands as the most successful and stable democratic system in history. In the blind quest to block Trump “at any cost,” these officials have introduced a destabilizing element to our system that could be replicated in tit-for-tat politics for years to come. It has already begun, with Republicans calling to bar President Joe Biden from ballots.
The ballot-cleansing effort is only the latest example of what Justice Louis Brandeis identified as the true threat to our democracy — not the threat from other countries, but from within. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding,” he said.
Some of these advocates exhibit precisely that zealotry of someone who seems to understand little beyond the next election, as opposed to the next generation.
The Supreme Court should act not only with finality but with unanimity in rejecting this pernicious disqualification theory. But these same advocates are likely to seek to delay or avoid such review. Even on the Colorado Supreme Court composed entirely of Democratically appointed justices, advocates could only eke out a 4-3 ruling, with a vehement dissent rejecting this theory.
There is a real chance that one or more of the liberal justices will show the same fealty to the constitution in rejecting the theory. That would undermine the claims of figures like Joe Scarborough that arguments against barring Trump are “laughable” and should be “mocked.” While the MSNBC host demanded that his interlocutors “spare me the anti-democratic lectures,” advocates are likely worried about getting precisely such a lecture, and a scathing one, from the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, if the court does not rule on the Colorado decision, Colorado may seek to moot the appeal, since the ballot would remain unchanged with Trump’s name on it.
Some justices may prefer this cup to pass from their lips. The divisive opinion in Bush v. Gore from 2000 still reverberates to this day. For an intense institutionalist like Chief Justice John Roberts, there is a tendency to take exit ramps to avoid rulings if these conflicts can be resolved in the lower courts.
However, the court now faces a call of history. After the Maine decision, the justices must realize that neither they nor the country can avoid this moment. Indeed, the court was designed for this moment: to stand between rage and reason; between cynicism and constitutionalism.
Proponents knew exactly whom to call upon for the right answer. Yet, to their credit, other Democrats, from California to Maine, did not say “hello” but “hell no” to this proposal. It is time for the Supreme Court to do the same.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
*NB: The column quotes and links to a column calling for Democrats to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from taking office. While not named in the column, the author was Professor Bruce Ledewitz, who holds the prestigious Adrian Van Kaam C.S.Sp. Endowed Chair in Scholarly Excellence at Duquesne University’s School of Law.
Professor Ledewitz wrote me to object that the column suggested that he supports the 14th amendment theory to disqualify Trump. He does not and was specifically calling upon fellow Democrats to switch parties to defeat Trump. The reference to his column was specifically meant to highlight his call to stop Trump from returning as president “no matter what it takes” as an example of the zealotry of our times. However, Professor Ledewitz’s opposition to the 14th Amendment theory is commendable and should be noted. He stressed to me that he wants to oppose Trump by whatever means possible so long as it does not violate traditional norms to do so. It is further evidence that many Democrats refuse to adopt this anti-democratic theory to block Trump in the courts. I appreciate his writing to clarify his position on disqualification theory. I tweaked the line above to reflect his views.
Putin’s bureaucrats arbitrarily decreed that Navalny, the leading opposition candidate, ineligible to run for office. Putin’s policy “judges” then decreed that candidates associated with Navalny were also ineligible to run for office.
Without a hint of irony, Biden’s State Department said: “With this action, Russia has effectively criminalized one of the country’s few remaining independent political movements.”
Everyone is so brain dead they forgot that a 2/3rds vote of Congress can remove this liability.
So what is congress supposed to do, hold the vote right now since CO and ME had a TDS fit and went rogue ?
Since the 2/3rds removal provision is present, EVERYONE is missing the boat. Except me, of course.
@Anon,
They did.
In 1872 Congress passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 by 2/3rds vote.
And again in 1948 where ‘insurrection’ was codified in 18 USC 2383.
But those facts fall away when zealots focus on misinterpreting the 14th Amendment where they read Article 3, but forget Article 5.
And considering that there was no insurrection on Jan 6th… oops!
(Neither POTUS or Congress declared it to be an insurrection, which is a precursor before they could call on US military to quell the rebellion)
Add to that … no one was charged under 18 USC 2383. oops! again!
-G
This is a good point. By preventing Trump from running, the Left would also be preventing Congress from voting to remove the disability to serve. This point was made by the Michigan Court of Claims judge who rejected the petition to remove Trump’s name from the primary ballot in Michigan.
Peripherally related, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel hearing Trump’s immunity challenge has now entered an order for all parties to be prepared to answer questions during oral arguments on 1/9 about issues raised in the amicus briefs that have been accepted. This includes the American Oversight amicus arguing that “Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.” (from their overview)
Anonymous: Thanks for pointing out American Oversight’s amicus brief argument that the DC Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear DJT’s appeal because he has not been tried, convicted or sentenced. It demonstrates big and respected law firms, with over a 1,000 lawyers, can do the research that DJT’s handful of lawyers lack. DJT is outmanned and outgunned because the big forms refuse to represent him! Curious the DOJ even missed that important issue.
Anonymous: Did you see Jack Smith’s Saturday filing in DJTY’s appeal to the DC Court of Appeals? It argues that DJT lacks immunity by his own admission in Trump v. Vance. In that case the former Manhattan DA had sought DJT’s tax records in connection with the Stormy Daniels investigation. DJT argued he had absolute immunity that “would expire when the president leaves office”. Another nail in DJT’s spurious appeal!
Thanks for the heads up.
Dennis – The fact that this argument MAY be inconsistent with his current argument does not make it a binding judicial “admission.”
Trump has filed an appeal in Maine of the ME Secretary of State’s decision to remove him from the state’s primary ballot.
Jena Griswold, the CO Secretary of State, has filed a brief with SCOTUS asking it to decide the issue of whether Trump can be disqualified from the CO ballot pursuant to 14A s3.
And she’s going to be slapped hard.
Re: 14th Article 5.
Ignoring of course the premise of the 14th that an insurrection/rebellion had to have occurred.
Since there was no insurrection… can’t use the 14th.
Note: You have to look at what constitutes an insurrection meaning who can declare it… and if none is declared then why was no one charged w 18 USC 2383?
It should be a 9-0 decision… but I’ll wager at least one of the justices has TDS.
-G
In addition to publicly displaying her deficient intellect, Bellows again illustrates that white liberal women are extremely dangerous to liberty, and that they constitute the greatest threat to the Republic, now on life support.
For further proof, see Jena Griswold, Jocelyn Benson, Dana Nessel, et al.
If the Republic survives, we must not only remove the Bellows/Griswold/Nessel harpys from office, we must actively explore repeal of the 19th Amendment.
Anyone who wants Trump removed from the ballot: do you approve of the way the Maine secretary of state did it? Isn’t it true that there was no judicial process at all? Would you then approve of a purple state SoS doing the same to Biden with no process, just a one-person ruling with no evidentiary hearing?
For goodness sakes, pay attention to the fact that state laws vary. In Maine, the process starts with the SoS and can then be appealed to the courts. Name another state that does it this way, and I’ll say “yes, I approve of the SoS of that state doing the same to Biden IF there’s evidence of him having engaged in insurrection.” Don’t pretend that all states have the same laws and it’s just a matter of whether they’re red, blue or purple states. Focus on the actual state laws.
Okay, fair enough. Suppose the state law can be interpreted to allow the SoS to make that determination by coin flip. Is that fine and dandy with you too? If not, on what legal grounds would you object to such a process?
No, I object on the basis that it’s unconstitutional, as it has nothing to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution. If some stupid state legislature passed such a law, it would be challenged in court.
If you think that the ME law is unconstitutional, why do you think that?
No, I object on the basis that it’s unconstitutional, as it has nothing to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution.
I don’t understand your position. You deny that there needs to be federal enforcement legislation, and each state can enforce the provision on its own, based on its own state laws. But you also seem to believe there is some unmentioned federal constitutional standard to which state laws must conform in order to validly enforce Section 3 through state law. Where does that federal standard come from if it’s not federal law? Is it just the concept that the state law must “have something to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution”? And where is the constitutional provision that says that, what does “something to do with” mean – can it be different in different states? Not to mention that my question was not about the substantive standard, but about whether each state had to have a valid process and how one would assess validity.
As for substance, the federal Constitution does not define the terms “insurrection” or “rebellion” or giving “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States. That is why I posed my other hypothetical below on the “older comments” page: suppose the state law (a) gives state officials the power to remove a candidate under 14A,s3 for insurrection, (b) defines insurrection broadly to include willfully failing to secure the border against migrants, and (c) allows the determination of guilt to be made in a non-jury trial based on a preponderance of the evidence. What then? (I explained why that does not usurp federal immigration or border security law in a response on that page.)
Or suppose a state law defines aid or comfort to the US’s enemies broadly to include letting a spy balloon from our main global rival to float over the entire US and send photographs back home. Now again suppose the president can be found guilty of doing that under state law without a jury and by a preponderance of the evidence. Whereas other states have starkly different definitions of aid or comfort to our enemies. Can it really be that we have 50 different definitions of that term which are all enforced through 50 radically different procedures? To me that seems untenable. The only solution is federal enforcement legislation, which actually exists even apart from
“each state can enforce the provision on its own, based on its own state laws.”
Only if the state laws are constitutional! I don’t believe that a coin flip — what you suggested — is constitutional. And just as Trump can challenge CO’s and ME’s laws as unconstitutional, someone with standing can challenge your proposed law.
“you also seem to believe there is some unmentioned federal constitutional standard to which state laws must conform in order to validly enforce Section 3 through state law.”
Not unmentioned. The standard is the Constitution itself, where courts determine constitutionality via cases filed by those with standing, the Constitution, precedent, and appeals. What about that process do you object to?
“Where does that federal standard come from if it’s not federal law?”
The Constitution. That’s a form of federal law. But the Constitution doesn’t always spell everything out (e.g., by providing definitions), so the courts have to interpret it.
“Is it just the concept that the state law must “have something to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution”?”
It’s the concept that the law must be constitutional, and if it has nothing to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution, I don’t expect it to be constitutional. But ultimately, that’s a question for the courts.
“where is the constitutional provision that says that, what does “something to do with” mean – can it be different in different states?”
I don’t understand the beginning of your question. Where is the constitutional provision that state laws have to be constitutional?? That’s the nature of living in a constitutional federal republic. And for me, the opposite of “it’s unconstitutional, as it has nothing to do with the requirements/disqualifications in the Constitution” is “it will be found constitutional” (you cut off the “it’s unconstitutional” part — and the rest was only an explanation for why I believe it would be unconstitutional; but the constitutionality/unconstitutionality is the main issue, and that’s determined in court). Yes, it can be different in different states, as long as each one is constitutional.
“my question was … about whether each state had to have a valid process and how one would assess validity.”
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, each has to have a constitutional law, and if its constitutionality is in doubt, it can be challenged in court, and the courts (perhaps up to SCOTUS) will determine the constitutionality.
“I explained why that does not usurp federal immigration or border security law in a response on that page.”
Thanks for pointing me to that comment. I hadn’t seen it yet (i.e., before starting to reply to this one). If I understand your explanation there, you’re saying that “failing to faithfully enforce federal law” = “rebellion or insurrection.” I doubt that any court will find that to be true, but again, the constitutionality is up to the courts to determine.
“Can it really be that we have 50 different definitions of that term [‘aid or comfort to our enemies’] which are all enforced through 50 radically different procedures?”
Each definition would have to be consistent with existing caselaw and the Constitution, and the law and/or trial court determination could be challenged/appealed in court. We have legal processes for resolving these kinds of issues. Maybe the CO or the ME law will be determined to be unconstitutional, or maybe the higher court will determine that it was misapplied. If so, I’m OK with that. That possibility is part of our legal processes.
“The only solution is federal enforcement legislation”
Your last sentence seems to end prematurely. But for this part of that sentence, the federal enforcement is the Constitution along with the court system that allows rulings to be appealed to SCOTUS, if SCOTUS grants cert. I assume that they will grant cert with CO. My sense with ME is that it first has to work its way through the ME courts.
BTW I’d still appreciate your answer to “If you think that the ME law is unconstitutional, why do you think that?”
If a local decision affects election of a federal candidate, then it is not illogical to insist that the method of removing a federal candidate from the ballot is a federal question.
it always seems to be women, they sure have a propensity for these types of actions…..this is why until quite recently in human history women were excluded from leadership and judicial professions , and couldn’t vote….just saying
You’re sexist, like men throughout most of history. Just saying.
In this case, and as the past 5+ years have demonstrated, such sexism is definitely warranted, as primarily white “liberal” (actually totalitarian) women have driven the anti-Trump and anti-free-speech movement to our current flashpoint.
The Republic is collapsing thanks to their poorly reasoned and illegal actions.
It is not “sexist”, whatever that actually means, to believe that there are psychological differences between men and women and that these differences will bring about different outcomes when the percentage of one sex to the other changes among groups making decisions. This is obvious, but unspoken.
“Sedition … includes insurrection against … established authority.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
Some were found guilty of seditious conspiracy regarding 2021 Jan 06.
“Peacefully And Patriotically”
MWFIFY
Merriam-Webster
riot
noun
ri·ot ˈrī-ət
1a: a violent public disorder
specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
1b: public violence, tumult, or disorder
2: a random or disorderly profusion
¡Què tontos son estos mortales!
Don’t even have to speak English to be elected to the House of Representatives.
Jonathan: John Wayne once remarked: “Life is hard. It’s harder if you are stupid”. I’m not sure who the actor had in mind by his remark but it could easily be directed at DJT. In his brief to the DC Court of Appeals, that is going to hold oral arguments on Jan. 9, DJT argues that he is “immune” from criminal prosecution. Through his secret de-coder ring DJT has divined that since the Senate did not convict him in the second impeachment it would be a form of “double jeopardy” to try to charge him criminally on the same facts.
For those who have a copy of the Constitution right next to their computers, please turn to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 that reads as follows:
“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, the disqualification to hold
and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to Indictment, Trial and Judgment and Punishment, according to the law”.
Now I have my own de-coder ring so I tried to imagine what DJT felt Clause 7 actually means– since he is a “stable genius” by his own admission. I couldn’t come up with the same interpretation as DJT so I took my copy of the Constitution next door to my neighbor who has a kid in the 5th grade. He read the Clause carefully and then said: “Well, it means a president can be removed from office but he can still be prosecuted under the law. It’s the part after colon that is important”.
Bingo! Why didn’t I think of that? I remember Mitch McConnel, the same Senator that voted against DJT’s conviction, saying after DJT’s second impeachment he could still be prosecuted under the criminal justice system. That’s the same argument offered by 16 of DJT’s former lawyers, led by Ty Cobb, in their amicus brief to the DC Court of Appeals (see my earlier comment).
The only Q is whether the DC Court will adopt the interpretation of my 5th grader or that of DJT? I suspect it will be the former. That means DJT will have to appeal to SCOTUS to try to convince his three appointees and two others to take up the case–that his secret de-coder ring is right after all. The SC has two options. The first is that the SC could agree to hear the case. But I understand DJT is worried that the Court might rule against him because many on the court are strict “textualists” who would first look at the plain meaning of Clause 7. Kind of hard to ignore all the language after the colon. On the other hand, the Court could punt saying something like: “DC Circuit, we think you got it about right. Donald, if you are convicted in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom, come back later and we might hear your arguments”.
Which ever way it goes “stupid is that stupid does”. Thanks to John Wayne.
That’s amazing. You ignored the words “but the Party convicted.”
Trump wasn’t convicted, he was declared not guilty.
Dennis McIntyre, Biden’s version of Baghdad Bob assigned to this forum posted Jonathan: John Wayne once remarked: “Life is hard. It’s harder if you are stupid”.
It’s worth pointing out to Dennis/Baghdad Bob that, being a successful pathological liar and successfully convincing others of your cause, is incredibly hard when you’re stupid and it shows in the trash you post. Ditto for what your Fellow Soviet Democrat Apparatchik From Another Mother, Cringe Jean-Pierre, bloviates from Biden’s White House Press Gallery podium. Lyin’ like you’re a proud Biden has run it’s life span.
Remember how the previous Baghdad Bob and his taskmaster ended up, Dennis?
Destroying the current “democracy” can only be viewed as a GOOD THING!
Some people are trying to disqualify Trump from ballots based on his actions on January 6. Other people are trying to disqualify Biden from ballots based on his actions in relation to the southern border. One issue that keeps arising is whether individual state-level officials have the authority to remove a candidate for President based on their own determinations of whether the person in question in fact committed a rebellion or insurrection.
I contend that in making their arguments, each side should question themselves whether they would would apply the same argument to the “other” person. IOW, if you’re arguing for Trump to be removed, ask yourself if you’d apply the same arguments to the states presently trying to remove Biden, and vice versa.
Yes, absolutely, if Biden engages in insurrection, I think he should be removed too!
“One issue that keeps arising is whether individual state-level officials have the authority to remove a candidate for President based on their own determinations of whether the person in question in fact committed a rebellion or insurrection.”
You keep ignoring that it’s in relation to specific state laws, which vary by state.
I’m not ignoring that, I’m assuming that. So to be more specific, do state-level officials, acting pursuant to state law, have the authority to remove a candidate for president from the ballot under 14A,s3, based on their own determination of whether the candidate in fact committed rebellion or insurrection?
My point is that if you argue for a “yes” answer for Trump, then that goes for states trying to remove Biden as well based on what that particular state decides constitutes rebellion or insurrection (perhaps a refusal to enforce the southern border).
Kansas Elder, find a better example. Misfeasance in office does not constitute insurrection.
David – Anon is saying it’s a state by state determination, based only on state law. It is possible that a state could pass a law that willfully keeping the border open to illegal Invasion by unknown foreigners continues rebellion for 14A purposes. So my example suffices to test Anon’s position.
“It is possible that a state could pass a law that willfully keeping the border open to illegal Invasion by unknown foreigners continues rebellion for 14A purposes.”
Maybe, but I expect that it would be challenged and that it would be held unconstitutional as a usurping of federal authority. The issue is not only whether a state passes a law, but whether it’s upheld as constitutional or assumed so because it has never been challenged.
Re: usurping federal authority, see, for example, “A new law that gives local law enforcement in Texas the authority to arrest migrants “violates the US Constitution,” the Department of Justice said in a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday, threatening to sue unless Abbott backs down from enforcing it.” Again: that a state passes a law does not in itself guarantee that it’s constitutional.
Held unconstitutional as usurping federal authority. Perhaps you’re a different “anonymous” but that seems opposite to the position you’ve been taking here. What federal authority would it usurp? (1) the authority to define rebellion ang insurrection? (2) the authority to determine if the candidate is guilty of it? (3) some other authority? Please be specific.
No, I’m the same Anon. (and am also your previous discussion partner, A.N.D.).
You proposed a state law saying that “willfully keeping the border open to illegal Invasion by unknown foreigners [constitutes] rebellion for 14A purposes.” Immigration and border security are matters of federal law, not state law. Moreover, a state cannot add new definitions to federal law, that can only occur via federal legislation or constitutional amendment. If your thought is that states like ME and CO are making up their own definitions, there’s caselaw dealing with the meaning of “insurrection,” and AFAIK, your definition doesn’t fit any existing caselaw.
Immigration and border security are matters of federal law, not state law
True, but irrelevant. I did not propose a law that had anything to do with immigration and border security, but about disqualification from office due to rebellion or insurrection. The definition of those terms (in my hypo) was written in terms of failing to faithfully enforce federal law, but it is not a state law to implement border security or immigration. Can you see the difference? So there is no way such a state law could usurp federal law on immigration and border security.
Thanks for the clarification.
Going back to your question “do state-level officials, acting pursuant to state law, have the authority to remove a candidate for president from the ballot under 14A,s3, based on their own determination of whether the candidate in fact committed rebellion or insurrection?,” AFAIK, the answer is “yes,” AS LONG AS the following characteristics are true: the state law is constitutional, the state law gives that official the responsibility for the determination, the official upholds their oath to the Constitution (trying to honestly judge the question based on then Constitution and any existing caselaw), and there’s an appeals process in the state courts, ultimately going to SCOTUS if need be / if they grant cert.
Going back to your statement “Anon is saying it’s a state by state determination, based only on state law. It is possible that a state could pass a law that willfully keeping the border open to illegal Invasion by unknown foreigners continues rebellion for 14A purposes,” no, I’m not saying it’s based only on state law. It’s also based on the Constitution (e.g., the state law has to be constitutional), court appeals processes, etc. Now that I understand the state law you’re proposing, I doubt that it would be held constitutional, as I expect that states cannot introduce state-specific legislation that defines words in the Constitution. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but instead I’d expect that if there’s a law that allows people with standing to file challenges to candidates, someone could file a challenge based on the claim “willfully keeping the border open to illegal Invasion by unknown foreigners [constitutes] rebellion for 14A purposes,” and that challenge would be assessed via the relevant state law(s), the Constitution, and courts. For example, someone could file that challenge against Biden in ME and see what the SoS and courts rule.
Kansas Elder, find a better example. Misfeasance in office does not constitute insurrection.… and please don’t ask me if Biden deliberately choosing to REFUSE to uphold the immigration laws of the country against EIGHT MILLION Guest Democrat Voters is just another form of insurrection against the lawful governance of the country – more insurrection than Trump’s speech January 6th ever got close to being.
“do state-level officials, acting pursuant to state law, have the authority to remove a candidate for president from the ballot under 14A,s3, based on their own determination of whether the candidate in fact committed rebellion or insurrection?”
What state law are you referring to? I can’t answer your question without reading the law in question. If you’re referring to a hypothetical law, then at least give me that actual wording for your hypothetical, so I can judge whether or not it’s likely to be constitutional.
For example, in ME, the law says “The Secretary of State shall provide a form on which the consent of the candidate is made that must include a list of the statutory and constitutional requirements of the office sought by the candidate. … If, pursuant to the challenge procedures in section 337, any part of the declaration is found to be false by the Secretary of State, the consent and the primary petition are void.” And here is section 337 with the specifications for who can file a challenge and what they must do: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec337.html
Notice that in ME, the issue is first decided by the SoS, and then “A challenger or a candidate may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State” in court.
Now your turn: give us an actual law to discuss.
Okay suppose the state law (a) gives state officials the power to remove a candidate under 14A,s3 for insurrection, (b) defines insurrection broadly to include willfully failing to secure the border against migrants, and (c) allows the determination of guilt to be made in a non-jury trial based on a preponderance of the evidence. What then? You’re okay with that?
If you answer “yes” then are you also okay with having 50 different definitions of insurrection, and 50 different procedures, in the 50 states? If not, why not?
Again: a state cannot define words used in federal law or the Constitution; it can only define words used in state laws. The meaning of “insurrection” is determined by federal law (to the extent that it’s defined) and federal caselaw. AFAIK, there is no caselaw suggesting that “willfully failing to secure the border against migrants” constitutes insurrection. And no, I’m not “okay with having 50 different definitions of insurrection.” There’s only the federal definition. Yes, I’m okay with “50 different procedures, in the 50 states,” as long as each procedure is constitutional.
Do you think the actual wording of ME’s or CO’s laws make them unconstitutional? If so, please be specific about what element(s) make them unconstitutional.
as long as each procedure is constitutional
What provision of the constitution would they violate? It can’t be the due process clause since you’ve already stated that disqualification from office doesn’t interfere with any right protected by due process. So what would constitute unconstitutionality in your view? If you want to answer that question, be specific about what provision of the constitution it violates, it’s not enough to waive around the general “unconstitutional” label without saying why (that is, saying what clause of the constitution it violates).
“What provision of the constitution would they violate?”
How can I determine that unless you propose the actual wording of the law you’re imagining?
“you’ve already stated that disqualification from office doesn’t interfere with any right protected by due process.”
No, I didn’t say that. It might, depending on the law and the process. But in CO, there was a 5 day trial, and Trump was able to present arguments, so I don’t see how the CO law interferes with his due process right. Same in ME, I think he was able to make his case to the SoS, and now it goes to the courts. How does that violate his due process right?
“So what would constitute unconstitutionality in your view?”
For example, if the state law said that a person were disqualified on the basis of sex or on the basis of race or on the basis of net worth. Those would violate the equal protection clause. We could come up with lots of examples of unconstitutional laws, but I don’t see the point.
The meaning of “insurrection” is determined by federal law (to the extent that it’s defined) and federal caselaw.
Can you give me any examples of such federal caselaw or federal statutory law defining it? And did you know that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to interpret federal law, and thus, to announce the definition of terms used in federal statutory and statutory law? Suppose too that a state law has a criminal offense of insurrection and/or rebellion, where someone can be punished by the state government for committing such a criminal offense. Then in the absence of federal law defining those terms, wouldn’t it make sense for them to rely on their state-law definitions when invoking a process to kick a candidate off the ballot?
There’s some relevant caselaw listed with the examples here (in the table and below): https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Re: “state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to interpret federal law, and thus, to announce the definition of terms used in federal statutory and statutory law,” yes, but the fact that the state courts can interpret federal law does not imply that state legislatures can define words in federal laws. I doubt that the latter would be upheld, though I could be wrong.
“in the absence of federal law defining those terms, wouldn’t it make sense for them to rely on their state-law definitions when invoking a process to kick a candidate off the ballot?”
That doesn’t make sense to me. AFAIK, in interpreting federal law, state courts have to follow the Constitution and federal caselaw. Or are you asking about something that involves both state law and federal law? If so, please elaborate.
Ledewitz? There’s a shocker.
Guess who is the ONLY person who can, under specific conditions, declare that an “insurrection” is in play….
POTUS.
Are they STILL trying to fabricate the insane tale that somehow Trump was leading a coup against himself? I suggest those delusional folks rewind the clock, and think about exactly who WAS in position to remove a sitting President from office and steal an election in the period from November up until the Jan 6th scripted LARP.
Former AG Bill Barr take on the issue.
I Oppose Trump—and Any Efforts to Ban Him From the Ballot
“The 2024 election will pose the gravest of challenges to our institutions. Unconstitutional measures will take us down far more dangerous channels.”
Pretty much destroys our leftist friends legal interpretations.
https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-banning-trump-from-the
Barr knows they have the steal in place again, so he can hardly wait for the fraudulent count up.
He “still doesn’t know” how cameras don’t work, guards fall asleep, “the count” is not completed and nothing happens, etc.
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
If the value of Popular Vote Influence is diminished by Ban of a Candidate (e.g.: a Colorado Ban, Main Ban, US et.al.), then the resultant answer of the Electoral College formula is skewed and produces a tabulation error (violation) in the process of 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting of electoral votes in Congress. [i.e.: When you ‘subvert’ the Ballot, it no longer adds up skewing the disposition of Electors]
Hence a 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 can be brought forth upon this issue in Federal Court (SCOTUS) to resolve this matter.
I have also considered that a carefully written In Seriatim Opinion can dissolve the Electoral College from the Election Process by invalidating 3 U.S. Code § 15 through these means (a mathematical & social calculus*), thus putting the ball back in the Congresses court to Abolish the Code. (i.e.: Abolish the Electoral College). Leaving the SCOTUS off the hook as they say.
—
* 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞: 𝟏𝟕𝟖𝟖–𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 [PDF]
By: Paul E. Godek ~ Fall 2018 • Cato Journal
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2018/9/cj-v38n3-5.pdf
3 USC Ch. 1:§15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title3/chapter1&edition=prelim
And I hope Justice Clarence Thomas does just that – it would be a nice footnote in his biography.
Trump Hired Him To Find Fraud
Then Trump Disregarded Findings
In November 2020, former President Donald Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump’s allegations and put him back in the White House.
I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign.
The findings of my company’s in-depth analysis are detailed in the depositions taken by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The transcripts show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election. That message was communicated directly to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Ken Block owns Simpatico Software Systems and is the author of “Disproven: My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign, the Data That Shows Why He Lost, and How We Can Improve Our Elections,” coming out on March 12.
Edited From:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/01/02/trump-lies-voter-fraud-2020-impact-2024-election/72057016007/
…………………………………………
Professor Turley has no doubt heard of Ken Block’s effort to validate Trump’s election claims. Yet even though he knows the truth, Turley dismisses as ‘ridiculous’ the decisions of Colorado and New Hampshire to keep Trump off their ballots. As though false election claims are just a form of ‘free speech’ any loser can rightfully make.
Next we can expect Trump zealots to refute official verdicts….”guilty” will be relabeled as “innocent”, and “innocent” as “guilty”. Why should official decisions like court verdicts and verified election results carry any special informative authority? Everything is subjective!
Believe that which you want to get others to believe in your own self-interest. Dupe yourself first, then the public.
There is no truth, only self-interest. Black is white. Facts are ugly things. Screw Socrates, Machiavelli is our guide.
LOL. You must be the last of the lefties to not embrace the post-modern world. We have been warning everyone about it.
he/him
“Next we can expect Trump zealots to refute official verdicts….” guilty” will be relabeled as “innocent”, and “innocent” as “guilty”.
PbinCA, have you never heard of the Innocence Project?
There is a lot of shallow thinking on this blog, and you are participating. Let me quote Nietzsche when he says that all things are matters of mere interpretation and “whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
These crimes against Trump are the assertion of power, not truth. If you relish your freedom, you want to restrain those wielding power rather than justice. If you cannot see what is happening to the DOJ and those empowered to enforce the law, then you don’t deserve the freedoms you take for granted.
Ken Block did not investigate things like signature verification. the use of ballot drop boxes, not provided by legislation. Ballot harvesting not provided for by legislation. Chain of custody for all ballots. There was more than enough violation of election law to alter the outcome. NO Court would hear the evidence. All those violaitons should have invalidated the vote count.
OT
FUN FACTS:
DID YOU SAY, “MIX BLOOD?”
_______________________________
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857
_________________________________________________________
DID YOU SAY, “THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT SLAVERY?”
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union …”
– Abraham Lincoln, 1862
AUF WIEDERSEHEN TO THE GOOSE STEPPING GAY FEMINAZI
___________________________________________________________________
DR. CAROL SWAIN
YOU HAVE GOT TO ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS BRILLIANT BLACK WOMAN.
I DO!
“Well, if Claudine Gay was a White male or female, or even a Black conservative, she would have been fired by now.”
“The penalty normally for plagiarism at that level is that you lose your position, but most people would resign. “
“She plagiarized my work as well as several other people.”
“It’s my understanding that 20 instances of plagiarism was found in her dissertation and publish words.”
“There’s no way you can’t know it. My book won the highest prize in the profession and two other national prizes.”
“It was cited by the US Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions. There’s no way that Claudine Gay, her committee members, her reviewers, and other people didn’t know that she was drawing on my research.”
“Harvard University is morally bankrupt and we see this at every turn.”
“Now they have themselves in a conundrum where they’re trying to redefine what is plagiarism. I believe they’re doing this because they don’t want to fire their first ever Black president, someone who was clearly a DEI appointee.”
“For me, as a person who became a Black conservative, not citing my work had long term consequences because your statue in political science and in any other fields pretty much depends on how much you have cited your citations.”
“If you have someone that’s as prominent as she became and they have research out there, and they are not acknowledging the similar work in the area, that damages you because you don’t get the number of citations you would have gotten.”
“The scandal is indicative of a larger problem with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives on college campuses.”
“It’s not following the Constitution. It’s very dangerous.
“It’s harming people and racial and ethnic minorities are the ones that are harmed most. I think that people need to realize that critical race theory, diversity, equity and inclusion programs are not necessary.”
“[The] White progressives [backing Gay at Harvard have caused irreparable damage].”
– Dr. Carol Swain
____________________
‘[Harvard’s governing body…found Gay responsible for ‘a few instances of inadequate citation,’ and that Gay is requesting corrections to address those instances. The statement also included a statement of support for Gay, claiming she ‘is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.’”
– Harvard University