December 26, 2023
In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before of as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.
Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.
The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President" under the 14th Amendment.
There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the Court’s action.
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.” “This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen.”
House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. commented that "Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot."
“We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next President of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax "National Report," said the following: "In the 60 years I've been practicing and teaching law, I've never seen a decision that's so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd,"
Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, "The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong."
He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.
"If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there's a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate," he said. "But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy."
Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
1. Trump didn’t hold an applicable office
2. He was not charged, let alone convicted, for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’
3. Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”
Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the Court.
The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.
A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”
It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.
This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?
If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment