The opinions and views of this writer are not those of the Ridgview News.
By Deirdre Purdy
Trump, Justice, and the American Way
The United States was the first country to be established not under a monarch, a religion, or a dictator, but instead under the rule of law. We are governed by our Constitution and the laws made under it. The rule of law guarantees that the rights of everyone in a democracy will be equally acknowledged and protected.
Trump has been stress-testing the American justice system. The rule of law hangs in the balance.
Suits have been brought across the country under Section 3 of the 14thAmendment, the “disqualification clause,” which states that anyone who engaged in insurrection cannot hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.
Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump was disqualified from the presidential ballot because he had engaged in insurrection and was seeking an office for which the 14th Amendment disqualified him. This week, the Maine Secretary of State made the same ruling.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan that did not disqualify Trump did so for procedural reasons: either they are not the proper court or this is not the appropriate time for them to hear such a case.
Some have argued that disqualifying Trump from the ballot would be anti-democratic, an intrusion of elites into an electoral decision. Those who claim it should be decided at the ballot box seem to forget that Trump was defeated at the polls in 2020, a reality he refuses to accept, leading directly to the January 6thinsurrection. More importantly if the law is clear, political theory is not relevant.
The disqualification clause itself has been called “obscure” and ambiguous. It reads, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State …” having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Some legal scholars contend that the presidency should not fall under a general catch-all clause like “a civil office under the United States” when senators and representatives are specifically named. But article 1, section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution says that senators and representatives, while they are in Congress,cannot hold office under the United States, clearly distinguishing senators and representatives from “officers of the United States.” On the other hand, the Constitution refers to the presidency as an office 25 times.
The disqualification clause is not obscure or ambiguous.
Some claim that the 14th amendment is old and has seldom been applied, as if portions of the Constitution can just wither away with disuse. Since the Civil War, we simply haven’t had, until now, insurrectionists to whom this section of the amendment would apply. Now we need to use it.
Conservative icon, Judge J. Michael Luttig calls the Colorado decision “unassailable.” Esteemed liberal constitutional scholar, Harvard law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe agrees.
Clearly the US Supreme Court must ultimately decide the issue. The Supreme Court justices, like every federal official, have taken an oath to support the Constitution, which mandates that insurrectionist Trump be disqualified from the presidency.
Will the justices be swayed by their personal politics? Trump threatens violence if he is kept off the ballot. Would SCOTUS react fearfully to those threats?
If you’re old enough, you remember the election of 2000 and its terrible outcome. Perhaps if you voted for George W. Bush, you didn’t think the outcome was terrible because your candidate won. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 for Bush over Gore. But the rule of law cracked with Bush v. Gore and that was terrible.
The majority opinion stated, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances” because the problem of equal protection in elections “presents many complexities.” In other words, this opinion ignores the complexities and just decides.
Justice Souter called the decision, “the day the music died” because it was so transparently political that it scarred Souter’s belief in the Supreme Court as an institution.
A statewide recount done by media organizations determined that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election. Bush v. Gore warped history and shook the foundations of the rule of law.
Trump’s current attacks on our justice system play out before this background of a Supreme Court that imposed a political result where there was no legal question.
After the 2020 election, Republicans sued in 60 courts around the country, asking them to find fraud in the presidential election. Republicans had 60 opportunities to present evidence of fraud. They presented none. All 60 courts ruled there was no fraud and thus, Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States.
Since then, Trump’s Big Lie, that the 2020 election was stolen from him by fraud, has torn this country apart. By disdaining every court ruling and the advice of hisown lawyers that there was no evidence of fraud and that he lost, Trump undermines trust in the courts, the law, justice, and the electoral system.
Almost 600 defendants have pled guilty to federal charges following the January 6 insurrection. Trump calls those who are incarcerated “political prisoners” and “hostages,” denying the validity of their indictments, guilty pleas, and trials.
Trump is charged with 91 felony counts in state and federal courts for crimes allegedly committed while he was president. He claims he too is a political victim of the “weaponized” Department of Justice and a racist Georgia prosecutor.
Trump contends that charging a former president with crimes is inherently political, an act of revenge. He gives no credence to the grand juries that found probable cause to charge him with 91 crimes. Instead, Trump declares that a president has total immunity and can never be charged with a crime.
The rule of law means that every citizen is governed by the law and no one escapes its consequences. The Trumpian notion that the President is above the law is deeply un-American.
In 2000, the Supreme Court made a political decision although there was no legal question presented. In 2024, the Court is faced with a straightforward legal issue: does the Constitution bar an insurrectionist from running for President?
If the Supreme Court refuses to apply the clear words of the Constitution and disqualify insurrectionist Trump from the presidential ballot, but instead makes a political ruling to allow him to run, we will know that Trump’s arrogant disdain for the rule of law spreads and grows stronger as the rule of law weakens and threatens the very foundations of our republic.
