Democratic-aligned pundits and legal experts argue that removing Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, as the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s Secretary of State recently decided to do and 12 other states are considering, is not inherently undemocratic because, even though it takes one major presidential candidate off the ballot in a two-party system it’s permitted under an obscure section of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Constitution hasn’t always been a charter that upheld the highest ideals of democratic participation.
It’s Democratic If the Constitution Says It
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
7 Comments. Leave new
The US constitution is an antiquated joke.
The relevant bit? It states you cannot “hold the office … But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” There’s nothing in there that says you cannot “run” for the office. It sounds nitpicky, but it isn’t. Fringe “Overthrow America” candidates run for offices every election cycle. Read Ted’s article about how Civil War southerners — the losing side — were encouraged to re-enter politics. It reads a lot like a form of denazification.
Trump has not been convicted of any such crime. What we are seeing here is the logical next step after Russiagate and the worst aspects of the #MeToo movement, in which the mere act of accusing somebody of something meant they were guilty of it.
It’s all political theater, in my opinion. Trump is the perfect foil and villain for this wraslin’ extravaganza.
To brother martin: Trump actually was ruled to have “engaged in insurrection” by a Colorado district court but it did not use that determination to justify barring his name from the 2024 ballot. The Colorado supreme court reversed that aspect of the lower court ruling. See, e.g.: http://tinyurl.com/24s4udft
Trump has faced/will face similar scrutiny in other states.
A state court apparently has the authority to hear and rule on what must be a federal issue as this … being based on an amendment to the constitution. This point had me confused for a while.
Now we have the developing, if unlikely (re SCOTUS), prospect that Trump will be reelected, from his jail cell (other convictions) by write-in vote, no less. In that case, one can only imagine the ” ‘yoo…ooooge’ mandate” bombast to
result in domestic and foreign affairs decisions … maybe even worse than Biden’s !?!
.
Yep, it’s complicated. An overturned lower court ruling is no conviction. That said, I’m considerably less than thrilled by the prospect of either of the most likely winning candidates, even if the GOP candidate isn’t Mr. Turnip. I think it’s entirely possible that the result of the 2024 election will be legal, and possibly civil, chaos. I do not relish this thought! “The lesser of two evils” ultimtely means, “bad…or worse?” Plus it looks like we are trembling on the brink of nuclear war, just to ice the cake.
We needn’t wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in. Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Even Democrats should see the value in keeping Trump on the ballot.
It is possible that the Republicans wouldn’t go along — fearing that it would be an admission that their candidate is an insurrectionist and needs to be granted access.