Funkervogt introduced this article (see below) in mChat.
Reason is more or less libertarian in orientation.
Removing Trump from the Colorado Ballot Won't Make Things Better
by Eric Boehm
December 19, 2023
Introduction:
(Reason) Without knowing what the outcome of that appeal might be, there are three things worth keeping in mind about Tuesday's decision in Colorado—one practical, one philosophical, and one purely hypothetical.
First, this all seems a bit premature given that Trump has not yet been convicted of any crimes connected to the January 6 riot or his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Yes, the former president is manifestly unfit for office, and the 14th Amendment's language is somewhat vague—but can someone be guilty of engaging in insurrection without being guilty of at least one actual crime related to it?
The Colorado Supreme Court says yes. I think we should be deeply skeptical of that logic. (Needless to say, the context here changes if Trump is convicted in either of the two election interference cases currently being brought against him.)
Second, let's assume that Trump's harshest critics are correct when they say he represents a unique threat to the future of American democracy. Even so, the idea that of booting someone off the ballot to save democracy seems like a weird argument at best—and an authoritarian one at worst.
Yes, the 14th Amendment created a constitutionally valid mechanism for removing an insurrectionist from the ballot. That doesn't mean it's a lever that judges should be eager to pull. Not when there are other, far more democratic ways to prevent dangerous, unfit candidates from becoming president (like, say, by defeating them in open, fair elections), and particularly not when the candidate in question still hasn't been convicted of anything resembling insurrection.
The final point is that Biden is likely to carry Colorado anyway. So why bother removing him?
True, but the ruling may also end up affecting the nomination process. Meaning it could boost opposition to Trump at the Republican convention, or at least result in delegates pledged to someone other than Trump.
Read more here:
https://reason.com/2023/12/19/removin ... s-better/
caltrek’s comment: An interesting point I have heard is that the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to exclude from the ballot those who had engaged in insurrection even if they had not been tried for doing so. It was enacted in the wake of the Civil War. So, a sort of blanket amnesty had been granted, meaning no trials for participating in an insurrection. Except that there was a desire to make sure that insurrectionists did not hold certain government offices. Hence the exclusionary language of the amendment. Of course, this is more of a
legal argument as opposed to a
political argument.
One of the constitutional requirements is that the president must be of a certain age. If a candidate were to come forward that was too young to hold office, would we say “let the voters decide”?
If it should be up to the voters, then why put prohibitions in the Constitution in the first place?
So, Republicans get to use dubious legalisms to suppress votes, but the Constitution is ignored when it comes to broader rules of the election?
Trump wants to use the tools of democracy to end democracy. Tools available to stop him from doing that should thus be considered. As I have said, personally, I feel more comfortable about never-Trump Republicans being the ones to employ those tools.
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill
