Some people think the U.S. Supreme Court should rule to prevent states from banning Donald Trump from their ballots. So far, at least 35 states have made formal challenges to Trump’s presidential candidacy. Currently, Colorado’s Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state have determined that Trump should be banned from running for office because of his participation in the Jan. 6 attack on our Capitol. Trump has challenged these decisions and they are now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I wholeheartedly believe that the states’ rulings should be upheld.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that any public officer who has engaged in an insurrection or who has provided aid and comfort to any insurrectionist should not be able to hold public office. (This clause is little known because it has had to be used only a few times since being added to our Constitution after the Civil War. Thankfully our country has not gone through any insurrections since.) In addition, it does not state any requirement of a guilty conviction in a court of law for a person to be banned from holding office. Nevertheless, there are mounds of evidence against Trump from a variety of sources including from the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 6 Committee findings, which included 10 hearings and evidence consisting of recorded video footage, cellphone records, and interviews from more than 1,000 witnesses—including many of Trump’s closest aides, police officers, and rioters. There is also additional evidence from the special counsel’s investigation leading to four federal indictments and from Trump’s impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives.
Some people have questioned whether the Jan. 6 attack on the capital was an “insurrection.” Here is the Britannica definition: “An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.” If one still trusts their own eyes, they can plainly see that the events at our U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 were violent. A great number of people were injured, including 174 police officers. Death resulted. Within weeks, five officers who had been there died, including four by suicide. There was millions of dollars’ worth of property damage. Was this attack against our government? No doubt whatsoever.
The most important questions are: Was Trump involved and to what extent? The answer to the first is definitely, yes, even though the full extent of his involvement has not yet been discovered. What has been discovered is that he was engaged in this insurrection before, during, and after it. He used his lies with the intent to prime his gullible supporters and to summon them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, like a Pied Piper.
According to a report by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington): “One hundred and seventy-four defendants from 37 states who were charged for their participation in the insurrection have said they were answering Donald Trump’s calls when they traveled to Washington and joined the violent attack on the capital [sic].” On that day, he knew the mob was armed and was threatening violence, but he demanded security staff to clear check points close to the Capitol building. In his speech, he told these thugs to “fight like hell” and then he insisted that he join them, only to be reluctantly taken away by members of his secret service. More than three hours elapsed before he took any action to call his followers away, and then he tweeted to them, “We Love You, You’re Very Special.”
In Colorado, both a district court and the state’s Supreme Court determined that the attack was an insurrection and that Trump participated in it. The state Supreme Court then determined Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did apply to a U.S. president. Maine’s secretary of state, after presiding over an administrative hearing in which a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers challenged Trump’s eligibility, determined the same thing. Both parties involved declared that they did not reach these conclusions lightly. The Colorado court’s majority wrote: “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Our country needs to uphold our Constitution and our laws for all citizens, especially our elected representatives. Yes, removing Trump from the ballot is an extraordinary act, but these are extraordinary circumstances. These states’ actions against Trump are not fueled by partisan passions but by a passionate desire to protect our democracy. We need to stand up for our country and our cherished Democracy by not allowing dangerous people like him to threaten us with “chaos and bedlam” if we hold them accountable for their actions.
(And John Donegan, Al Gore’s action to peacefully and legally challenge his election results in Florida in 2000 is in no way comparable to Trump’s recent engagement in the 2021 insurrection. That slippery slope argument is a poor one.) Δ
Kathy Riedemann writes to New Times from Los Osos. Respond with a letter to the editor or commentary for publication by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Feb 1-11, 2024.
Kathy your Trump insurrection article appears to be “libel” against him as there’s no proof he “organized” the riot. Look libel up in Britannica. By your standard if someone accuses you of libel like me you must be guilty, right?
Although I obviously disagree with the conclusions in Ms. Reidemann’s piece, it is at least more thought out and reasoned than the previous letters disagreeing with my column, which were more along the lines of a primal scream of “I really, really hate Trump. We should drive a stake through his heart.”
She cites a list of “proof” of Trump’s guilt which she argues negates the need for a trial. First, the “proof” that has been offered us are merely media reports, as few of us, if anyone, were present to observe directly. Our media is far from an objective and reliable source. Someone whose sole source of information was, say, Fox would likely have different conclusions as to Trump’s guilt than someone whose sole source was, say, CNN or HuffPost. And, two, there is nothing like a fair trial and the ability to hear opposing evidence, and to cross examine, to change the appearance of a case. There have been a lot of cases in which the jury’s verdict disagreed with the strongly held conclusions of the public.
The House hearings were political theater staged by the Democrats, and excluding meaningful Republican participation. If you find their finding compelling, I assume that you will also find the findings against Mayorkas and Biden in the upcoming impeachment proceedings to also be authoritative. Politicians often intone seriously about how they are not “reaching conclusions lightly” and are acting “solemnly”, when they then proceed to come to the self-serving conclusions that we all knew that they would reach.
If Trump in fact committed insurrection, it should be proven at a trial, not by the media or by public opinion. No one disputes that the attack was violent, although the media played fast and loose with reports of deaths, attributing the death of one officer to the riot, which conflicts with his autopsy, and attributing others by suicide, a situation in which motivation is unknowable. And, again, it will require proof of his participation in the planning of the attack on the Capitol. Present your proof at trial, and let’s see where it leads.
My reference to Al Gore is applicable because he, too, disputed the vote count, and unsuccessfully sought to have the courts impose a special voting process for a recount in which only the votes of certain counties would be recounted, which was likely to tilt the counting in his favor. There was no authority for this process, just as there was no authority for Trump’s peaceful efforts to get alternate slates of electors for the Electoral College named by the state legislatures. Both were rejected by the courts but only Trump’s efforts are charged here as “insurrection”.
Why be scared of Due Process?
It amazes me there is this churn of semantics regarding what Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. I watched every brutal moment of it, from his rally where he claimed fraud and urged Mike Pence to throw the vote back to the states to the obviously orchestrated attack on the Capitol.
It was an INSURRECTION. We all saw it. Trump laid out what he wanted and then told the crowd to go to the Capitol, He then sat on his hands for several hours while HIS people, wearing Trump hats and gear, attacked the place where Congress was certifying the vote. They were not there as tourists, they were there for one simple reason: treason, insurrection, coup, rebellion, whatever you want to call it. All of those insurrectionists claimed in court that they believed their actions were prompted by Trump.
All of this was confirmed by the Jan. 6 Committee.
Of course, the Scott Moore’s and John Donegan’s of the world would deny it. I guess Orwell was right.
Scott-It is both amusingly and sadly ironic that you claim I wrote Trump “organized” an insurrection, when it is plainly clear I didn’t. I don’t think he’s capable of organizing much of anything. If Trump wants to sue me for saying he was “involved” in Jan. 6, bring it on. My case is airtight in that regard!
John-If CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS and the Huffington Post all report one thing and FOX “News” reports, not surprisingly, something different, I’m going to go with the former. I don’t need to question the violence of Jan. 6. Not playing that game.
Readers-If you look at the history of why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was enacted and why it purposely excluded requiring a conviction of insurrection, you might better understand it. After the civil war, the lawmakers did not want treasonous public officers from southern states to hold public office in the future. They left out the conviction requirement because they were concerned that if any unconvicted officers who participated in the insurrection got into office, they would then pardon others who were convicted and then they would be allowed to also be in public office. It is extreme, but it was written to protect our constitution from those actors against it. Trump has repeatedly bellowed that he would pardon all of his convicted Jan. 6 henchmen and women and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he installed some of those good ole Proud Boys into his cabinet if he had the opportunity.
John-This section of our constitution needs to be accepted as written. In regards to how it applies to Trump’s situation, the courts and officials in the states who have determined his ineligibility for their ballot gave him proper procedural due process, even though they did not give him a jury trial. I am not scared of due process, I am, as we all should be, terrified of Trump and his unlawful, violent, treasonous and/or undemocratic MAGA supporters. I’m also just tired of all the other peaceful, gullible MAGA “patriots” who want to make Trump their “day one” dictator.
Again, Al Gore’s actions were neither criminal, nor did he participate in an insurrection.
Michael-You said it!!!!
Kathy, you’re still avoiding the due process part, and bypassing a fair and impartial judicial determination of whether Trump’s is guilty. Trump has not had a trial. In Maine, it was just a unilateral decree by the Democratic Secretary of State that he was guilty. In Colorado, it was just a hearing, without the presentation of evidence or the opportunity to cross examine. All of your charges do not constitute proof that he participated in 1/6. No matter how much Democrats hate Trump, due process entitles him to a fair trial. If there is proof, you win and he is disqualified. How is that unfair?>
Both Gore and Trump attempted unsanctioned procedural ploys to try and win the presidency. Why is that insurrection only when Trump does it, and not Gore?
“Both Gore and Trump attempted unsanctioned procedural ploys to try and win the presidency. Why is that insurrection only when Trump does it, and not Gore?”
Four legs good, two legs bad…Four legs good, two legs better.
A recent on-line article, by law professor Ilya Somin: Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn’t Require a Prior Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection [Updated], clearly explains in detail how Trump’s case applies, as it is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.
Because it is a civil matter there are procedural differences. He states the trial Colorado held contains “more than enough” civil due process needed to determine that Trump should be disqualified under Section 3. I implore all to read it.
John-Al Gore’s election result challenges in Florida were not an insurrection because he did not engage in a violent (key word here) attempt to overthrow the results, nor did he give aid and comfort to any violent actors. There was however, at that time, the violent Brooks Brother’s Riot, involving Republicans, including Trump’s sleezy buddy Roger Stone, which many say helped set the stage (although not as “wild”) for the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Also, unlike Trump, Al Gore was not charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding (the certification of the presidential election in which he lost).