December 25, 2023February 8, 2024 U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 The U.S. Constitution is unique in that it embodies a principle born from enlightenment that recognizes the inherent flaws in mortals. It fundamentally shifts from the notion of divinely ordained leadership to entrusting governmental power to be retained by the people. Formerly unheard of, his shift represents a groundbreaking and historically rare concept, distinguishing it as a precious gem when viewed across history and possibly in the future. At its core, the U.S. Constitution includes checks and balances to counteract the expected human tendency for those who have accumulated power to be unwilling to relinquish it once gained. This system reflects the framers’ deep understanding of human nature. They recognized the risk of power being concentrated and wrested from the people and thus designed a system with crucial safeguards for maintaining democratic governance. As with keeping religion out of government, this was no accident or whim but was informed by their own experiences and recent history. 162 years ago, this concept faced a crucial test, and in its wake, the nation’s leaders, transcending mere legislative action, inscribed further into constitutional amendments. These amendments were not just legal provisions but bulwarks to strengthen the Union against the very assaults it had recently withstood. This nation has been fortunate, up until now, to have never been burdened by someone with so little regard for the Constitution and so much personal ambition for power to violate these boundaries. Today we are again testing whether this nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can again endure. We are asked to evaluate if what they specifically tried to protect the people from then, in the form of Constitution Amendments, applies to what is before us today. In their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court specifically examined the historical context and intent behind Section Three. They analyzed the language and the framers’ objectives to determine that the disqualification clauses indeed apply to the office of the President. This analysis is sound and correct, arguably masterful. If motivated by partisanship, the Supreme Court’s attempt to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on disqualification might hinge on several desperate arguments. They could reinterpret ‘office’ and ‘officer,’ yet Colorado’s interpretation aligns with the Amendment’s intent and historical context, including the President’s role. Redefining ‘insurrection’ would ignore both historical and contemporary legal perspectives that underpin Colorado’s decision along with basic logic and English vocabulary. Framing the January 6th events as protected free speech overlooks the distinction between constitutional rights and actions threatening the constitutional process. The due process argument could potentially attempt to draw on Chase’s 1869 interpretation, conflicting with recent approaches to precedent. Furthermore, Salmon was referring to removal from office, which would require impeachment, not on the matter of eligibility to run. This could undermine the Fourteenth Amendment’s authority, reducing it subservient to lesser laws. States’ Rights could also be a point of contention, examining the balance between federal authority and state autonomy in electoral matters. Concerns were raised by Justice Carlos Samour Jr., who warned of the potential chaos and constitutional issues if individual states were allowed to determine disqualification cases under Section Three on an ad hoc basis. Each argument demands thorough scrutiny to maintain constitutional integrity and consistency with the court’s stated philosophy. The events of January 6th, 2021, after months of open incitement, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol with the intent to disrupt the constitutional process of certifying the 2020 presidential election results. This can be characterized definitively as an insurrection. This term aligns with the historical definition of a violent uprising against an established government or authority. They were at a minimum, “enemies thereof (Constitution)”. If he is not the head of the insurrection against the Constitution, he has at minimum, given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. From his, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by” during the debates to the 2020 he spent enabling and encouraging mass displays of armed protest on the streets of American cities. Concocting a coming, “rigged” election phantasy, based on zero evidence, other than hedging his bets as a loss looked conceivable. Culminating in his last-ditch January 6th effort to prevent the certification of the election that he obviously lost and his, “We love you” to the criminals he hoped might have kept him in power illegally. He paused and waited as he thought this might delay certification and move the choice of President to Congress, where the rules would allow his party to choose him against the will of the people. Subsequent offers of pardons make his intentions crystal clear. His contempt for the Constitution is self-evident. Historical applications of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clauses include instances where seemingly minor actions led to disqualification, far more minor than what is before us today. The case of a man being disqualified for merely sending a small amount of money to a relative in the Confederate army illustrates just one of the strict enforcement of these provisions, and its interpretation is obvious. These precedents underscore the Amendment’s broad scope and its clear implications in contemporary situations. It is not the courts or even the Constitution that determines disqualification, but rather the actions of those wishing for the privilege to seek office. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on the presidential eligibility criteria. Any officer that has taken an oath is held to scrutiny. The wording is clear, concerns of this exact use were addressed by its authors, and there are no rational exceptions. Due Process, as defined by the Constitution, concerns the fairness of legal proceedings and protection against arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. This does not extend to the privilege of running for public office, which is not a right. Conviction is not listed as a prerequisite for meeting the criteria of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. The Constitution’s eligibility criteria for the presidency are not judicial or legal actions against an individual, but rather predefined qualifications for the privilege of seeking office. As such, they don’t engage due process concerns in the way legal charges or convictions would. These constitutional provisions specify conditions for disqualification or eligibility independent of criminal proceedings. For example, the U.S. Constitution unambiguously excludes naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for President, despite him never having been tried or convicted of anything. Some non-legal extra-constitutional arguments are being proposed. Some, by people who are running for President and have formerly taken oaths to the Constitution. They a noteworthy for their legal irrelevance and they are for their silliness. “Undemocratic” as a labeling constitutional eligibility criteria is a misguided notion. Upholding the Constitution means accepting all its provisions, including those that may conflict with popular desires, such as the aforementioned restriction on foreign-born presidential candidates. The Constitution’s integrity must not be compromised to cater to populist demands. It is a foundational document that guides our democracy, not a malleable instrument subject to the whims of popular sentiment. No political party in this nation can be defined by one man and still be called a party. An oath once taken and then violated must leave the violator ineligible. This is not merely a crime, but a fundamental disqualification. So says the Constitution. They wrote it down cheerfully and expended the considerable energy needed to have the amendment added to the Constitution, no small feat. This would not be the first, “undemocratic” action of our Republic, notable when the Union declared that humans owning other humans as property could no longer stand. So finger wags and labels of “undemocratic” should carry little sting. “Letting the voters decide” in some simplistic conception of fairness or a hoping more satisfying resolution in 2024 is a dangerous gambit with a history of failure and not a solution for protecting the country from this man. It violates precedent and is against the Constitution. Why have a 14th Amendment? Why did they not choose to, “let the voters decide” during Reconstruction? Because the risk to the republic was too grave and the consequences of inaction were clear. Section three specifically calls out persons who violated their oaths to the Constitution and does not limit it to Confederates. To adopt this perspective one must reject the validity of the Constitution. This candidate has openly called for suspending the Constitution for his personal benefit. The arguments are either childishly hoping they will keep their oath next time, or knowing full well they will not. This is not a political question, it is a matter of Constitutional law. The Constitution should not be selectively applied based on political optics or pressure or to attempt to appease zealots. He already lost once in 2020, and we all witnessed the results. A loss in 2024 will not be accepted by either him or his followers. They to avoid applying the Constitution now, will not soften their rage later. It underscores the importance of constitutional integrity over political expediency. He still holds sway over state legislatures and much of Congress, and we have no idea how far he will go to try to seize back power. Well, to be sure, like last time, he’ll only limited by as far as he can go. He will not be limited by conscience or by oath to the Constitution, we have witnessed this already. This is the fundamental reason he is, rightly, disqualified. Preventing stepping over into unconstitutional is a line we should hold against fear of populists’ tantrums. “It will be used all the time after this.” spout the professional buffoon class on the propaganda angertainment channels. Well, they will attempt trivialization of the Third Section in the future. However, the specific set of circumstances for withholding qualification to serve are specific and difficult to conjure from thin air. This is not the application of an obscure never-before-used technicality. Labeling it so is another attempt to undermine the Constitution. The only relevant detail omitted is the name of the current person to be disqualified. The intent and application are evident. Without distortion, it will not be easily applied again, unless we face another insurrectionist President. The applicability to this case could not be more clear. If this scenario were presented to the court without names or political considerations, there would be little debate. Should Colorado’s determination stand, as it should, the disqualification would be at the federal level, and holding the office would be forbidden. The idea that any state can include an unqualified or disqualified person on their ballot is farcical and pointless. Write-ins or caucuses are no remedy or a way to evade preclusion. Back to our example, Schwarzenegger would not be allowed on any Presidential ballot, regardless of party desire or voter opinion, short of amending the Constitution. In the case of the third section, the only way remaining to remove disqualification would be for Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, to vote to override the disqualification. The same congress that voted for his acquittal during his second impeachment for incitement of insurrection can vote to remove his disability. It remains uncertain whether the Supreme Court of the United States will adhere to an ‘originalist’ interpretation of the Constitution, as demonstrated in overturning Roe v. Wade, or if they will grasp for alternative interpretations influenced by political considerations in fealty to the profoundly disqualified candidate as quid pro quo for their appointments, as seems to be the popular expectation. I am perhaps more hopeful than others in this regard. I think their past rulings indicate an unwillingness to be declared the property of the twice-impeached, countlessly indicted, disgraced former President, save one. The legitimacy of the court is currently questioned, but this ruling can serve to answer that question unequivocally. Certainly, there is little any of us can do to influence how they decide. Every pillar of our Republic is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution, imbuing it with the meaning ascribed by the people. Should those entrusted with upholding these oaths falter, the Constitution risks being reduced to insignificance. Failing in this duty risks the Constitution becoming meaningless, leaving the People with nothing but a crumbling piece of paper in its place and a government on this land, unlike anything the People fought to establish and preserve. Fail to uphold the Constitution and it will be lost. Subsequently trying to reestablish it will cost lives far beyond what the people of this nation sacrificed to establish it and protect it up until today. The likeliest outcome is that it, or anything like it will never exist on this continent again and that government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the earth. Archived Commentary Politics
Art Blondi August 26, 2023February 4, 2024 I was feeling bad for Hitler’s dog, Blondi, as one does. It seemed like a… Read More
Politics Fastener Corner: Know Your Nut August 2, 2023December 30, 2023 Today, on our Engineers’ Corner, we delve into the world of fasteners, focusing on the… Read More