December 30, 2023May 9, 2024 Damon Linker’s CNN Opinion on the 14th Amendment is breathtakingly foolish Damon Linker’s CNN opinion piece, critiquing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot, seems to overlook essential constitutional principles and historical contexts. Specifically, his use of terms like “gambit” trivializes the gravity and intent behind key aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the clauses addressing disqualification for insurrection or rebellion. This choice of language reduces a serious constitutional application to a mere strategic move, reminiscent of the dismissive use of “narrative” to undermine opposing viewpoints. While examining Linker’s choice of words, notably his use of “gambit,” one might speculate whether this term was influenced by contemporary cultural references, such as the popularity of the miniseries “The Queen’s Gambit.” If this is the case, it raises concerns about the intermingling of pop culture and serious legal analysis. The term “gambit,” traditionally used in chess to describe a strategy where a player risks one thing for a greater gain, could imply that the constitutional application in question is a mere strategic play rather than a serious legal procedure. This analogy, while culturally resonant, might trivialize the grave and principled nature of constitutional law. In the context of legal and constitutional discourse, especially on matters as significant as the potential disqualification of a former president, it is crucial to maintain language that reflects the seriousness and integrity of the subject matter, rather than borrowing from popular culture, which might inadvertently diminish the perceived gravity of the discussion. The Fourteenth Amendment, framed in the aftermath of the Civil War, was designed to address profound threats to American democracy. Its application in the context of safeguarding democratic processes is not merely a historical artifact but remains relevant in addressing contemporary challenges to the constitutional order. The amendment was never intended as a partisan tool, and its current invocation is not as part of a partisan strategy but as a necessary measure to maintain the integrity of democratic institutions. By using reductive language, Linker’s critique potentially misleads the public about the amendment’s significance, undermining a nuanced understanding of its role in contemporary legal and political spheres. It is crucial to approach such constitutional discussions with an objective and informed perspective, recognizing the amendment’s historical and ongoing relevance in protecting the democratic framework of the United States. Linker’s commentary seems to significantly underestimate the critical importance of adhering to constitutional principles, especially when these principles might conflict with political popularity. The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically crafted to protect the Republic from individuals whose actions pose a threat to its democratic foundations. This protection is designed to apply irrespective of the individual’s popularity or political influence. By concentrating primarily on Donald Trump’s populist appeal, Linker appears to sideline the crucial legal basis for Trump’s disqualification. Such an approach diminishes the fundamental role of the Constitution in maintaining the integrity and stability of democratic governance. The Constitution serves as the bedrock of American democracy, and its provisions, including those in the Fourteenth Amendment, are not mere formalities but essential tools for safeguarding the nation’s democratic values and institutions. In neglecting this perspective, Linker’s analysis might inadvertently convey a misunderstanding of the Constitution’s function as a guardian of democracy, rather than as a document that bends to the whims of political tides. Recognizing and respecting the constitutional grounds for disqualifying a candidate from public office is not just a legal obligation; it is a crucial commitment to upholding the principles and values upon which the United States was founded. This perspective is essential for a balanced and informed discourse on the matter. The situation with Donald Trump has evolved from a mere political defeat to a serious legal matter involving allegations of insurrection. This shift demands a legal response, including potential disqualification from holding office, in accordance with the law. The notion of relying on another political defeat in an election — one that Trump and his followers might accept — is not only impractical but also dangerously naive. Such a stance overlooks the precedent set by the failure of this approach in the past and ignores the gravity of the legal issues at hand. Expecting the electorate to rectify or address actions that potentially constitute insurrection is a misguided abdication of legal responsibility. It reduces a matter of profound constitutional significance to a speculative game of political predictions and strategies. This approach is not just a misapplication of the law; it dangerously underestimates the potential consequences of failing to hold accountable those accused of threatening the democratic order. The law exists to be applied in such critical circumstances, not set aside in favor of electoral solutions. To treat the situation as merely a matter for voters to decide in future elections is to misunderstand the role of the law in safeguarding democratic institutions and principles. The implications of not applying the law in a situation as serious as this are too significant to be dismissed as a mere component of political game theory. The integrity of the legal system and the protection of democratic values demand a response that is firmly grounded in legal, not just political, considerations. The historical context surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment is paramount to understanding its current application, an aspect that seems notably absent in Linker’s analysis. This amendment emerged as a direct response to grave threats to the United States” democratic fabric, threats akin to those observed in the events leading up to and including January 6th. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, in the tumultuous aftermath of the Civil War, were acutely aware of the dangers posed by individuals who sought to undermine the nation’s democratic processes and institutions. Linker’s piece appears to overlook this critical backdrop, thereby missing the amendment’s profound relevance to contemporary events. The Fourteenth Amendment was not merely a historical artifact but a prescient and enduring safeguard designed to protect the Republic from the types of threats embodied in the actions Trump is accused of. It represents a constitutional mechanism to guard against and respond to assaults on the nation’s democratic integrity, envisioned by its framers as a means to preserve the Union in times of internal strife and challenges to its democratic foundations. In failing to acknowledge this historical significance, Linker’s commentary potentially underestimates the amendment’s relevance in addressing the current situation. The foresight of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers in creating provisions to protect against threats to democracy is directly applicable to the accusations against Trump. Their intent was to ensure that the Constitution had built-in defenses against such dangers, a fact that remains critically important in today’s context. Understanding this historical perspective is essential for a meaningful and informed discussion about the amendment’s application in contemporary legal and political scenarios. Linker’s interpretation of the term “insurrection” in his commentary seems to be a significant misreading of both the events of January 6th and the constitutional definition of insurrection. The actions on that day, coupled with Trump’s behavior leading up to it, appear to be in alignment with what the Constitution defines as insurrection. To suggest otherwise, as Linker’s article might imply, is to overlook or misinterpret the explicit language and the underlying intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was crafted with a broad scope in mind, addressing not just the immediate circumstances of its time, namely the actions of former Confederates, but also encompassing future threats to the Union’s democratic framework. This inclusivity is critical in understanding the amendment’s application to contemporary events. By implying a narrower interpretation that potentially excludes the January 6th events and Trump’s related actions, Linker’s analysis risks a misapplication of the amendment and a failure to acknowledge its full scope and purpose. Furthermore, the amendment’s broader application to insurrectionist actions beyond former Confederates underscores the framers” intent to create a lasting constitutional safeguard. It was designed to be a proactive measure against any future threats to the nation’s democracy, not limited by time or specific groups. This forward-looking approach is essential in interpreting the amendment in today’s context, especially in relation to events that mirror the insurrectionary actions the framers sought to guard against. Linker’s suggestion that applying constitutional disqualification to Trump might paradoxically empower him is reminiscent of the famous movie line, “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” While this line makes for a dramatic cinematic moment, it’s important to remember that real-life legal decisions must be grounded in constitutional law, not swayed by dramatic enactments or speculative political outcomes. This is not Star Wars or an Anya Taylor-Joy miniseries. The idea of avoiding the application of constitutional principles due to the fear of giving a political “gift” to Trump is untenable. Constitutional law exists to uphold principles of justice and democracy, independent of potential political ramifications. Linker’s apparent hope for a political solution that avoids constitutional action against Trump, in favor of an outcome more satisfying to the public, is a perilous fantasy. The Constitution is not a document to be sidestepped for convenience or out of fear of political repercussions. For instance, while many might wish for a popular figure like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president, constitutional requirements cannot be ignored simply because ignoring them might prevent a hypothetical political upheaval. Arnold’s supporters have not been, “disenfranchised.” To suggest that avoiding constitutional disqualification of Trump to avoid a violent political tantrum from his cultists is to misunderstand the nature of constitutional law. The Constitution serves as the bedrock of American democracy, providing mechanisms to address serious threats to its integrity. Should we have adopted that attitude in the past and we would still be tolerating slavery. Labeling actions that align with the definition of “insurrection” as anything less is not just a logical fallacy, but a dangerous precedent. In essence, constitutional principles should not be compromised due to concerns about potential political reactions. The rule of law, especially in matters as grave as potential insurrection, must stand above political calculations and fears. To do otherwise would be to undermine the very foundations of American democracy. The primary role of the judiciary, as exemplified by the Colorado and Maine Supreme Courts, is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to succumb to political pressure or popular sentiment. This principle is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society, where the rule of law prevails over transient political trends or the influence of powerful individuals. The recent decisions by these courts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on their states” presidential ballots represent this critical judicial function in action. While Linker raises a valid point regarding the potential for electoral chaos if the Supreme Court declines to address the Colorado ruling under the guise of “states’ rights,” it’s important to explore the broader implications of such a decision. The refusal of the Supreme Court to take up the case could set a precedent that might lead to a fragmented and inconsistent electoral system across different states. This scenario would not only create confusion but could also undermine the uniformity and fairness essential to the electoral process. Furthermore, the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter will be closely scrutinized for indications of partisanship, particularly given the political affiliations of the justices and the fact that some of them were appointed by Donald Trump. The question then becomes whether the justices will adhere to their professed textualist philosophy, which emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Constitution, or if they will be swayed by political loyalty. There is also the consideration of the Court’s legitimacy and public perception. A decision to uphold the Constitution as written, without bowing to partisan pressures, could serve to reinforce the Court’s integrity and independence. This is particularly critical in a time when the Court is facing accusations of partisanship and a consequent erosion of public trust. Such a stance might help the Court to mitigate the perception of illegitimacy and affirm its role as an impartial arbiter of the law. In sum, the Supreme Court’s handling of this issue will not only have immediate implications for the specific case of Trump’s disqualification but will also send a broader message about the Court’s commitment to constitutional principles over political considerations. This decision will be a litmus test for the Court’s adherence to legal textualism and its ability to rise above the fray of partisan politics to uphold the foundational principles of American democracy. These decisions underscore the necessity of a constitutional check on individuals who may pose a threat to the principles of democratic governance. The courts” actions are not about penalizing political unpopularity or targeting a specific political figure; rather, they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the democratic process. This is particularly relevant when dealing with allegations of actions that could be construed as insurrectionist, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. By making these decisions, the courts in Colorado and Maine are demonstrating their commitment to the Constitution above all else, ensuring that no individual, regardless of their political stature or influence, is above the law. This adherence to constitutional principles is essential not only for the integrity of the judiciary but also for the maintenance of a stable and fair democratic system. In this light, these judicial decisions should be viewed as an affirmation of the judiciary’s role as a guardian of democracy, tasked with the impartial application of the law, free from political biases and pressures. They reflect the courts” understanding of their duty to safeguard the democratic institutions and principles that are foundational to the United States. Linker’s suggestion that disqualifying Trump might infringe upon due process conflates two distinct legal concepts: criminal prosecution and constitutional eligibility for holding office. This conflation overlooks a fundamental aspect of constitutional law. The Constitution explicitly sets out qualifications and eligibility criteria for holding public office, which are separate and distinct from the processes and rights associated with criminal proceedings. Importantly, the Constitution does not frame the right to run for office as an inherent aspect of due process. In this context, invoking the ruling of Salmon Chase, particularly his decision regarding removal from office, is not directly applicable to the current situation involving disqualification from appearing on a ballot. Chase’s ruling addressed the removal of an already elected official, which is a different legal matter from preventing a candidate’s appearance on the ballot due to constitutional disqualifications. Therefore, using this as a precedent in the case of Trump’s disqualification from the ballot is of limited relevance and does not carry the weight that Linker implies. Moreover, suggesting that Chase’s ruling should hold sway over the current court’s decision ignores the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation and the unique circumstances of each case. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to contemporary situations, which can differ significantly from historical contexts. Linker’s article, and CNN’s decision to feature it, raises questions about the network’s editorial priorities, particularly in the context of constitutional law and its interpretation. By giving prominence to Linker’s perspective, which appears to downplay the importance of constitutional safeguards as demonstrated in the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, CNN seems to favor presenting a semblance of balance over a more rigorous and in-depth legal analysis. The emphasis in media coverage, especially on issues of such constitutional significance, should be on providing thorough, well-researched analysis rather than simply offering multiple viewpoints for the sake of appearing balanced. While presenting diverse opinions is a valuable aspect of journalistic practice, it becomes problematic when it includes opinions that significantly diverge from established legal principles or constitutional understanding without adequate context or counterargument. In this specific instance, the portrayal of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding the disqualification of a presidential candidate seems to lack the depth and seriousness required for a meaningful discussion. By featuring an opinion that may be perceived as diminishing the gravity of constitutional principles, CNN risks undermining the integrity of serious constitutional discourse. This approach not only misinforms the public but also detracts from the critical role of the media in facilitating informed and substantive debate on matters of public importance. In conclusion, the media’s role in shaping public understanding of constitutional matters is a responsibility that demands a commitment to accuracy, depth, and a respect for the complexities of legal analysis. CNN’s editorial choice in this case suggests a need for a more nuanced and informed approach to covering constitutional issues, one that prioritizes the substance of legal arguments over the mere appearance of editorial balance. Archived Commentary Politics
Politics The Luxury Vacation Resort of Public Opinion August 28, 2023February 14, 2024 In this innovative interpretation of the criminal justice system, a person’s fate lies in the… Read More
Commentary Now I Am Become Pretentious, The Destroyer Of Translations January 19, 2024May 9, 2024 I recently had a conversation with ChatGPT. We discussed Robert Oppenheimer’s famous translation of a… Read More
Art Work, Dance, Love October 1, 2023December 24, 2023 There’s an oft-misattributed motto, “Work like you don’t need the money. Dance like no one… Read More