Historian debunks 'five key errors' about Trump's disqualification from CO ballot
By: Carl Gibson (Alternet. org)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A state supreme court disqualifying a former US president from appearing on a ballot is certainly unprecedented in American history, and one historian says that's led to political commentators and media outlets mistakenly spreading erroneous information.
In a post to his website Pints of History, historian David W. Tollen - a bestselling author and lecturer at University of California-Berkeley — explained the five most common errors believed about former President Donald Trump's disqualification from the Colorado Republican primary ballot in 2024.
Tollen said the Anderson v. Griswold decision from Colorado that will now be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) "touched off a storm of bad reporting: errors about the law, history, and basic facts surrounding the conclusion that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office."
Error #1: Several other courts have ruled that Trump is not disqualified
Tollen explained that Colorado's supreme court is the first judicial body to decide whether section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (also known as the insurrection clause) disqualifies the former president. Rather, Tollen said other courts have ruled instead on smaller procedural questions, like if a plaintiff has "standing" to bring a case to the court. Notably, Tollen included Wednesday's ruling from the Michigan supreme court keeping Trump on the primary ballot as a "procedural" ruling, as one justice made clear that plaintiffs could still seek to have Trump removed from the general election ballot at a later time.
Error #2: Disqualification would take the decision away from the people
According to Tollen, one common misconception about disqualification is that it supposedly deprives voters of the right to decide Trump's fate in 2024. As the historian explains, the Constitution was written by the framers specifically to take certain decisions out of the hands of whatever side happens to have a majority at a given time in history. He cited the insurrection clause as one specific element of the Constitution that is needed to deprive the majority of certain rights.
"Congress and the states enacted Section 3 because they knew Southern voters would elect ex-Confederates, and they wanted to block those majority votes," Tollen wrote. "Note also that removing Trump from the ballot does not actually take away anyone's vote, assuming it's done before votes are cast. It just removes one candidate, leaving populists and other Republicans plenty of other options."
Error #3: Disqualification violates Trump's due process rights
As Tollen explained, the US Constitution guarantees due process rights (where a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) as they pertain to the deprivation of "life, liberty and property." Stripping someone of political office, on the other hand, does not require a conviction in court. He added that if there was any process to Trump's contesting of his right to run for office, he "may have already gotten it in Colorado."
Error #4: Disqualifying Trump will hurt Democrats politically
In his post, Tollen said the misconception that Democrats were somehow at the root of the disqualification effort was false, describing the people behind the Anderson case as "conservative and liberal citizens, acting on their own." Tollen added that for his part, he believes President Joe Biden likely hopes Trump will remain on the ballot.
"Trump is the only Republican candidate carrying more political baggage than Biden. So a Trump nomination gives Biden his best odds of reelection," he wrote.
Error #5: SCOTUS will overturn Anderson
The Anderson ruling came with an automatic stay until January 4, meaning Trump's disqualification wouldn't go into effect until early next year, likely in anticipation that SCOTUS would weigh in. Tollen wrote that despite the Court's 6-3 majority, it would be wrong to assume that SCOTUS would automatically side with Trump. He added that the Court's conservatives — Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular — "regularly apply 'original intent,' interpreting the Constitution as close as possible to the Framers' intent."
"Original intent may work against Trump," Tollen wrote. "The deeper legal issues lie beyond the scope of this article, but there are good arguments that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment meant to keep people like Trump out of office."
Click here to read Tollen's post in full.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Trumpsters have been complaining that he is not getting "due process", but as this article explains, due process is not applicable to this situation.
Oh, that’s okay then. A historian declares due process doesn’t apply and democrats run with it. Democrats have never got past their Jim Crow, “might makes right”, roots.
I can’t decide if democrats don’t care if they are destroying the legitimacy of elections or they are so fanatical that they can’t actually see father ahead than two inches in front of their nose. Like a toddler with candy, they take Whatever in the moment to suit their desires without a concern for tomorrows
Yet again, the Progressive left demonstrates they are no different than what they claim trump to be. Projection is real.
Trump is not going to be given the death penalty by the Colorado or Maine ruling, nor imprisoned, not forced to surrender any of his ill gotten gains. He's just going to be kept off the ballot because the determining authorities in those states decided, by referencing material in the J6 committee report, that Trump aided and abetted an insurrection, and thus is ineligible to hold office. It is not a criminal matter.
I dont care if they kick him off or not eventually, but I do think that since the J6 trial will probably not go off until its too late to effect the election, the public airing of this matter will serve as notice of what he did to try and steal the election.
Just don’t bitch when the same rationale is applied to democrats. Very fine line between an insurrection and a protest and “ aid and comfort” have very broad meanings. It’s not too hard to use similar reasoning to keep Biden and Harris off ballots.
lawfare destroyed the Roman republic. Using lawfare to Completely Delegitimize elections will do the same.
You evidently do not want there to be any ramifications , for him, whatsoever for what Trump did between election night 2020 and Jan 6 2021.
Lets just vote a traitor back in office, perhaps the new American way. If you want to worry about the future worry about that.
If he engaged in insurrection, he should be indicted and tried for it. And If found guilty after having the chance to defend himself, then throw in jail and disqualified from office. That’s how our system is designed to determine whether someone engaged in insurrection or is a traitor.
We have a legal system, democrats chose to ignore it for three years. You just skip to the guilty part and call him a traitor without doing the legal work to justify it.
TDS seems to render otherwise sane individuals, insane when it comes to Trump.
There is nothing illegal about keeping him off the ballot and the Supreme Court will eventually make the decision. If they agree with Colorado are you still going to complain about it?
Trump will probably be successful in delaying the J6 trial until after the 2024 election. If he wins he will never go on trial for that. Where are the Republicans demanding that he drop all his delaying tactics and face trial in March or April, and clear his name? Simply put, they all know he is guilty.
It really is amazing . He has 91 criminal counts against him, felony counts, which to any resonable person would indicate a strong likelihood he did something wrong, but Republicans and conservatives keep on insisting he is being picked on.
Talk about destroying the fabric of America. They are enabling him to do it.
I'll let that one stand. The next time you say "TDS" on this thread I'm going to delete it as no value.
You have a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court, in case you werent aware.
It's interesting to watch you switch from anything not found directly illegal is fine and dandy when it comes to destroying elections, or protecting the Bidens or Clintons but you've spent years obsessing about how Trump is unfit for office/a traitor/should be barred without a single court ever finding he engaged in illegal activity.
Again, if there's nothing illegal about keeping Trump off the ballot, than there's nothing illegal about keeping Biden or other Democrats off the ballot. Enjoy that.
If they agree with Colorado are you still going to complain about it?
Any supreme Court decisions that you can think of that you and other progressives complain about?
“…but Republicans and conservatives keep on insisting he is being picked on.”
It is classic grade school behavior.
Align yourself with a known bully, excuse their infantile behavior, castigate the weakest and most vulnerable, and somehow feel vindicated that you are in the right. When actually, your weaknesses only contribute to the worst outcomes.
There is far far far more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing than there is of Bidens, and most of trumps wrong doing is now in plain sight.
He was presented with a written scenario (plan) where his vice president would simply "declare" him to be the true winner of the election and thus put back in office, and Trump approved the plan. In and of itself, with no other evidence at all that should have been enough for every voter in America to say they would never vote for him again, and run his ass out of town on a rail. But Republicans , scared to death of the MAGA cult, have enabled Trump at every step and phase of his attempt to win another election. It is beyond disgraceful.
Deleting things you don’t like to hear is not deleting “no value” it’s censoring free speech and simply proves the point I made about your seeds in another article.
And I fully expect this post to get deleted as well with some BS excuse or another.
Simply saying "TDS" to everything you dont like is trolling, or at the least no value.
No it is not. It describes a very real problem in certain sectors of society today.
Simply your opinion, does not make it trolling.
Its almost impossible to be "deranged " about Trump. He is the living breathing embodiment of derangement.
You are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is. Your opinion. If moderation was enacted every time a differing opinion was offered, there would be more tickets than posts left as is.