This time, the Democrats failed. But not for lack of trying. The Colorado Supreme Court had voted 4 to 3 to keep former President Trump off their ballot. In separate actions, the Maine Secretary State declared Trump ineligible for their ballot, and a Chicago judge ruled that Trump should be kept off the Illinois ballot. All these judges and the Maine official are Democrats. Nearly 20 states in total were considering such action.
Democrats, who love to say how they are the defenders of democracy, never hesitate to undermine our democratic system. They have done so countless times. They refused to accept that Trump won in 2016. It was not just the loser, Hillary Clinton, who declared Trump to be an "illegitimate" President, but other Democrats and various Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) commentators as well. Then, the Dems came up with an unsupported Russian collusion hoax, in an effort to remove a duly elected president from office. How was that not an "insurrection?"
They then came up with the prime time January 6 Committee, whose members were appointed entirely by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. She refused to allow two members of the House chosen by then minority leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on that committee. That was unprecedented. Prior to that, Pelosi ordered a second Trump impeachment proceeding without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first; hearings where actual evidence is presented. And prior to that, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did away with the filibuster rule as applied to all federal judges other than the Supreme Court. Unprecedented actions...by Democrats.
Today's Democrats have no greater respect for our institutions than they say Trump has. But back to the case. The 14th Amendment, in Section 3, prevents certain individuals from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Trump appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and won, Trump v. Anderson. Trump won in a 9 to 0 per curiam (unsigned) opinion of SCOTUS. The alternative, said the Court, would result in a "chaotic patchwork at odds with our Nation's federalism principle." That should have been obvious to everyone.
The Court: "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings," such as the burden of proof required. Indeed. The election of the president is a nationwide election. It is not something that a single state should be able to alter. The Court did not decide whether the President is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3, as the word "president" is conspicuously absent. Nor did the Court decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. The Colorado Court did find in the affirmative on those issues.
The US Supreme Court found that the Colorado decision would "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole." This especially applies to the Presidency, because that office "represent(s) all the voters in the Nation." States are permitted to disqualify candidates for state offices under Section 3, said the Court, but not disqualify for federal offices. But the majority went one step further in their decision, holding that Congress alone had the power to enforce a Section 3 disqualification for federal offices - as opposed to, say, the federal courts. Four of the Justices disagreed with that determination.
As a result, the D-MSMC attempted to spin the decision as a 5 to 4 vote, blaming it all on the conservative appointees. But that is not the truth, as all 9 Justices, including the liberal ones, agreed that individual states could not keep Trump, or any presidential (or other federal office) candidate, off the ballot. The D-MSMC was all in by claiming that the wording of Section is clear and unambiguous. No person shall hold office after engaging in insurrection . So clear, right?
Such as the First Amendment is so clear: "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech." No law. Except...in interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court has declared various types of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Defamatory speech (libel and slander), obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to cause imminent harm...all are not protected speech. Not to mention the often used "time, place and manner" restrictions that used to be put on speech (although apparently not so much anymore). So, for these leftwing commentators to say that the language of Section 3 is clear, and therefore that ends the discussion, is, shall we say, rather simplistic.
The presidential immunity case is currently pending at the Supreme Court. Do I believe that the prosecution being brought by Special Counsel Jack is politically motivated? Absolutely. After all, Trump announced his third try at the Presidency on November 15, 2022, and Merrick Garland appointed Smith on November 18, 2022.
In terms of immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court has held that a president has absolute immunity for conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982) Under no circumstances would I imagine that the Court would grant absolute immunity from criminal liability. The most extreme example would be that of a president charged with the crime of committing murder. But maybe not. Imagine this scenario. A president orders a drone strike to take out a known terrorist. But the drone also kills innocent civilians. Do we allow any leftwing, antiwar prosecutor to file murder charges against that president? Maybe not such a simple issue.
Where should a line be drawn? Will it hinge on whether a president can make the case that his actions were part of his official duties? But does that raise other issues? After all, the District Court of Appeals said "it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity." If that is the basis for a SCOTUS decision (unlikely in my opinion) then Biden is in trouble.
He has bragged about his continuing student loan forgiveness, even after the Supreme Court said he had no such power. Worse, he has failed - intentionally - to take care that the immigration laws of the United States be faithfully executed. He has opened our borders, contrary to the laws passed by Congress, in a manner that is unprecedented. Well over 7 million people have entered the country illegally since Biden took office. It is a veritable invasion of our country without a single shot being fired. This surrender of our nation's sovereignty can only be seen as an intentional act by the President. It will have more far-reaching, and far longer, consequences, than the events of January 6. Why shouldn't Biden be both impeached and prosecuted for that extreme dereliction of his duties, especially if you believe that the first duty of a president is to protect the American people.
