Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - Once upon a time in a forgotten land far, far away, a country had a supreme court whose members eschewed politics and determined cases based upon the law. It had a reasonable flexibility in applying facts, since all courts constantly deal with issues which fall between the cracks. When a case dealt with the Constitution, it was supremely important that court understand both the letter and the spirit of the founding documents – the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
Perhaps the most significant betrayal of its duty in the 19th Century was The Dred Scott Case, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) which held that slaves were not citizens of the United States, and thus had no liberty rights (inalienable rights). Since the US Constitution was drafted to “secure the blessings of liberty” for all men, the Dred Scott decision repudiated to the core value on which the nation was found, i.e., each person’s inalienable rights including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The decision was politically motivated to support the institution of slavery and was a major factor in the Civil War (1861-1865). After the Union won the war, in 1865 Congress enacted the 13th and 14th Amendments. The first portion of the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Today, the Nation Now Grapples with the 3rd Section of the 14th Amendment
The 3rd section states:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
All laws are composed of elements. Elements may be one word or a series of words. For example, a criminal battery is “the unlawful touching of another without consent or privilege.” Lay persons without knowledge of legalese have trouble recognizing elements. The basic one in battery is “touching,” which means the defendant somehow touched the defendant and that would include throwing a rock at the victim and hitting him in the head. If the rock did not hit the victim, then the touch element would be missing and the defendant would not be guilty of battery. It does not matter how loathsome the defendant may be or his intend to harm the victim, he is not guilty of a battery without the touching element.
With this unduly brief explanation of elements, let’s turn to the 14th Amendment. Here is an example of “good” in the 14th Amendment. The key element is “hold any office.” Just as a battery applies only to an actual touching and not to a failed attempt to touch by throwing the rock, the 14th Amendment is crystal clear, or so one would think; it is invoked if any only if a person is about to hold public office.
The route to hold public office is to be elected, and thus, the 14th Amendment is not invoked when a person runs as a candidate for a public office. Similarly, battery does not criminalize rock throwing per se, but applies only when the rock hits its human target. Thus, the 14th Amendment lies dormant until some insurrectionist not only runs for a political office, but also wins the election, and thus, he is in a position to hold that office.
“Holding Public Office” Does not Include “Running for Public Office”
The law first looks at the plain meaning of words in a statute or constitutional provision. The issue over Donald Trump’s name appearing on the 2024 ballot presidential ballot is: Do the words “hold any office” include “running as a candidate for public office.” There is no reasonable interpretation of hold office which includes running for that office.
Thus, each and every lawsuit which has been filed to prohibit Trump’s name from appearing on any ballot for any public office fails to satisfy the first element of the amendment. Each case should be summarily dismissed, and the failure to dismiss each and every case is judicial malpractice. The motive, gross ignorance, or stupidity of the Colorado Supreme Court is not relevant. Just as a cat does not become a dog because a court so rules; a court’s ruling does not turn Garfield into Snoopy. The words “hold public office” do not include “run for public office.”
The 14th Amendment Supports Itself
The last sentence supports the plain meaning of “hold any office” But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. The last sentence makes clear that if an insurrectionist should run and win an election for a public office, he may hold that public office if each House of Congress agrees by a 2/3rds majority that he may hold office. That sentence would be surplusage if the insurrectionist is not allowed to run for public office.
The Rest of the 14th Amendment is Bad Legalese
While the Hold element is good because it is simple, the rest of the third section is bad. A law is bad in the judicial sense, when it is vague, confusing, and filled with unanswerable implications. If the 14th Amendment were a statute, the solution would be easy – the third section is unconstitutionally vague since no one knows that the elements mean? Applying the term insurrectionist to Donald Trump is fought with additional complicated legal issues. The most obvious is that he has been so charged by the second articles of impeachment and he was acquitted due to Nancy Pelosi’s sabotage of the Senate trial by preventing any witness to be called. As detailed in Unchecked, The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachment of Donald Trump , Pelosi withheld from the House Managers who were prosecuting the impeachment trial over Jan 6th in the Senate that the key witness was willing and able to testify. There were also scads of insurrections willing to testify that Trump had incited them and then abandoned them. The Dems did not allow single anti-Trump witness to testify at the second impeachment trial. Just as the law professors had explicitly told Pelosi about the first impeachment that there was not enough evidence to convict in the Senate and that the House had to continue to gather more evidence, Pelosi stopped all the evidence gathering. The law professors were correct and Trump was acquitted in 2020 and then again in 2021. Pelosi’s dereliction of her constitutional duty was the same with respect to both the first and the second Senate trials – she found it politically beneficial to her career to have Donald Trump creating havoc in the GOP. Now Trump has a possible Get Out of Jail Free Card.
What Will the US Supreme Court Rule on the 14th Amendment?
While the correct ruling is to throw out all the pre-election lawsuits, no one should have an iota of faith that the Justices will not engage politics so that there is minority opinion, guaranteeing that millions of Americans will be outraged. The Dem Wokers, as we have seen, have no use for American traditions and they support murderous terrorists as freedom fighters and the Woke Dem Hamas supporters attack Christmas Celebrations in support of Hamas’ goal to exterminate Jews.
Foreshadowing The Ugly to Follow
The US Supreme Court will throw out all pre-election 14th Amendment cases as not ripe. If Trump loses, he will scream the election was stolen and violence will ensue. If Trumps wins, the Hamas contingent of Wokers will launch terrorist attacks on American soil.
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. The view expressed by Mr. Abrams are his alone and not necessarily those of CityWatchLA. You may email him at [email protected])
