Then it can be rephrased to -- if any state refuses to put Trump on the ballot, at least one Republican dominated state will certainly refuse to put the leading Democratic candidate on the ballot.
Donald, we should do the right thing, not worry how the other side will respond, but be prepared. We must have legitimate grounds and evidence. The fascists, I asume, must as well.
We need legal counsel. The thread raises concerns that aught to be addressed, asap.
Regardless, we should not be cowed & fail to pursue justice. It is just to prevent those who violated their oath from seeking public office or remaining in public office. The opposition should be on the defensive, constantly and in a myriad of ways.
Ruth, thanks for your updates. Your fact based words of explanation and encouragement keep us going! Let me say that I support any strategy that will remove Trump from the political picture! The American people have suffered enough from his lies and conspiracies‼️
Sec 3 of the 14th Amend’t, aught to apply not only to DT, but also to others who violated their oath of office and swore to uphold and defend the constitution . . .
I saw an msnbc interview with the two scholars who wrote the article Ruth references. Prof Tribe and Judge Luttig agreed accountability would fall to whomever at the state level, in each state, who in in charge of printing the names on the ballot.
I don’t understand how it works if no court proceedings are required. What prevents Trump from running, or winning the nomination, or having his name on ballots, or having his name carried by electors, or being certified?
My understanding (IANAL!) is that various pro-democracy organizations plan to challenge placing Trump's name on the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. The various Secretaries of State would have to decide. Either way, the decision would be challenged in court and then the fun begins.
On msnbc interview, it is the state officials to execute this mandate of Section 3. (Per Laurene Tribe, Judge Luttig, authors of The Atlantic article).
The ballot in each state is approved by the Secretary of State.
From the Atlantic article: "When a secretary of state or other state official charged with the responsibility of approving the placement of a candidate’s name on an official ballot either disqualifies Trump from appearing on a ballot or declares him eligible, that determination will assuredly be challenged in court by someone with the standing to do so . . . such a case will inevitably land before the Supreme Court . . .
For my state (CA), that approval date is Dec 8, 2023. It took some digging to find this!
We should each therefore contact, and help others to contact the Secretaries of State. Thanks Sandy for that info on the date-drawing near! That is critical, too often we wait on this stuff!
According to the essay (or other articles I've read relating to this topic, each Secretary of State in each state has an obligation to remove the individual's name from the ballots. The state's citizens can write to their Secretary of State and ask the individual's name be removed from the ballot by citing Section 3.
To ignore the citizens' request could invite a lawsuit by the citizens of the state, suing the Secretary of state for refusing to act in accordance with Sec. 3.
Yes, this seems to be the mechanism of enforcement of section 3 amendment 14. The secretary of state decides, or the people petition the Secretary of State. It can get challenged and end up in the Supreme Court.
We should start getting signatures to send to our Secretaries of State.
Each state monitors the validity of which names are printed. This was what I heard in an msnbc interview today with Prof Tribe and Judge Luttig. That was their answer... state level.
So is there no movement on invoking the 14th just because we're all afraid of his base getting mad? They can't argue with an amendment in the Constitution (although we all know they will anyway).
Laura, there are people who have known about this for years but their numbers, as far as I'm aware, have been small. Only most recently has this idea been resurrected. So WE are the movement…and it's growing. Every time we mention it it will spread… 😊👍
"if Section 3 were ever invoked to ban Trump from running for president, the Republican voter base would be primed to see that action as yet another example of the law being weaponized to victimize Trump"
IIRC, Sect. 3 invocation would occur on the state level, ie: Sec'ys of State not including Trump on the ballot. Imagine the violent outcome of THAT decision.
No matter what we do, this type of person(s) thrive on the fight. To not act, could be catastrophic. The law is in our favor. The intent of the law, is in our favor.
David, we aught not allow intimidation by fascist MAGA terrorists to prevent the invocation of the Sec 3 of the 14th Amend’t. Self-censorship is precisely what the opposition seeks to achieve through intimidation and terrorism. The only legitimate criteria should be whether the Amend’t & Sec is applicable. The adage: If we don’t use it we lose it might apply.
Also, MAGA thugs have increasingly demonstrated lack of interest when called upon by DT; except for the 1/6 attempted coup.
The Forefathers foresaw this type of malarkey and gave us the keys to avoid it. I agree we have to use it. We are the democratic example to the world. In the name of our forefathers we evoke it!
I don't care if the MAGA maniacs like it or not. A self-respecting democratic-republic must defend itself or collude in its own demise. Compared to many other countries struggling to become democracies, we have a terrific structure in the Constitution and in the institutions that have been set up to defend this structure. The institutions, like the complex judiciary system, are only as strong as the people who perform the functions. We have a lot of fervent and devoted defenders of the rule of law in these institutions and I cast my lot with them.
I just heard that 2 "Proud Boys" have been convicted of "seditious conspiracy" and prosecutors have asked for 33yr. sentences.
Think about it: My home state of NJ could take a complaint from our former Gov, Chris Christie, challenging Trump's right to be on the GOP primary ballot, then general election ballot. While I'm not a fan of Mr. Christie, he's just ambitious and pugnacious enough to give this legal strategy a whirl (and the state government is completely controlled by Democrats). If he succeeds, the Trump support may well come crashing down like the proverbial house of cards that it is (Most Americans are now registered as Independents). Trump, is a bully blowhard. Yes, he does love violence, but notice that his calls for "protests like the world has yet to see," have fallen of deaf ears with each succeeding arrest. The time is NOW for leaders to pick up the tool of Article 3 in the 14th Amendment and stop Trump, once and for all.
Suggestion: Write & call your congressional delegation and Gov Murphy; urge they support invoking the 14th, Sec 3 of the US Constitution. Those who violated their oath of office should be banned from holding office.
Ruth, you will recall it was yours truly who since months ago has been calling for someone to invoke Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. Luttig and Tribe suggest once someone invokes this remedy to deny Trump the ballot, it will be challenged in court. Perhaps, someone could shorten the process and make an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court to get them to rule whether or not the insurrection inspired by Trump was enough to deny him the ballot.
Reich is a partisan and although he went to law school, he is not a legal scholar like William Baude and Michael Stokes who wrote “The Sweep and Force of Section Three”. As legal scholars and conservatives, their article has much more potency to launch the effort to disqualify Trump, I think.
Sandy, The more the better. A bipartisan invocation of the 14th, Sec 3, has even greater gravitas. It should not be limited to DT. No one is above the law.
Legal scholars should not be the only ones to opine. Reich has considerable credibility and authority.
I agree that the more times Section 3 of the 14th gets mentioned, the more it gets seeded into the collective consciousness. The more it's repeated the more it takes root. It can become a rallying cry like the call to dismantle South African apartheid did in the 1990s.
Agree, all of us need to be talking. It's our responsibility. Remembering, that talking is what they detest and seek to squash. Talk to cashiers and everyone we meet, working it into the conversation. Most of this change has to be grassroots-changing level, neighbor to neighbor.
Thanks Mansur for keeping this on the radar. Timing is everything and we are the strongest union when many different corners of the democracy agree and come into movement together. We are growing stronger for this, building a 'quilt' across all levels, states and municipalities and professions. The ball is rolling . . .
Mansur, that's a good idea, but I also want members of the Supreme Court to feel that there is a huge movement of the people in support of automatic disqualification per 3-14. Do we need a show of of support by getting in the streets? Flooding our Secretaries of State with phone calls and emails?
Hi Madeline. I have written to Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State, and encouraged others in my local community to do the same.. It just occurred to me they might hesitate to act fearing the cost of answering the subsequent lawsuits. But who knows?
Right, Mansur. Of course it makes sense to assess how the other side is feeling and how they might react to things that we do, but in this case I think a groundswell of sentiment from democracy-defenders is absolutely necessary to indicate, "This far you can push us and no farther." We're standing OUR ground on the side of the Constitution and the rule of law. Tyrants won't be tolerated...
Reality Check: There is near zero chance that any state, esp. a state that Trump might win, would try to keep Trump off the ballot. And even if one or more states tried that, there is less than zero chance that the US Supreme Court would dare keep the Republican Party's Presidential candidate off the ballot - no matter what he had done and no matter what crimes he was charged with or had committed. Sorry - that's just reality.
I understand your concern because MAGA Republicans are driven by hatred and revenge. On the other hand, do we stand idly by while dangerous, vengeful, fascistic people assume political domination over all of us?
Well said. [We cannot] stand idly by while dangerous, vengeful, [fascists] assume political domination over all of us . . .” It is best to keep them busy in court or bored in jail. Thanks for your lucid comments.
Except...this is a way that the powerful far, moneyed right, who at this point, I think, would like to be rid of DJT, could slide him out. Perhaps, we shan't have to do this ourselves.
No judge, esp a USSC Justice, would dare prevent DJT from being the Republican Party's nominee. It absolutely will not happen. The greater likelihood is that such a case will never exist because no state will even try to keep Trump off the ballot.
Not sure how SCOTUS will vote, but my bet is that the California Secretary of State will disqualify him. 2 reasons: 1. The argument from Constitutional scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes (both members of the Federalist Society) strikes me as very strong, and 2. Move On's already on it: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/disqualify-donald-trump-in-california.
The test will be if the Supreme Court recognizes the insurrection and applies the constitution. The Federalist Society did. I am optimistic they will follow.
Your comment is why the 14th Amendment should be adjudicated at the federal level, not state by state. Can you imagine if many of the states had fascist leaning members whom would be presented with the issue of implementing the 14th? There are already too many fascists at the state level to trust their actions.
Thanks Donald, it is worded mysteriously. Was there an assumption that everyone would agree that someone who participated in an insurrection would automatically disqualify himself from ever running for office again? But 2/3 of the house and the senate could vote to override that assumption, leaving the guilty party free to run for office?
That doesn't really make sense to me. After the nightmare of the Civil War I would assume that northern legislators would be trying to make it damn clear that anyone who participated in or gave aid and comfort to violent Insurrectionists would never be permitted to hold office again. So why is this worded so strangely? There seems to be no method of enforcement.
Maybe that's why people are thinking about lobbying the Secretaries of State to get his name off the ballot. I'll try to read more about this…
"No person shall...hold any office who, having previously taken an oath...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."
Ric, It doesn’t hurt to try, but it does hurt not to.
We should demand what’s right, regardless of reality. The picture you painted is overly pessimistic and defeatist. We must always act as if there is hope; whether or not it’s hopeless.
It’ll be good to force SCOTUS to vote. Voting against the invocation of 14th/3 would appear to be a violation of their own oath of office and should be subjected to the 14th, as well.
They’re already showing signs of trepidation as they face the prospect being in investigated for corruption, impeachment, demands for Thomas to resign, Court reform incl adding 4 ‘justices,’ etc.
I would love journalists and newscasters to directly ask members of the Sociopathic Party, "Do you think a man who encouraged an armed mob to attack the Capitol police and all the legislators inside, is emotionally fit to make decisions that affect the rest us? Is that the kind of man you'd trust with your daughter? Is that the person who represents what you, personally, stand for?
I doubt it would work. Authoritarianism is on a global rise.
Historically, people will help over turn one despotic government (or perfectly GOOD government) only to be governed by a despotic government that may be and usually IS worse than the one deposed.
Psychologically, this provides some insight to their minds.
I have long thought that it is a good idea to explain to the voting public what fascism consists of and the relationship between fascist leaders and sociopathy/psychopathy. Obviously 74 milion voters didn't understand that Trump was a sociopath (and dark tetrad personality), nor understood what fascism was. Our media needs to drive these points home on a regular basis. Those 74 million were sold on authoritarianism. It's time we try to unscrew them from that anti-democracy stance.
Steve, many members of the World Mental Health Coalition, headed by Dr. Bandy Lee, have been talking about this for 6 years. We've been educating via articles, social media posts, forums like this one, etc. I agree that media could do so much to illuminate what it's really like living under a tyrant vs. living in a democracy. We need to produce shows and other materials that help ordinary folks recognize the danger signs of narcissistic, anti-social, and paranoid personality disorders and how they manifest in politicians who know how to hide behind a mask of "normalcy." I'm with you 100% on this! Let's keep thinking about it and brainstorming ideas.
Dr Lee got lots of flak from the APA about her book on Trump. They were using the Goldwater Rule as leverage. It was a huge mistake on their part. She was right; they were wrong. Her being stifled back then just allowed Trump's national infection to fester. Dr. Lance Dodes blasted the APA for their stupidity.
As I've said before, I write many letters to the editor on this subject, to attempt a larger circulation of the danger.
Yes, Steve...exactly right. I'm so glad you're an active part of the push for greater awareness regarding personality characteristics that are observable symptoms of danger. Are you a member of the World Mental Health Coalition? I've been connected to Bandy since Dangerous Case came out and co-wrote some articles with her, lobbied Yale to reinstate her, etc. Sickening and angering what the APA and Dershowitz did. One of our missions from the beginning has been to agitate for mental competency exams for all candidates for public office, to screen for sociopathy, in particular. But I believe that continuing to spread the idea among the populace that certain personality traits are warning signs, is the most important thing we can be doing right now. I'm personally glad to know that you're doing that! We amplify Bandy's voice just by sharing her posts, as well. :)
Mansur, the more the better. Other similarly situated fascist wannabe dictators aught to be denied the ballot, as well. DJ is ahead of the pack yet not the only one who violated his oath of office.
It chills me to the bone when I think of what would happen if tfg gets back in office. He is not doing this alone, and all of the levers of power would be in the hands of truly wicked individuals.
Agree, and so we use all the levers of the Constitution and government - state and federal that we can. There is too much at stake. We can't let them always be in the driver's seat ~
Every Republican, Independent and Democrat who want us to remain a democracy must, now, unite to see that he is ineligible to run for President. This drum beat must ring louder and clearer.
It's my understanding that this operates at a state-by-state level, so if just a few states, say California and NY, and a few more disqualified DJT, that could be huge. Of course, best to go after Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.
I see no reason why CA would not. 2 reasons: (1) the argument from Constitutional scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes (both members of the Federalist Society) strikes me as very strong, and (2) Move On's already on it: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/disqualify-donald-trump-in-california.
Fascists are very clever, in that they find the key positions in the present system, then make an all out effort to fill those. Once filled, they can prevent their ouster and perpetuate fascism. Our state houses and senates are filled with these people. Many of our SCOTUS memebers are far right. It's a major problem!
Yes, for decades the reactionary billionaires made a concerted effort to buy politicians and fill judgeships with corporatist puppets. Democrats were asleep at the wheel when all of this was going on, I think. :(
Right Jan...democracy-defenders have to wake up, realize that we're being attacked on all fronts, hold firm to our values and assert their primacy everywhere decisions are being made.
"Recent polls by Monmouth University show that 51% of Republicans felt Jan. 6 could be called a "legitimate protest" and only 44% agreed it was a "riot." Ruth
Talk about owning peoples' minds; wow! Those in the GOP want so badly to believe that their clan is righteous that they will bend reality to fit their mindset. They are rationalizing vices and perceiving them as virtues. They are sanitizing bad behavior. It's not just the result of good propaganda but rampant confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; the building blocks of fascism.
Right on, where are the Democrat’s plans for countering this well planned attack on Democracy? It’s time to do what is done with many forest fires, fight this Fascist fire with fire. Showing a bridge being rebuilt is only a very small part of the fire needed now.
Thanks for this, Ruth. I otherwise would not have known about the Atlantic article commenting on the Section 3 piece. I think the argument of Baude and Stokes is pretty strong.
Ruth’s most recent essay—re the 14th Amend’t, Sec. 3–was timely, informative, succinct & a delight to read.
This Amend’t/Sec should be invoked against ALL those holding public office who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, against all enemies foreign & domestic (I’m paraphrasing.) Failure to demand accountability from those who violated their oath of office makes said oath & the constitution meaningless—merely empty words.
Apparent violators are too many to list here, but an effort should be made for compilation, including a narrative and doc of the offense(s.) This action against those who betrayed their oath office should have been initiated by DOJ, or demanded by the House &/or the Senate. Since both chambers failed to do so, we should urge our elected reps & senators to ask DOJ take immediate action in this regard.
The above action aught to be bipartisan, but need not be. Those who fail to demand accountability would be exposed as supporting violation of the oath of office. They should be banned from public office, as well.
It is scandalous that the action here suggested has not been demanded. If taken, control of the House would rightfully shift to Dems and their majority in the Senate would increase, as well.
Ruth’s article aught to be forwarded to our Congressional reps, asap.
Congress switchboard: (202)224-3121. Please urge others to do the same.
Pretty much spells it out. There was apparently a strong belief in long, run-on sentences back then. Maybe this confuses the GOP? I don’t think tRump has ever read the Constitution, but he would never understand it, so maybe it’s better that he hasn’t...
I see DT as a dangerous, smart, sociopath, a Machiavellian foe made even more effective when trivialized or underestimated. The latter gives us a false sense of security—may lead to complacency—convenient to the fascist opposition and fatal to Dems. Overestimating the opponent might overwhelm us, while being realistic will likely be motivating.
Tom, What about this or that is not helpful, it disempowers..
Then it can be rephrased to -- if any state refuses to put Trump on the ballot, at least one Republican dominated state will certainly refuse to put the leading Democratic candidate on the ballot.
Donald, we should do the right thing, not worry how the other side will respond, but be prepared. We must have legitimate grounds and evidence. The fascists, I asume, must as well.
We need legal counsel. The thread raises concerns that aught to be addressed, asap.
Regardless, we should not be cowed & fail to pursue justice. It is just to prevent those who violated their oath from seeking public office or remaining in public office. The opposition should be on the defensive, constantly and in a myriad of ways.
Ruth, thanks for your updates. Your fact based words of explanation and encouragement keep us going! Let me say that I support any strategy that will remove Trump from the political picture! The American people have suffered enough from his lies and conspiracies‼️
Sec 3 of the 14th Amend’t, aught to apply not only to DT, but also to others who violated their oath of office and swore to uphold and defend the constitution . . .
Absolutely!!
I saw an msnbc interview with the two scholars who wrote the article Ruth references. Prof Tribe and Judge Luttig agreed accountability would fall to whomever at the state level, in each state, who in in charge of printing the names on the ballot.
That means all the fake electors.
Thanks! The sooner the better.
I don’t understand how it works if no court proceedings are required. What prevents Trump from running, or winning the nomination, or having his name on ballots, or having his name carried by electors, or being certified?
Good question!
My understanding (IANAL!) is that various pro-democracy organizations plan to challenge placing Trump's name on the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. The various Secretaries of State would have to decide. Either way, the decision would be challenged in court and then the fun begins.
Yes, I think MoveOn has a petition and there may be others as well. People are definitely getting activated around this issue!
Yes, they do: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/disqualify-donald-trump-from-holding-public-office-under-the-constitution-s-14th-amendment. They're shooting for 400,000 signatures and to-date they have 393,102.
Another organization, Free Speech For People/Mi Familia Vota are now urging Secretaries of State and chief election officials across the country to follow the mandate of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and bar Trump from any future ballot. You can sign that petition and donate here: https://freespeechforpeople.org/trump-is-disqualified-from-the-ballot/#:~:text=Free%20Speech%20For%20People%20and,about%20more%20than%20Donald%20Trump.
Thanks, Sandy...every signature matters as does spreading the word. I will do that!
👏🏻
I just signed it and shared it on Facebook and X.
On msnbc interview, it is the state officials to execute this mandate of Section 3. (Per Laurene Tribe, Judge Luttig, authors of The Atlantic article).
I signed and shared both on social media ✅
Good. It should have been done on Jan.7, 2021.
I just signed the petition. Thanks for posting the website address.
They better hurry. In my state, CA, the Secretary of State announces the approved ballot on Dec 8, 2023.
Sandy, I read today that Gov. Newsom is planning on asking the State Legislature to prohibit TFG's name being placed on the 2024 ballot.
Thx. Can you send me a link? I searched but can't find it.
Thx.
I've been looking also but can't find a news report about it. I saw it on X but didn't copy the source. I'll keep looking...
I don’t think the 14A says what many commenters here think it says.
The ballot in each state is approved by the Secretary of State.
From the Atlantic article: "When a secretary of state or other state official charged with the responsibility of approving the placement of a candidate’s name on an official ballot either disqualifies Trump from appearing on a ballot or declares him eligible, that determination will assuredly be challenged in court by someone with the standing to do so . . . such a case will inevitably land before the Supreme Court . . .
For my state (CA), that approval date is Dec 8, 2023. It took some digging to find this!
We should each therefore contact, and help others to contact the Secretaries of State. Thanks Sandy for that info on the date-drawing near! That is critical, too often we wait on this stuff!
According to the essay (or other articles I've read relating to this topic, each Secretary of State in each state has an obligation to remove the individual's name from the ballots. The state's citizens can write to their Secretary of State and ask the individual's name be removed from the ballot by citing Section 3.
To ignore the citizens' request could invite a lawsuit by the citizens of the state, suing the Secretary of state for refusing to act in accordance with Sec. 3.
Yes, this seems to be the mechanism of enforcement of section 3 amendment 14. The secretary of state decides, or the people petition the Secretary of State. It can get challenged and end up in the Supreme Court.
We should start getting signatures to send to our Secretaries of State.
Each state monitors the validity of which names are printed. This was what I heard in an msnbc interview today with Prof Tribe and Judge Luttig. That was their answer... state level.
Good Q. Nothing in the 14A deals with this aa far as I can see.
Read Section 3, Norman, then read the article by Luttig and Tribe in The Atlantic. That might clarify what folks on this thread are saying...🙏
So is there no movement on invoking the 14th just because we're all afraid of his base getting mad? They can't argue with an amendment in the Constitution (although we all know they will anyway).
Laura, there are people who have known about this for years but their numbers, as far as I'm aware, have been small. Only most recently has this idea been resurrected. So WE are the movement…and it's growing. Every time we mention it it will spread… 😊👍
To Hell with his base!!
Agree, we cannot be afraid. Too much at stake. This is why the Forefathers wrote it.
"if Section 3 were ever invoked to ban Trump from running for president, the Republican voter base would be primed to see that action as yet another example of the law being weaponized to victimize Trump"
IIRC, Sect. 3 invocation would occur on the state level, ie: Sec'ys of State not including Trump on the ballot. Imagine the violent outcome of THAT decision.
This is true, but they see everything as weaponized, so that shouldn't be an impediment.
No matter what we do, this type of person(s) thrive on the fight. To not act, could be catastrophic. The law is in our favor. The intent of the law, is in our favor.
David, we aught not allow intimidation by fascist MAGA terrorists to prevent the invocation of the Sec 3 of the 14th Amend’t. Self-censorship is precisely what the opposition seeks to achieve through intimidation and terrorism. The only legitimate criteria should be whether the Amend’t & Sec is applicable. The adage: If we don’t use it we lose it might apply.
Also, MAGA thugs have increasingly demonstrated lack of interest when called upon by DT; except for the 1/6 attempted coup.
The Forefathers foresaw this type of malarkey and gave us the keys to avoid it. I agree we have to use it. We are the democratic example to the world. In the name of our forefathers we evoke it!
I don't care if the MAGA maniacs like it or not. A self-respecting democratic-republic must defend itself or collude in its own demise. Compared to many other countries struggling to become democracies, we have a terrific structure in the Constitution and in the institutions that have been set up to defend this structure. The institutions, like the complex judiciary system, are only as strong as the people who perform the functions. We have a lot of fervent and devoted defenders of the rule of law in these institutions and I cast my lot with them.
I just heard that 2 "Proud Boys" have been convicted of "seditious conspiracy" and prosecutors have asked for 33yr. sentences.
I support too, the many fervent and devoted defenders of the rule of law. The profession of law is at stake too. They are a pillar.
We'll see how fast they turn into mewing kittens when the Nat'l Guard or other Military entity shows up in their midst.
Think about it: My home state of NJ could take a complaint from our former Gov, Chris Christie, challenging Trump's right to be on the GOP primary ballot, then general election ballot. While I'm not a fan of Mr. Christie, he's just ambitious and pugnacious enough to give this legal strategy a whirl (and the state government is completely controlled by Democrats). If he succeeds, the Trump support may well come crashing down like the proverbial house of cards that it is (Most Americans are now registered as Independents). Trump, is a bully blowhard. Yes, he does love violence, but notice that his calls for "protests like the world has yet to see," have fallen of deaf ears with each succeeding arrest. The time is NOW for leaders to pick up the tool of Article 3 in the 14th Amendment and stop Trump, once and for all.
Suggestion: Write & call your congressional delegation and Gov Murphy; urge they support invoking the 14th, Sec 3 of the US Constitution. Those who violated their oath of office should be banned from holding office.
Catherine, why don't you ask someone close to the Christie campaign if he has considered this strategy?
Ruth, you will recall it was yours truly who since months ago has been calling for someone to invoke Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. Luttig and Tribe suggest once someone invokes this remedy to deny Trump the ballot, it will be challenged in court. Perhaps, someone could shorten the process and make an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court to get them to rule whether or not the insurrection inspired by Trump was enough to deny him the ballot.
And Robert Reich has been jumping down about this for a couple of years.
Reich is a partisan and although he went to law school, he is not a legal scholar like William Baude and Michael Stokes who wrote “The Sweep and Force of Section Three”. As legal scholars and conservatives, their article has much more potency to launch the effort to disqualify Trump, I think.
Sandy, The more the better. A bipartisan invocation of the 14th, Sec 3, has even greater gravitas. It should not be limited to DT. No one is above the law.
Legal scholars should not be the only ones to opine. Reich has considerable credibility and authority.
I agree that the more times Section 3 of the 14th gets mentioned, the more it gets seeded into the collective consciousness. The more it's repeated the more it takes root. It can become a rallying cry like the call to dismantle South African apartheid did in the 1990s.
Repetition is our friend.
Agree, all of us need to be talking. It's our responsibility. Remembering, that talking is what they detest and seek to squash. Talk to cashiers and everyone we meet, working it into the conversation. Most of this change has to be grassroots-changing level, neighbor to neighbor.
Yes he has.
Yes, he has!
And Ralph Nader just recently.
Thanks Mansur for keeping this on the radar. Timing is everything and we are the strongest union when many different corners of the democracy agree and come into movement together. We are growing stronger for this, building a 'quilt' across all levels, states and municipalities and professions. The ball is rolling . . .
You are welcome, Jan Roberts Stickel.
Mansur, that's a good idea, but I also want members of the Supreme Court to feel that there is a huge movement of the people in support of automatic disqualification per 3-14. Do we need a show of of support by getting in the streets? Flooding our Secretaries of State with phone calls and emails?
Hi Madeline. I have written to Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State, and encouraged others in my local community to do the same.. It just occurred to me they might hesitate to act fearing the cost of answering the subsequent lawsuits. But who knows?
Right, Mansur. Of course it makes sense to assess how the other side is feeling and how they might react to things that we do, but in this case I think a groundswell of sentiment from democracy-defenders is absolutely necessary to indicate, "This far you can push us and no farther." We're standing OUR ground on the side of the Constitution and the rule of law. Tyrants won't be tolerated...
Reality Check: There is near zero chance that any state, esp. a state that Trump might win, would try to keep Trump off the ballot. And even if one or more states tried that, there is less than zero chance that the US Supreme Court would dare keep the Republican Party's Presidential candidate off the ballot - no matter what he had done and no matter what crimes he was charged with or had committed. Sorry - that's just reality.
I understand your concern because MAGA Republicans are driven by hatred and revenge. On the other hand, do we stand idly by while dangerous, vengeful, fascistic people assume political domination over all of us?
Well said. [We cannot] stand idly by while dangerous, vengeful, [fascists] assume political domination over all of us . . .” It is best to keep them busy in court or bored in jail. Thanks for your lucid comments.
Thanks for your kind words, Robert.
Yep , Ric ... that’s my perception, too.
I agree somewhat. However, the discussion of it is valid and in that way raises awareness.
Except...this is a way that the powerful far, moneyed right, who at this point, I think, would like to be rid of DJT, could slide him out. Perhaps, we shan't have to do this ourselves.
No judge, esp a USSC Justice, would dare prevent DJT from being the Republican Party's nominee. It absolutely will not happen. The greater likelihood is that such a case will never exist because no state will even try to keep Trump off the ballot.
Not sure how SCOTUS will vote, but my bet is that the California Secretary of State will disqualify him. 2 reasons: 1. The argument from Constitutional scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes (both members of the Federalist Society) strikes me as very strong, and 2. Move On's already on it: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/disqualify-donald-trump-in-california.
I respectively disagree, Ric.
Trump's existence harms business.
Because innovation and creativity die under authoritarianism.
The test will be if the Supreme Court recognizes the insurrection and applies the constitution. The Federalist Society did. I am optimistic they will follow.
Your comment is why the 14th Amendment should be adjudicated at the federal level, not state by state. Can you imagine if many of the states had fascist leaning members whom would be presented with the issue of implementing the 14th? There are already too many fascists at the state level to trust their actions.
The amendment says that a 2/3 vote of both the House and the Senate would confirm that someone was disqualified fro holding office ever again.
Madeline, I think it says that 2/3 of House and Senate can REMOVE the restriction.
Thanks Donald, it is worded mysteriously. Was there an assumption that everyone would agree that someone who participated in an insurrection would automatically disqualify himself from ever running for office again? But 2/3 of the house and the senate could vote to override that assumption, leaving the guilty party free to run for office?
That doesn't really make sense to me. After the nightmare of the Civil War I would assume that northern legislators would be trying to make it damn clear that anyone who participated in or gave aid and comfort to violent Insurrectionists would never be permitted to hold office again. So why is this worded so strangely? There seems to be no method of enforcement.
Maybe that's why people are thinking about lobbying the Secretaries of State to get his name off the ballot. I'll try to read more about this…
Yes, you're right… I just read the article by Luttig and Tribe.
Steve, I recommend pursuing at both the state & federal level. Let them go on record. It can’t hurt, can it?
Being on record is important, that there is a record.
like minutes of a meeting, that are later looked at.
"No person shall...hold any office who, having previously taken an oath...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."
Ric, It doesn’t hurt to try, but it does hurt not to.
We should demand what’s right, regardless of reality. The picture you painted is overly pessimistic and defeatist. We must always act as if there is hope; whether or not it’s hopeless.
It’ll be good to force SCOTUS to vote. Voting against the invocation of 14th/3 would appear to be a violation of their own oath of office and should be subjected to the 14th, as well.
They’re already showing signs of trepidation as they face the prospect being in investigated for corruption, impeachment, demands for Thomas to resign, Court reform incl adding 4 ‘justices,’ etc.
I would love journalists and newscasters to directly ask members of the Sociopathic Party, "Do you think a man who encouraged an armed mob to attack the Capitol police and all the legislators inside, is emotionally fit to make decisions that affect the rest us? Is that the kind of man you'd trust with your daughter? Is that the person who represents what you, personally, stand for?
I doubt it would work. Authoritarianism is on a global rise.
Historically, people will help over turn one despotic government (or perfectly GOOD government) only to be governed by a despotic government that may be and usually IS worse than the one deposed.
Psychologically, this provides some insight to their minds.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supporters
I have long thought that it is a good idea to explain to the voting public what fascism consists of and the relationship between fascist leaders and sociopathy/psychopathy. Obviously 74 milion voters didn't understand that Trump was a sociopath (and dark tetrad personality), nor understood what fascism was. Our media needs to drive these points home on a regular basis. Those 74 million were sold on authoritarianism. It's time we try to unscrew them from that anti-democracy stance.
Steve, many members of the World Mental Health Coalition, headed by Dr. Bandy Lee, have been talking about this for 6 years. We've been educating via articles, social media posts, forums like this one, etc. I agree that media could do so much to illuminate what it's really like living under a tyrant vs. living in a democracy. We need to produce shows and other materials that help ordinary folks recognize the danger signs of narcissistic, anti-social, and paranoid personality disorders and how they manifest in politicians who know how to hide behind a mask of "normalcy." I'm with you 100% on this! Let's keep thinking about it and brainstorming ideas.
Dr Lee got lots of flak from the APA about her book on Trump. They were using the Goldwater Rule as leverage. It was a huge mistake on their part. She was right; they were wrong. Her being stifled back then just allowed Trump's national infection to fester. Dr. Lance Dodes blasted the APA for their stupidity.
As I've said before, I write many letters to the editor on this subject, to attempt a larger circulation of the danger.
Yes, Steve...exactly right. I'm so glad you're an active part of the push for greater awareness regarding personality characteristics that are observable symptoms of danger. Are you a member of the World Mental Health Coalition? I've been connected to Bandy since Dangerous Case came out and co-wrote some articles with her, lobbied Yale to reinstate her, etc. Sickening and angering what the APA and Dershowitz did. One of our missions from the beginning has been to agitate for mental competency exams for all candidates for public office, to screen for sociopathy, in particular. But I believe that continuing to spread the idea among the populace that certain personality traits are warning signs, is the most important thing we can be doing right now. I'm personally glad to know that you're doing that! We amplify Bandy's voice just by sharing her posts, as well. :)
Two or three swing states denying Trump the ballot would settle the matter.
Mansur, the more the better. Other similarly situated fascist wannabe dictators aught to be denied the ballot, as well. DJ is ahead of the pack yet not the only one who violated his oath of office.
It chills me to the bone when I think of what would happen if tfg gets back in office. He is not doing this alone, and all of the levers of power would be in the hands of truly wicked individuals.
Cathy’s, this is why we must get out the vote!
Agree, and so we use all the levers of the Constitution and government - state and federal that we can. There is too much at stake. We can't let them always be in the driver's seat ~
Every Republican, Independent and Democrat who want us to remain a democracy must, now, unite to see that he is ineligible to run for President. This drum beat must ring louder and clearer.
Sign this petition: https://freespeechforpeople.org/trump-is-disqualified-from-the-ballot/#:~:text=Free%20Speech%20For%20People%20and,about%20more%20than%20Donald%20Trump.
Signed, copied and spread...
Sandy, thank you for making it so easy by posting this link. Signed, and I appreciate you posting this.
You're welcome. It was Madeline Taylor above who alerted me to the petition on MoveOn.org, and then I found this.
It's my understanding that this operates at a state-by-state level, so if just a few states, say California and NY, and a few more disqualified DJT, that could be huge. Of course, best to go after Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.
I see no reason why CA would not. 2 reasons: (1) the argument from Constitutional scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes (both members of the Federalist Society) strikes me as very strong, and (2) Move On's already on it: https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/disqualify-donald-trump-in-california.
Thank you for posting the link to sign petition. Appreciate.
Illinois -- I will write to Secretary of State & all.
This 14th Amendment would involve a final decision by the Supreme Court no doubt? Where does it
stand in that case? The Court is so conservative and owes their “seats” for three justices to Trump?
Law over party?
Fascists are very clever, in that they find the key positions in the present system, then make an all out effort to fill those. Once filled, they can prevent their ouster and perpetuate fascism. Our state houses and senates are filled with these people. Many of our SCOTUS memebers are far right. It's a major problem!
Yes, for decades the reactionary billionaires made a concerted effort to buy politicians and fill judgeships with corporatist puppets. Democrats were asleep at the wheel when all of this was going on, I think. :(
Indeed, Dems ‘… were asleep at the wheel … and too many still are.
Agree, keyword = Clever. This their M.O. to undermine. They are strategic. We must become more strategic in this chess-match.
Right Jan...democracy-defenders have to wake up, realize that we're being attacked on all fronts, hold firm to our values and assert their primacy everywhere decisions are being made.
"Recent polls by Monmouth University show that 51% of Republicans felt Jan. 6 could be called a "legitimate protest" and only 44% agreed it was a "riot." Ruth
Talk about owning peoples' minds; wow! Those in the GOP want so badly to believe that their clan is righteous that they will bend reality to fit their mindset. They are rationalizing vices and perceiving them as virtues. They are sanitizing bad behavior. It's not just the result of good propaganda but rampant confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; the building blocks of fascism.
Thanks, Steve. Sadly, warnings about the fascist surge needs to be repeated as often as possible.
Right on, where are the Democrat’s plans for countering this well planned attack on Democracy? It’s time to do what is done with many forest fires, fight this Fascist fire with fire. Showing a bridge being rebuilt is only a very small part of the fire needed now.
I assume you’re referring to fighting ‘fire with fire’ metaphorically; supporting doing so nonviolently.
"In this mean-spirited moral free-for-all, we need to put justice back in charge." Rosalie Silberman Abella, Washington Post, 8/18/2023.
Thanks for this, Ruth. I otherwise would not have known about the Atlantic article commenting on the Section 3 piece. I think the argument of Baude and Stokes is pretty strong.
Ruth’s most recent essay—re the 14th Amend’t, Sec. 3–was timely, informative, succinct & a delight to read.
This Amend’t/Sec should be invoked against ALL those holding public office who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, against all enemies foreign & domestic (I’m paraphrasing.) Failure to demand accountability from those who violated their oath of office makes said oath & the constitution meaningless—merely empty words.
Apparent violators are too many to list here, but an effort should be made for compilation, including a narrative and doc of the offense(s.) This action against those who betrayed their oath office should have been initiated by DOJ, or demanded by the House &/or the Senate. Since both chambers failed to do so, we should urge our elected reps & senators to ask DOJ take immediate action in this regard.
The above action aught to be bipartisan, but need not be. Those who fail to demand accountability would be exposed as supporting violation of the oath of office. They should be banned from public office, as well.
It is scandalous that the action here suggested has not been demanded. If taken, control of the House would rightfully shift to Dems and their majority in the Senate would increase, as well.
Ruth’s article aught to be forwarded to our Congressional reps, asap.
Congress switchboard: (202)224-3121. Please urge others to do the same.
Thank you,
Robert Leyland Monefeldt
In the wee-hours, when I remember this stuff, we can always email Congressional reps/ Senators, etc.
Pretty much spells it out. There was apparently a strong belief in long, run-on sentences back then. Maybe this confuses the GOP? I don’t think tRump has ever read the Constitution, but he would never understand it, so maybe it’s better that he hasn’t...
I see DT as a dangerous, smart, sociopath, a Machiavellian foe made even more effective when trivialized or underestimated. The latter gives us a false sense of security—may lead to complacency—convenient to the fascist opposition and fatal to Dems. Overestimating the opponent might overwhelm us, while being realistic will likely be motivating.