Whether Or Not To Kick Trump Off The Ballot Is About Due Process, Not Democracy
All Qualifications For Holding Office Are Anti-Democratic. So What?
By David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
Making A Stupid Argument That Sounds Politically Correct
Consider people who appear to have at least a normal level of intelligence but who say something stupid because they think that their dumb comment sounds good?
Let’s say that somebody with a wife and three kids has suffered a mandatory driver’s license revocation upon his second conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Now some social activist, minister, psychologist or drug counselor says that the judge did the wrong thing in revoking his license because Mr. Drunk Driver won’t be able to support his family; that he needs understanding; that he has a medical problem that should be handled by doctors not judges.
In other words, that because the complainer thinks that the DUI law’s mandatory license revocation provision is a bad idea, that the judge was in the wrong for doing what the law required him/her to do.
That’s a dumb comment. You cannot allow judges to ignore a law because somebody thinks that the provisions of that law are a bad idea.
If You Think A Law Is Wrong The Correct Response Is To Change It
The way things have to work is that the voters elect people who pass laws, and unless a law violates the Constitution that law is enforced until the legislature repeals or replaces it.
Not Removing Trump From The Ballot Because Removing Him Is Undemocratic Is A Stupid Argument
And now let’s talk about Trump’s removal from the ballot in Colorado and Maine.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the complaint that removing Trump from the ballot is wrong because that removal is “anti-democratic” is a similarly dumb argument, and anyone sincerely making it is not a smart person.
Don’t get me wrong. There is a good argument to be made that Colorado and Maine should not YET remove Trump from the ballot, but the notion that he should stay on the ballot so that the voters instead of judges can make the ultimate decision on his candidacy is a wrong (and stupid) argument.
All Qualifications For President Are Undemocratic
The law of the land, the Constitution, sets out firm and binding qualifications that every candidate for President must satisfy. To be on a Presidential ballot a candidate must be:
- At least thirty-five years old
- A native born American
- Not have participated in an insurrection against the government after holding an office for which s/he took an oath to protect the Constitution
That means that no matter how many people would like to vote for someone
- under the age of thirty-five or
- who is not a native born American citizen e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger or
- who, after taking a oath to protect the Constitution, participated in an insurrection
that candidate nevertheless cannot be on the ballot.
You can complain all you want that those qualifications are anti-democratic, and maybe they are, but that’s irrelevant.
If you don’t like those constitutional provisions then your option is to amend the Constitution to remove them, not ignore them. Until then, the courts must strike from the Presidential ballot any candidate who fails to meet any of those qualifications.
Proving Someone Is Under 35 Is Different From Proving Someone Is An Insurrectionist
Whether or not someone is under thirty-five or isn’t a native-born American citizen is a black and white question that depends on simple documentary evidence, while whether or not a person has engaged in an insurrection is a question of fact that must be decided on legally admissible evidence presented in a contested hearing.
While age and place of birth are determined by a simple check of a birth certificate, participating in an insurrection involves four questions:
- 1) What the 14th Amendment means by participating in an insurrection
- 2) Is the candidate a person included within the scope of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause?
- 3) What did the candidate actually do?
- 4) Does what they did constitute participating in an insurrection?
Answering These Questions Requires Holding A Contested Hearing
Answering those questions requires reliable evidence presented in a contested hearing where both sides have the right to both present their own evidence and question the evidence introduced by the other side.
We call that Due Process of Law. As far as I know, Trump’s conduct has not yet been tested in accordance with the requirements of due process of law.
I am about as far from a Trump supporter as you can get. If you want to know how I feel about him, I hope that he is convicted of the crimes with which he is charged, and that he dies in prison. Am I being clear here?
Trump’s Has Not Yet Been Afforded Due Process Of Law
But, I don’t think Colorado or Maine have afforded Trump a hearing in which he was allowed to call witnesses, present evidence, confront the evidence against him, and submit legal arguments in support of his claim that the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on candidates who participate in an insurrection does not disqualify him.
You Can’t Ignore An Election Rule Because It Is Undemocratic
Kicking a thirty-two year old off the ballot is anti-democratic. Kicking a non-native-born American off the ballot is anti-democratic. Kicking an insurrectionist off the ballot is anti-democratic. So what?
Keeping such candidates off the ballot is what the Constitution says must happen, so unless and until you amend the Constitution, get over it.
Yes, Kick Trump Off The Ballot But Only After He Was Afforded Due Process
So, please stick to complaining that kicking Trump off the Colorado and Maine ballots YET is wrong because so far those states have not afforded Mr. Crazy Snake due process of law.
Give him his day in court. THEN, bar him from the ballot.
— David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
