Colorado ruling against Trump kicks up commotion in heated race

This position ignores two crucial points: Two courts in Colorado, with detailed evidence, ruled that Trump participated in an insurrection, and the very purpose of Trump’s actions was to deprive the majority of American voters of their democratic rights.

If Trump cannot be disqualified from running for president under the 14th Amendment, then Section 3 is useless despite its clear language. To those who are not sure that Trump participated in an insurrection and that there is no evidence of his participation, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you.

The inability of the legal system to deal with Trump in a timely manner before the 2024 election poses a great threat to our democracy. Indeed, it may well result in its demise if Trump is on the ballot and his supporters will only believe in and accept a Trump victory.

Robert G. Bill

Quincy

Beware the precedent court decision would set for partisan moves

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar the former president from the ballot has sparked celebration among the “Never Trump” faction. I understand their disdain for his reprehensible conduct, but achieving justice within our legal system requires caution. This ruling appears to level a blow to Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, but, as your editorial argues, it establishes a worrisome precedent for future political maneuvering.

Reflecting on then-Senator Harry Reid’s so-called nuclear option from 2013 illustrates the potential consequences of immediate wins through procedural shortcuts. Supported by President Barack Obama, the move by Reid, the Democratic majority leader, was aimed at facilitating lower court nominations, but it altered the confirmation process and ultimately allowed legal room for a similar change to the process for Supreme Court justices to be used by Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell in 2017. This led to the reshaped conservative Supreme Court we have today and influenced landmark decisions such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Similarly, the Colorado ruling might set a precedent enabling the manipulation of legal terms such as “insurrection” and “aid or comfort” for political expediency, jeopardizing the elections of candidates from both sides of the aisle.

We must heed the lesson of Reid’s actions and prioritize the preservation of unbiased democratic processes over fleeting victories. The subjective argument branding Trump as an imminent threat opens a dangerous avenue for branding any candidate from any party as an imminent threat.

We are already seeing potential retaliation for this ruling, and this threatens the long-term sustainability of our democracy.

Alex Thomson

Scituate

Even McConnell said courts should decide. Now one has.

Many remember Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky telling us that, although he voted to acquit former president Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, Trump hadn’t gotten away with anything yet — that it was up to the courts to determine how he should be held accountable. Well, now that the courts may determine that the former president is unfit to hold the office again due to the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Trump’s supporters don’t want the courts to hold him accountable either.

While I’m sympathetic to your editorial’s argument that Trump should be defeated at the ballot box, that already happened in 2020, and we’ve since been subjected to the constant drone of election denialism. However, as we approach the 2024 election, there are now many election deniers in office who could refuse to accept another Biden victory and thus could throw the certification process into chaos.

Maybe if the Supreme Court does affirm that the former president cannot serve again, it would put the country in a win-win situation. With Trump no longer a viable candidate, maybe President Biden might then decide not to seek reelection and the country could look forward to a new generation of leadership.

Carl Markey

North Chelmsford

The amendments can be thorny, but we must look to them

The Globe challenged the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in upholding the 14th Amendment by restricting Donald Trump from the ballot, and it echoed a GOP talking point in arguing for leaving Trump’s fitness for the presidency to the voters. The editorial was replete with hand-wringing about the amendment’s past misuse and the risk of future misuse.

Some argued similarly in the matter of Republican Representative George Santos, saying that expelling him from Congress would amount to “depriving” voters of their essential right, but most were onboard with his removal, and for behavior much less heinous than insurrection.

The Constitution gives the courts a role, as intended. Just as with the Second Amendment, there may be disastrous unintended consequences. Voters can push to change both amendments, but for now, let’s leave their interpretation to the courts.

Ronald Kulich

Charlestown

The question of Trump’s eligibility is crystal clear

Immediately after the Civil War, an urgent warning was carved into the Constitution: Don’t give insurrectionists power. The Colorado Supreme Court heeded that warning by disqualifying Donald Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If other courts find the same facts, then they must reach the same conclusion. It’s not an issue for voters to decide. It’s an eligibility question as black and white as a candidate’s age.

Jape Shattuck

Newport, R.I.

Forget the Biden write-in — N.H.’s independents could deliver a knockout blow to Trump

Re “Write-in bid aims to help Biden win N.H. primary” (Page A1, Dec. 18): New Hampshire’s undeclared voters should make their vote count in the upcoming presidential primary. By selecting a Republican ballot, they could stop Donald Trump by choosing a GOP candidate who does not want to dismantle democratic institutions and polarize our nation. In this way, they could help keep Trump from going on to win the nomination in November. If they instead select a Democratic ballot and write in President Biden, they would waste their vote on a primary that barely counts.

New Hampshire’s undeclared voters have a patriotic duty to vote in the Republican primary to put an end to the MAGA philosophy promoted by Trump and his followers.

Barry Bergman

Newton



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *