Said Chris Christie, whose campaign for the nomination is based on despising Trump.
Quoted in "Disqualifying Trump may be legally sound but fraught for democracy, scholars say/Experts say there’s a strong basis for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, but the larger political context makes the question one of the thorniest in recent memory" (WaPo).
I'm not going to touch the bait "Experts say." You don't need to point it out. I see it.
I've already said what I want to say, but because I hear my own opinion in Christie's, I'm going to reprint what I wrote on January 26, 2021, when Democrats were impeaching the former President and defending it on the ground that a conviction would provide a basis for disqualifying him from running again. Of course, the Senate did not convict Trump, and today's disqualification effort would make a lot more sense if it had.
At the time, I wrote:
[I]t's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'"
I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected.
The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution:
I think the presumption should always be against a constitutional interpretation that would restrict the power of the people to choose whom they please.After all, sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.
The Senate would need to strain the other way to disqualify Private Citizen Trump from running for office again, and that betrays a lack of respect for the people, for the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy."
Enough fretting that the people can't be trusted evaluating Trump as one of our options. Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.
And, now, let the various candidates for President prove we ought to trust them and not Trump.
The people should choose whom they please to govern them.
Posts
78 comments:
The people should choose whom they please to govern them.
I do not think that’s their democracy.
The sticky wicket with the current batch of corruptocrats is not enough people choose them. What to do?
"This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed."
In "should be perfectly pure" I read as 'it should be fraud free'.
Heartwarming modestly OT observation of the day- Apple algorithm let my corruptocrat stand without rejection or suggestion. Just playing the percentages it is…
I guess a case could be made that withdrawing one's state from a union of sovereign states does not count as insurrection either, but the people amending the constitution after the Civil War thought different.
And using the electoral college to install the minority candidate in the White House strikes many as undemocratic. That pesky constitution again.
And using old dictionaries and peering into the minds of dead people from the 1860s to interpret documents, what's that all about.
And then there's blaming Democrats for a lawsuit filed by Republicans to keep a candidate off a Republican primary ballot.
How, on God's green Earth, could anybody trust a governing body that thinks so little of them, that it would preempt their right to decision-making in such an arrogant way?
You can find an Expert to say anything you want. Experts say we're deep into banana republic territory. I agree with them.
"The people should choose whom they please to govern them."
Are you suggesting that those icky deplorable people should have a say in how the kingdom, I mean government is run? Weeelll, I never!
“The people should choose whom they please to govern them.“
So long as the person is 35 years old, is a natural born citizen, has been 14 years a resident in the United States, hasn’t exceeded the term limits, and hasn’t engaged in insurrection or rebellion. There are upwards of 160 million people in the United States who are not eligible to be President.
“The attitudes of both parties further reflect the rottenness of American politics, and that the law now seems to be exerted as a political weapon."
Per the Global Times, Chinese Communist Paper.
Teach Your Children (Mandarin) Well
“I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think it’s bad for the country."
Chris Christie has left himself an out with “by any court”.
Oh no.
Anyways…
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President.
It's actually a infinite jeopardy problem. You wait until some court anywhere in the US convicts Trump of insurrection and use that to say it's an insurrection. After all they're the finder of fact.
I find i interesting that the narrative has shifted from "witch hunt", to what it seems like, "yeah, he is guilty, but he should be allowed to still run because it's good for the country and democracy"
I find I no longer pay attention to reports that quote “scholars” and “experts.” They’ve been so polluted by politics that you get formerly rational scholars like Larry Tribe making facially ridiculous and unconstitutional pronouncements, and “experts” like those quoted in yesterday’s AP report asserting that Gaza is among the most destructive military actions in history. History!
I’m to the point of preferring the non-expert opinions of the first thousand names in the Boston phonebook.
Hamilton also opposed term limits for presidents. Anti- Federalists probably thought term limits would make things safer. Hamilton argued that Presidents who are forced out of office when they are young and ambitious will wander the country "like discontented ghosts." TR left because he had promised to do so, but he is still a good example. When I was teaching this, Nixon was a good example. Would it have been better for the country if Trump had been able to serve a second consecutive term?
Due process.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection?
The insurrection was a rally that got out of control... with some people.
No plans... no guns. An insurrection without guns? plenty of FBI. What were the FBI agents doing?
We know one agent - Ray Epps- is on film telling people to "go into the capitol".
There is further evidence that Epps was in on the entrapment scheme. The strange removal of barriers and fences prior to the march to the capitol.
We know some people behaved badly - like JOhn Sullivan - an antifa who broke a capitol window.
We know footage was kept from the pubic by people like Liz Cheney and outlets like MSNBC.
Footage showing capitol police opening capitol doors and instructing people where to go, as they calmly walked in.
We know people who did nothing wrong - are being arrested, harassed and jailed.
But the people have never chosen the president.
If the electoral college is twisted path to choosing the president, what's wrong with the twisty, turny paths for disqualification or removal? Unfortunately the disqualification path is uncharted, but, to me, worth exploring.
If it wasnt for his atty christie would have learned humility in jail so would kark rove
Talk about poisoning the well...
Scott Adams: "The Colorado judges showed us what happens when otherwise good people are brainwashed into thinking Trump is Hitler.
They act the way anyone would. They do whatever it takes to stop him.
In this context, you can reasonably assume the 2020 election was rigged. The dynamic is the same: Otherwise honest people will bend the rules to stop Hitler."
It's reasonable to assume, to poll workers, it's like 'Mission Accomplished'.
200,000 people attended a protest. A handful of them got violent and there’s both strong evidence federal agents were among the violent actors and some evidence those agents encouraged law breaking. Trump was not at the protest, was not involved in the planning the protest, and no quotes have surfaced of him promoting violence.
On what possible standard that is consistent with American values and the constitution can removing Trump from the ballot for insurrection be legally sound?
May point is, the courts have ALREADY RULED that it's Not Up to THEM
By the time they get done disqualifying him, Trump will get 90% of the vote.
A handmade tale of Democratic displacement and Trump's diverse impeachments in progress. Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe.
anyone read the Co Supreme court dissenting opinions?
there’s both strong evidence federal agents were among the violent actors
A Whitmer conspiracy. A riot forced by assaults carried out under Pelosi authority and forward-looking civil rights violations prosecuted under a JournoListic cover-up.
“I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think it’s bad for the country."
There are other courts now trying to prevent him from being US President again. NYC, DC judges in particular, are not unbiased in this respect….
I tell clients all the time that litigation is uncertain. The CO S. Ct. is a prime example.
The federal courts led by the Supreme Court are going to establish two fundamental ground rules for 2024:
1. Political issues and electoral races are going to be decided by voters in free and fair elections.
2. Legal issues including criminal indictments and civil complaints are going to go to trial and be decided by juries. Appeals that move candidates towards ballots and elections before voters will be upheld.
Appeals that move defendants and cases towards juries will be upheld.
The people are going to decide the big issues in 2024. Anything else will lack legitimacy.
Armin L. writes, "I find it interesting that the narrative has shifted from 'witch hunt'..."
Whose narrative?
anyone read the Co Supreme court dissenting opinions?
I watched Canadian YouTuber Viva Frei read some of it. It was very good.
Nothing to fear here. If somehow Trump is still in a position to prevail come this fall -- assuming he is the GOP candidate -- the Democrats will see the need to postpone the election. There will be unique technical reasons. Or an urgent geopolitical crisis.
Just until Joe Biden passes on. Then it will be the time for an election. Meanwhile we can all stay cool.
the American democraxic mob-left are corrupt - like any Tin-pot corrupt south American dictatorship.
Ironic- as Venezuelans are fleeing Maduro's nightmare nation - shuttled to our border to escape what the corrupt mob-left want to create in the USA.
The claim that the Colorado decision is "legally sound" is another example of Trump exposing Democrat corruption. The decision is legal and factual nonsense as well as unprincipled.
Half the country has lost its way as well as its moral compass.
When Hamas says they want all Jews dead, believe them.
When Schumer says: “Let me tell you (Trump), you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you", believe him.
When NY AG Letitia James says: "When I am elected, I'm going after Trump", believe her.
Trump has the cash to fight the latter two. What if he didn't?
Would be cool if SCOTUS quotes Hamilton,
“This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.”
Althouse for more than a decade I have regularly congratulated you on the high quality and concise writing in your law-related blog posts.
I cannot recall a more rotten one than this one.
A bipartisan majority of the House and Senate thought Trump had committed impeachable high crimes and/or misdemeanors. And of course if someone was waiting for a "criminal conviction" of a President while serving, no President will ever be impeached because no one will be prosecuted because current DoJ guidelines don't allow such prosecutions.
It's really too bad that the Senate Republican leadership didn't lead a supermajority to convict Trump, and bar him from future federal office under the Article 2 Impeachment Clause. We wouldn't be in this spot now. Mitch McConnell doubtlessly could have led the Senate GOP Conference could to convict Trump. He condemned Trump's actions, but said specifically that the Senate should let the courts sort things out. Which they are now doing.
But as for "democracy" demanding that we be able to vote for whom we like, Althouse readers should remember that we can't vote for a President to serve a third term. We can't vote for a 29 year-old for President. And we can't vote for a recent immigrant or foreign-born national for President. We do have qualifications for President. And of all of the Constitutional qualifiers, the most sensible one is limiting candidates to persons who did not violate their federal office oaths and engage in insurrections.
Trump DID get a trial in a Colorado trial court. They had lawyers for both sides. Trump got due process. He got a hearing, there was evidence admitted, his lawyers made arguments. The case was not advanced by Democrats; the plaintiff/petitioners were Republicans. I know that one of the dissenting Colorado Justices claimed that there had been no due process and that the trial was irregular. But I am not aware of a single disputed fact that the Colorado SC majority got wrong.
Fuck you, Trumpists. You didn't want a political impeachment because Trump wasn't being tried in court. When Trump is tried in court, you complain that it is political. And when Trump is defeated in an election, you go to court to complain about it. When you lose in court then, you want the election pulled out of the courts and thrown into a Republican-leaning House of Representatives.
Fuck you all. Merry fucking Christmas.
"The people should choose whom they please to govern them."
Amen sister!
What is Chris Christie prepared to do about it?
"I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think it’s bad for the country...but whatever." - Chris Christie
Christie is being disingenuous...
If he thinks there's a sound basis then he is a shitty lawyer...
"Experts say..."
"Fact-checkers say..."
"Disinformation think-tank says..."
All paid liars for one side or the other.
Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/21/donald-trump-recorded-pressuring-wayne-canvassers-not-to-certify-2020-vote-michigan/72004514007/
Michigan didn’t just happen over the phone, either — remember when Trump summoned the members of the Michigan GOP to the White House? If Trump called Raffensberger in Georgia and the Wayne County Board members in Michigan to “pressure” them to change results, potentially committing crimes in both cases, who did he call in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada? And what happened on those calls? Haven’t these states been Kenneth Chesebro’s travel destinations the past few weeks?Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Chesebro is leading investigators right to those harassed during post election period?
“Was Trump convicted of insurrection?”
There is no requirement he be convicted or even indicted for insurrection elsewhere in section 3. There is no requirement for enacting legislation. His impeachment is an independent process and has no bearing on the rest of the eligibility requirements in the Constitution.
What is required is that if you want to be President you can't have tried to overthrow our government by having a violent mob attack the Congress to delay the counting of electoral votes and then allow enough time to utilize the false electors and create a constitutional crisis.
For a deep dive into all of Trump's indictments check out the Shawn Ryan Show #89, an interview of Nick Parlatore, one of Trump's main attorneys for his current criminal cases.
Parlatore quit and he explains why. He speaks very objectively and knowledgably on the cases and indictments, where we are now and how we got here. Really worth hearing.
Parlatore's a former Navy officer. He represented Eddie Gallagher among other high profile cases.
It's on Youtube or download free on podcast apps.
Blogger hombre said...
The claim that the Colorado decision is "legally sound" is another example of Trump exposing Democrat corruption. The decision is legal and factual nonsense as well as unprincipled.
Three of the four majority are Ivy League graduates. Interesting.
Lem -
Thanks for feedback.
I heard some of the opinions read-aloud on radio.
MSM not interested.
"I guess a case could be made that withdrawing one's state from a union of sovereign states does not count as insurrection either, but the people amending the constitution after the Civil War thought different."
The Confederate states did not merely "withdraw"; they actively raised armies to wage war against the U.S. government.
Had the Confederate states simply declared that they were seceding and no longer recognized the authority of the federal government, I don't think such action alone WOULD constitute insurrection. I think it's at least implicit that an insurrection requires the use of force. If you're not actively waging war against or engaging in armed resistance to the existing government, it's not an insurrection but rather civil disobedience.
J6 clearly wasn't an insurrection because it didn't involve armed resistance to the government, and certainly wasn't intended to topple the government itself. What we saw on J6 was, at most, an unarmed protest (itself perfectly legal) that led to some rioting and vandalism and had the effect of disrupting the scheduled counting of electoral votes.
Moreover, Trump neither participated in the rioting nor lent any material support to the rioters. He was acquitted by the Senate of engaging in insurrection. A judgment of acquittal having entered, no state or federal court has jurisdiction to relitigate the matter and reach a different conclusion as to whether his actions on J6 disqualify him from the presidency. Under Art. I, sec. 3, they could try to convict him criminally and impose criminal consequences; but the acquittal in the Senate is dispositive of the question of his eligibility to hold federal office.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President.
************
Good point. But as you well know, the Constitution's Electoral College system determines the winner. If it were otherwise, a few states with large populations would determine the outcome of EVERY presidential election.
Embrace the suck.
I’m to the point of preferring the non-expert opinions of the first thousand names in the Boston phonebook.
===
if you can find phonebook! probably also all dead!
They don't think that they can push through by democratic means the things they plan to do to us to "prevent" global warming, a theory that they have that they also refuse to debate. They think that they are saving the planet and anything and everything is justified, therefore democracy has to go.
"I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think it’s bad for the country."
That's very big of Christie.
"'The people should choose whom they please to govern them.'
"Amen sister!"
Nope! The people should choose whom we please to SERVE US. Our elected representatives are our representatives, managing the government for us and on our behalf. This includes the President. They are there to govern our affairs, not us.
Yes, they all must make decisions and craft policy and legislation in our stead, but they must always consider what is best for the people, not serving the oligarchs to ensure they get huge "campaign" donations and cushy jobs post-Washington with the wealthy donors and corporate entities who pour their bribes into Washington.
And using the electoral college to install the minority candidate in the White House strikes many as undemocratic. That pesky constitution again.
It is, however, intentionally undemocratic-an an understanding of the construction of the constitution (See Federalsi 10) lays out the essence of what a Republic means. Professor's quote is quaintly on point given the hostility elites have to anyone's opinions but their own
And using the electoral college to install the minority candidate in the White House strikes many as undemocratic. That pesky constitution again.
It is, however, intentionally undemocratic-an an understanding of the construction of the constitution (See Federalsi 10) lays out the essence of what a Republic means. Professor's quote is quaintly on point given the hostility elites have to anyone's opinions but their own.
Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President
No they weren’t chosen by the people. Not even in the cute way you think it is true.
"Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President."
Left Bank, being dumb on purpose.
According to my sources, the FBI has video of Chris Christie tap dancing to Feliz Navidad at a party in Moscow wearing nothing but some felt antlers and a lop-sided bow tie.
The damage is done. Continuation of division.
If you remove the Cali tally from 2016 Hillary didn't even win the popular vote. That's one state you're willing to grant the power to decide the entire US presidential election.
“I find it interesting that the narrative has shifted from "witch hunt", to what it seems like, "yeah, he is guilty, but he should be allowed to still run because it's good for the country and democracy"
In The Windmills of Your Mind, perhaps…
Take a good hard look at the comments from Readering, Left Bank, and Rich above- they display what the country is up against today- an obstinate lack of intellectual depth or honesty.
I ask all three, suspecting I will get no answer:
Who gets to decide whether or not Trump is ineligible to run for the Presidency? Remember, Obama didn't offer proof to anyone of his birth location until years after he won an election to the presidency. If you think a court can remove Trump from the ballot for a claim of insurrection, then surely you also believe a court could have removed Obama from the ballot in 2008, right? Going further, suppose a court decides to remove the Democratic candidate from the ballot next October for a claim of insurrection connected to the border invasion- can I take it as granted that you would support such a court decision as properly ordered, even if you disagree with the claim of insurrection in that case? Let's get you on the record just in case the Republicans decide to fight back by removing the Democrat candidate from the ballots.
One can prove age, residency, and place of birth as a matter of course. One cannot, ever, prove they did not lead an insurrection. It is a vague charge that anyone can make against a candidate and with a compliant court get the candidate removed from the ballot.
From my point of view, there is only one body in the entirety of the U.S. who actually has the powers and rights granted by the Constitution to adjudicate this claim that Trump is ineligible for the Presidency- that is the Congress that sits on January 6th 2025, and it really isn't even a close legal matter. If you think a court has this power, why do you not trust Congress with it?
YW. If you are going to bue insulting at least back yourself up by being more thoughtful yourself. The provision was added to the Constitution by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states knowing it would be interpreted ultimately by the USSC. It could have been drafted to be applicable only to the Civil War but was not. Is it subject to abuse? It was during WW1. Confident that it will not be upheld against officers who fail to stop everyone at the border, though. Maybe the USSC, the body that picked Bush 2, will interpret it as you do and kick it to Congress. But wouldn't Republicans rather have it decided one way or another before they nominate a candidate? Jan 6 2025 seems kinda late.
"If you remove the Cali tally from 2016 Hillary didn't even win the popular vote. That's one state you're willing to grant the power to decide the entire US presidential election."
Hahaha! And if you remove all the tallies from states that went for Trump, he wouldn't have won even the electoral vote.
"If you remove the Cali tally from 2016 Hillary didn't even win the popular vote. That's one state you're willing to grant the power to decide the entire US presidential election." You do seem to glean that Hillary did win the popular vote in 2016.
You seem fixed on this "Cali tally" thing for some unfathomable reason. I'm baffled by it ("That's one state you're willing...etc., etc."). What do you mean by that? Do you think the California tally shouldn't be counted toward the outcome of a presidential campaign? Any populous state can potentially swing the outcome to one or the other of the parties contending for the presidency. What do you suggest is appropriate: counting California's tally or excluding it?
"What is required is that if you want to be President you can't have tried to overthrow our government by having a violent mob attack the Congress to delay the counting of electoral votes and then allow enough time to utilize the false electors and create a constitutional crisis."
Rich's fever dreams gone wild.
Experts are like opinions and assholes. Everyone's got one, and most of them stink.
Readering said...
It could have been drafted to be applicable only to the Civil War but was not...
I don't think that is a supportable interpretation. Congress was given and used the power to lift the prohibition on holding office both for individual petitions (see Simon Buckner, a former Confederate officer who was allowed become Governor of Kentucky after the war as mentioned in a comment on another thread) as well as a blank grants of amnesty that occured in 1872 and finally in 1898.
There was no need to specify limits in the amendment text because Congress was given the power to determine to whom and how long the prohibition applied.
It seems plausible to me that all nine SCOTUS justices could agree to underline Brandenberg by explaining that you can’t establish incitement to commit imminent lawless conduct by aggregating numerous protected instances of speech over years (without showing that any member of the audience heard all of the speech); so the First Amendment bars prosecution for insurrection based on such speech.
From Matt Taibbi:
That’s how badly has the Colorado move played: Trump is being portrayed as a winner in media outlets that still think the Steele dossier is real. The news moreover plays to Trump’s strengths on the stump. Not so great when losing, he’s a world-class gloater. “We talk about democracy,” he quipped this week, “but the whole world is watching the persecution of a political opponent. That’s kicking [Biden’s] ass.”
RTWT.
Colorado Ruling Makes Trump a Frontrunner
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President.
Bill Clinton wasn't chosen by the people (twice) and he did get to be President. What's your point?
Extending my previous remarks, I don't mean to imply that Congress has removed the provision entirely. I do think you're going to have to provide some evidence that something akin to unpleasantness that occured between 1861 and 1865 happened again, or an actual conviction for insurrection as provided by law.
The other Jersey shore fat fuck white meat
I was going to say that I agree 100% with what Cookie says at 12:03, but I'm going to make it 99% because I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere.
But HELL, YEAH! They are not supposed to govern us; they are supposed to do what we the people want them to do (or not do, as seems more pertinent these days).
"The provision was added to the Constitution by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states knowing it would be interpreted ultimately by the USSC.
No, Readering- the provisions did not give any court the right of adjudication, and Congress did act in several specific instances both barring and unbarring people from holding office. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe- the restrictions can only be adjudicated by Congress on a case by case basis- by seating or not seating new members of Congress or by refusing confirmation of officers of the executive branch. No court should ever have that kind of power, especially a state court. So go fuck yourself sideways- how is that for being rude? I have no patience for idiots like yourself who seem to think there is literally nothing wrong with what the Colorado court did here.
I will try one last time- what would you do/think if the Republicans in several states remove the Democrat from the ballot and it is allowed by SCOTUS? You would be ok with that result and say, "Well, thems the rules," right? Try to give at least an honest answer for once.
Left Bank,
"Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were chosen by the people and didn’t get to be President."
Are you stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or all three? There isn't a single time, from Geo. Washington up to this very day, where the President of the United States has been elected on the basis of a nationwide popular vote. Never. Not once.
Post a Comment