By Mark A. Graber
In 2024, former President Donald Trump will face some of his greatest challenges: criminal court cases, primary opponents and constitutional challenges to his eligibility to hold the office of president again. The Colorado Supreme Court has pushed that latter piece to the forefront, ruling on Dec. 19, 2023, that Trump cannot appear on Colorado’s 2024 presidential ballot because of his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
The reason is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil War ended. Section 3 of that amendment wrote into the Constitution the principle President Abraham Lincoln set out just three months after the first shots were fired in the Civil War. On July 4, 1861, he spoke to Congress, declaring that “when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.”
The text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in full:
“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.”
To me as a scholar of constitutional law, each sentence and sentence fragment captures the commitment made by the nation in the wake of the Civil War to govern by constitutional politics. People seeking political and constitutional changes must play by the rules set out in the Constitution. In a democracy, people cannot substitute force, violence or intimidation for persuasion, coalition building and voting.
The power of the ballot
The first words of Section 3 describe various offices that people can only hold if they satisfy the constitutional rules for election or appointment. The Republicans who wrote the amendment repeatedly declared that Section 3 covered all offices established by the Constitution. That included the presidency, a point many participants in framing, ratifying and implementation debates over constitutional disqualification made explicitly, as documented in the records of debate in the 39th Congress, which wrote and passed the amendment.
Senators, representatives and presidential electors are spelled out because some doubt existed when the amendment was debated in 1866 as to whether they were officers of the United States, although they were frequently referred to as such in the course of congressional debates.
No one can hold any of the offices enumerated in Section 3 without the power of the ballot. They can only hold office if they are voted into it – or nominated and confirmed by people who have been voted into office. No office mentioned in the first clause of Section 3 may be achieved by force, violence or intimidation.
A required oath
The next words in Section 3 describe the oath “to support [the] Constitution” that Article 6 of the Constitution requires all office holders in the United States to take.
The people who wrote Section 3 insisted during congressional debates that anyone who took an oath of office, including the president, were subject to Section 3’s rules. The presidential oath’s wording is slightly different from that of other federal officers, but everyone in the federal government swears to uphold the Constitution before being allowed to take office.
These oaths bind officeholders to follow all the rules in the Constitution. The only legitimate government officers are those who hold their offices under the constitutional rules. Lawmakers must follow the Constitution’s rules for making laws. Officeholders can only recognize laws that were made by following the rules – and they must recognize all such laws as legitimate.
This provision of the amendment ensures that their oaths of office obligate officials to govern by voting rather than violence.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call
Defining disqualification
Section 3 then says people can be disqualified from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Legal authorities from the American Revolution to the post-Civil War Reconstruction understood an insurrection to have occurred when two or more people resisted a federal law by force or violence for a public, or civic, purpose.
Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Insurrection, Burr’s Rebellion, John Brown’s Raid and other events were insurrections, even when the goal was not overturning the government.
What these events had in common was that people were trying to prevent the enforcement of laws that were consequences of persuasion, coalition building and voting. Or they were trying to create new laws by force, violence and intimidation.
These words in the amendment declare that those who turn to bullets when ballots fail to provide their desired result cannot be trusted as democratic officials. When applied specifically to the events on Jan. 6, 2021, the amendment declares that those who turn to violence when voting goes against them cannot hold office in a democratic nation.
A chance at clemency
The last sentence of Section 3 announces that forgiveness is possible. It says “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” – the ineligibility of individuals or categories of people to hold office because of having participated in an insurrection or rebellion.
For instance, Congress might remove the restriction on office-holding based on evidence that the insurrectionist was genuinely contrite. It did so for repentant former Confederate General James Longstreet .
Or Congress might conclude in retrospect that violence was appropriate, such as against particularly unjust laws. Given their powerful anti-slavery commitments and abolitionist roots, I believe that Republicans in the House and Senate in the late 1850s would almost certainly have allowed people who violently resisted the fugitive slave laws to hold office again. This provision of the amendment says that bullets may substitute for ballots and violence for voting only in very unusual circumstances.
Buyenlarge/Getty Images
A clear conclusion
Taken as a whole, the structure of Section 3 leads to the conclusion that Donald Trump is one of those past or present government officials who by violating his oath of allegiance to the constitutional rules has forfeited his right to present and future office.
Trump’s supporters say the president is neither an “officer under the United States” nor an “officer of the United States” as specified in Section 3. Therefore, they say, he is exempt from its provisions.
But in fact, both common sense and history demonstrate that Trump was an officer, an officer of the United States and an officer under the United States for constitutional purposes. Most people, even lawyers and constitutional scholars like me, do not distinguish between those specific phrases in ordinary discourse. The people who framed and ratified Section 3 saw no distinction. Exhaustive research by Trump supporters has yet to produce a single assertion to the contrary that was made in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Yet scholars John Vlahoplus and Gerard Magliocca are daily producing newspaper and other reports asserting that presidents are covered by Section 3.
Significant numbers of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate agreed that Donald Trump violated his oath of office immediately before, during and immediately after the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Most Republican senators who voted against his conviction did so on the grounds that they did not have the power to convict a president who was no longer in office. Most of them did not dispute that Trump participated in an insurrection. A judge in Colorado also found that Trump “engaged in insurrection,” which was the basis for the state’s Supreme Court ruling barring him from the ballot.
Constitutional democracy is rule by law. Those who have demonstrated their rejection of rule by law may not apply, no matter their popularity. Jefferson Davis participated in an insurrection against the United States in 1861. He was not eligible to become president of the U.S. four years later, or to hold any other state or federal office ever again. If Davis was barred from office, then the conclusion must be that Trump is too – as a man who participated in an insurrection against the United States in 2021.
Mark A. Graber is University System of Maryland Regents Professor of Law at the University of Maryland.
Jackson says
All these Republicans currently running for 2nd place are just flapping their gums. They could not be happier about this development. They are all scared of Trump’s base so they are feigning outrage over this decision. The Constitution could not be any clearer on this subject. Trump should be disqualified. Now lets see if the Supreme Court maintains their strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to this. Actually there is no interpretation needed, just basic reading comprehension.
The 14th Amendment is entirely clear. It doesn’t state that a conviction is necessary. This requires only a finding of fact by the relevant court. Colorado’s SC (4 Republicans) did just that. Elections are handled by each state, always have been, and Colorado is simply following the clear, explicit instructions in our Constitution, as is their right and their mandate. Go pound sand, Republicans.
Bill C says
All these legal arguments are moot- they assume that judges are totally impartial. Reality is they are not, especially the Supreme Court. Why else would there be such political battles over who gets to sit on the bench? Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh all swore they would respect stare decisis, then could barely hold their water to reverse Dobbs. Forget about Thomas, he’s bought off by the right.
Ed says
The Colorado Supreme Court decision simply demonstrates why activist judges(left or right) do not deserve to be on the bench. Judges do not get to legislate. They try.
Trump has not been convicted of inciting a resurrection to overthrow the government. Regardless of what anyone’s opinion is, the legal system does not allow for anyone’s personal or groups’ opinion to convict unless it’s a jury of peers. You can not be convicted by popular opinion…at least not yet.
When did the liberals shred the idea that “innocent until proven guilty”? The decision was not unanimous- it was 4-3. They also stayed their decision until Jan 4, 2024 because it’s a political stunt, will not stand, and Colorado ballots are printed Jan 5th.
I’m surely not as smart as the scholars but common sense will prevail and quash this idiotic ruling.
Would anyone challenge that this would really be voter suppression or an attempt to steal an election?
I welcome a reply/correction from Ray W or even Pierre. Am I wrong on the premise, not on the Trump likability or his actions, just the law and election interference?
Ray W. says
Hello Ed,
I will stand by my often-filed comment about the law.
Before I left for law school, my father taught me that one of his law professors at Stetson University had told a class that the most important lesson they could ever learn in law school was that the law is what a judge says it is on the day that he or she says it, and don’t ever forget it.
To me, the major difference between our differing commenting styles is that I engage in the use of possibilities. You comment in certainties. Just look at your first sentence in your comment. Are these activist judges or are they following the law as it was presented to them by the parties to the case? It might feel good to call the Colorado Supreme Court as activist court, but the evidence appears to refute your assertion. However, you might be right. Time will tell.
Over my several years of commenting on FlaglerLive, readers can decide for themselves whether I commonly use terms like maybe, or perhaps, or phrases like it might be or I suspect. I ask questions, I pose ideas, but I seldom comment on the law as if it is an unchangeable certainty. I have seen way too many dissenting opinions turn into majority opinions to argue that the law is unchangeably certain.
For decades, Florida had a special circumstantial evidence rule for use in criminal cases. Not every state had or has such a rule. Starting about 15 years ago, I began reading dissenting voices from the Florida Supreme Court that questioned the legal necessity of the rule. One after another, a variety of different Justices issued their own dissenting opinions regarding the rule. Perhaps three years ago, a majority opinion (6-1) issued from the Court, finally doing away with Florida’s special circumstantial evidence rule. I knew what was coming. I e-mailed fellow public defenders, warning about the possibilities. And here we are. And it was one of my death penalty cases that was at issue when the law was changed.
I remain unconvinced that it rises to the level of a condition precedent that former President Trump must be convicted of the crime of insurrection to be subjected to the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment. After all, none of the Confederate officials who were barred from running for office after that war, pursuant to the terms of the Amendment, were convicted of the crime of insurrection prior to the imposition of the bar against service in the federal government. Indeed, as I understand history, both Lincoln and General Grant were of the belief that the north should not pursue criminal prosecution of every possible Confederate who had previously sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Yes, the Confederate president (Davis) was prosecuted and convicted, but very few others were subjected to criminal prosecution. In essence, we aren’t talking about the application of a criminal statute enacted by congress; we are talking about requirements contained in a Constitutional Amendment. But I could be wrong.
A corollary to the rule that my father taught me is the assertion that a lawyer gets to argue a position, but never gets to decide the outcome. I was an officer of the courts for over 30 years, but I always knew that my role was to present an argument. The judge’s role was to decide and apply the law. You, as a lay citizen, and not as an officer of the court, always have the right to form and voice an opinion, but you cannot argue that position to a court, unless the court permits you to represent yourself in a proceeding. I encourage your comments, with the proviso (hope?) that you adhere to a form of intellectual rigor that requires you to constantly challenge your own points.
I don’t find the Colorado opinion “idiotic”, but I accept that you do. Your opinion may lack any legal weight, but it is still an opinion. I accept that it might be best that the Colorado opinion is challenged on appeal. I have heard that there are other rulings out there that conflict with Colorado’s reasoning, but care must be taken to understand that the other states may not have had as complete a factual record as the basis for those opinions as does the Colorado opinion. There are numerous issues that may need to be resolved. Right now, the opinion is not final; it is stayed, but if the U.S.S.C. declines to accept jurisdiction, it will turn into a final ruling.
When I commented in a different posting to this article that “the law she is harsh”, I meant to convey the idea that the law does not concern itself with the concept of like or not like. If the law were based on what we like, then the law might change every day, because what we like might change every day, except for a good spaghetti dinner. In all my years, I have never had a “bad” spaghetti dinner.
Thank you for your effort. Keep learning. Keep absorbing. Keep trying. In all endeavors, follow reason to whatever end it takes you. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to one of his nephews, reason was the greatest gift from heaven received by the mind of mankind. Never contort reason to fit a preconceived outcome. One tip: Our founding fathers repeatedly wrote that they admired the virtuous partisan who placed his country before his party, but they detested the “pestilential” partisan member of faction and warned any who would listen that such partisans were the greatest danger to the future health of their experimental Constitution. Skepticism can be of great help, but it cans also be a curse. As always, I want gifted true conservative commenters to offer many and varied views on the multiple issues of the day.
As an aside, a report was issued this week that the U.S. energy industry broke another record last week: 13.3 million barrels of crude oil extracted, on average, each day. Since the EIA estimates that the U.S. consumed in 2023, on average, over 20 million barrels of distillates from crude oil and other related liquids, we are not energy independent, but we are approaching the status of being a positive net exporter of crude oil. Yes, according to the EIA, we are still about 2 million barrels per day from becoming a net crude oil exporter, but who knew that the current administration was not now engaging in a war against American energy producers, nor was it ever engaging in such a war? Yes, we should have focused on renewable energy sources decades ago, but wishful thinking won’t change what is happening now. Brazil and Canada have also greatly increased domestic production of crude oil. Enough increase in output by the three nations, apparently, to offset the cuts in production announced by OPEC and Russia. While Saudi Arabia has the capacity to pump roughly 12 million barrels per day, it is intentionally limiting its output to 9.1 million bpd. Russia, also capable of pumping much more, is limiting its output to roughly 9.5 million bpd. OPEC recently issued an invitation to join the group to Brazil. Who knows what Brazil will decide to do? If it joins OPEC, it will almost certainly reduce output in a group effort to keep international crude oil prices higher than where they are today. We, as consumers, will pay the price, as we always do when OPEC manipulates prices.
Sherry says
@ed. . . for those who say there was no accusation that trump participated in an insurrection. . . I suggest you read the details of the original lawsuit brought by “Republicans” to a several days long bench trial in Colorado in November. There actually was a law suit, and an “accusation”. There was a legal “trial” with testimony from sides. . . and, there was also a lengthy “judgement” that explained the conclusion that trump engaged in an insurrection.
You can begin your research here: https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/16/trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/
Ed says
Never mentioned not accused. He was not convicted by a jury trial. If I understand what you reference, there was no defense presented…not a criminal trial nor a conviction.
Sherry says
@ed. . . I don’t know where you get your incorrect information, but if you had taken the time to actually “read” the article I presented, it clearly states there were legal arguments (AKA defense) presented by the trump team of lawyers. Here is another article for your education beyond FOX: https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-updates-14th-amendment-trump-on-colorado-ballot/
Constitutional scholars (likely NOT on FOX) have reported that the constitution does NOT require a criminal trial to determine the “eligibility” of someone to be on the ballot/elected to office.
It’s quite possible that our current “conservative majority” federal Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision merely to satisfy trump and the GOP. However, if they do, many legal historians will tell the story of their political partiality. The current Federal Supreme Court has the lowest poll and trust numbers in their history. . . hovering around 40%. . . due to their political decision making and unethical behavior.
Spoon feeding over. . . if you want your comments to be taken seriously, please do some “serious” research and cite “credible facts” from “credible” sources. . . way beyond FOX.
Ray W. says
A very interesting, if not conclusive, take on the limitations of presidential or legislative powers, occurred in one of the most famous of the early opinions by the U.S.S.C., in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The opinion, for its day, is quite lengthy. The ruling of the Court is straightforward:
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
Elsewhere in the opinion, the Marbury Court held that the courts are to decide the meanings of the language set into the many clauses and amendments to our Constitution. The ruling also held that provisions of the Constitution are above all state and federal statutes. If there is a conflict between a Constitutional provision and the requirements of a statute, the statute gives way in all instances.
If the Constitution contains language that a person must be naturally born in order to serve as president, a court must decide the issue. This, of course, was the heart of Trump’s claim that President Obama had not been born in the United States. President Obama produced a valid birth certificate. Had Trump desired, he could have challenged the validity of the birth certificate in court. He did not do so. If the Constitution contains language that a person must be of a certain minimum age, then the courts are cast with the duty to ascertain the person’s age. If the person has not reached that limiting age, then the person cannot serve as president. If the Constitution contains language that proscribes future office holding by anyone who engages in an insurrection against the Constitution, after having taken an oath to uphold, protect and defend that Constitution, then the courts are tasked with the responsibility to rule on the issue. The houses of Congress after the Civil War could have inserted language into the body of the amendment that required a jury to make that determination; they did not.
A corollary to this argument is that part of the Marbury opinion finds a distinction between a discretionary act and a mandatory act, as it pertains to the presidency. If constitutionally defined power to act is discretionary, then the courts have no role in determining the legality of the act. If the act is cast as a mandatory act, then only the courts have the power to determine the legality of the act. Does anyone argue that a clear proscription against engaging in insurrection is a discretionary act under the language of the 14th Amendment? Thus far, the courts have found it a mandatory proscription.
I have repeatedly commented on the true meaning of “originalism” and the effort by one of our political parties to install judges who hold fast to the concept of “originalism.” The primary goal is not to overturn Roe or to undue “activist” judges who created many individual rights that are behind the idea of substantive due process, such as the exclusionary rule. The primary purpose is to undue Marbury v. Madison, i.e., to undue precedence under the law. Originalism predates Marbury. If a majority of the Supreme Court rules that Marbury offends the concept of originalism, then the executive and legislative branches will not be bound by precedent of prior Supreme Court decisions. All presidential acts would, suddenly, become discretionary. The law would lose its constancy and primacy. This is how the Nazis upheld the Nuremburg statutes in the late ’30’s that arbitrarily and capriciously stripped Jews of owning businesses and real and personal property. Simply pass a statute and the executive branch can impose its will, without oversight by the judiciary. This is what is happening in the Russian Federation today. Many foreign companies shut down businesses and factories after Russia invaded the Ukraine. Many of those companies have negotiated the sale of their assets for a particular price only to find that the Russian executive branch is setting its own prices for the companies. Obey and gain little. Disobey and lose all. Companies are being forced to accept pennies on the dollar, just as German Jews had to accept pennies on the dollar for everything they had worked so hard to protect.
I have been arguing this for at least 20 years. Marbury is the key. If it falls, authoritarian governments have zero restraints on the exercise of all political power. Roe, Miranda, etc., are a diversion, nothing more.
Deka says
All your definitions are wonderful but you have a huge flaw in your justification for keeping the former President, Trump off the ballot. There is NO legal charge of insurrection against Trump, ONLY media claims. If there are no formal charges in ANY court of law against Trump, your argument for keeping him off any ballot is flawed and you should be embarrassed for NOT bringing up this important FACT!!!
You are an example of how FAKE NEWS spreads.
Laurel says
Deka: No, your comment shows how the statement by Trump “fake news” spreads.
There is no Constitutional requirement of a jury finding someone guilty of an insurrection in order to keep that person off a ballet. It is not just “media claims.” We watched it with our own eyes in real time. We saw people break into the Capital. We saw them destroy the inside of the Capital. We heard them chant “Hang Mike Pence.” We saw the Congress men and women runs for shelter. We saw people attack the Capital Police. We heard them chanting “Naaaaaancy” as they searched for her.
We also heard Trump call the crowd to go to the Capital and state “It will be wild!” We know that he did nothing to stop it for three hours, when he could have stopped it immediately.
Now, that said, please explain to me “States Rights” that the Republicans are so fond of.
Ray W. says
“Lex dura est.” Latin for “the law, she is harsh.” Courtesy of Judge Zambrano in a death penalty sentencing order.
In his application of the phrase, Judge Zambrano was more than simply harsh. The argument was simple. For many years now, lack of sufficient age has been an absolute bar to the imposition of the death penalty. In other words, there is no amount of aggravating factors that can overcome the bar of youth; it is the highest possible mitigating circumstance. I argued that if being one day under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of a capital crime is an absolute bar to imposition of the death penalty, then being 19 years of age must carry significant weight as a mitigating circumstance, though I conceded that it can be overcome by substantial aggravating evidence, but it can never be considered to be of slight weight. Judge Zambrano held that being barely over the age of 18 carried slight weight in his balancing considerations; he then added the Latin phrase. Oy, vey!
DaleL says
I can find no error in Mark Graber’s assessment. In addition, the oath taken by the President is not just slightly different; it is more demanding than that taken by other officers. The Presidential oath is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” On January 6th, Mr. Trump had an obligation to defend the Capitol against his mob. Instead it was Vice President Pence who acted and called in the National Guard.
It is also not reasonable to claim that the office of President is not an office of the United States while “…the elector of President,..” is. (Electoral College).
Mr. Trump continues to give aid and comfort to enemies of the U.S. He has said that he would pardon the rioters who sought to stop the lawful transition. He has called for the prosecution of the Capitol police officers who protected the Capitol. On an almost daily basis, Mr. Trump attacks the institutions of the United States and the Constitution upon which it is based.
NBC News is reporting: “Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot”. The story reports that “some social media users posted justices’ email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses.”
The 14th Amendment is part of our Constitution. It must be followed to the letter. If we do not, then what other parts of the Constitution should be ignored because they are found to be inconvenient?
hippy says
Well I guys since the left is going back to strict interpretation of the constitution the 2nd amendment is all clear to them and guns are OK. Even ones that look “scary”. I am glad that is settled now.
DaleL says
Originalism is view is that the Constitution should be based on the intent of its authors at the time it was written. (Strict Interpretation) At the time that the Second Amendment was written, the “assault” weapon of the day was a smooth bore musket that could be fired at 3 shots per minute and to which a bayonet could be attached. There is also the preamble which states, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
One strict interpretation, which unfortunately has not prevailed, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is derived from their belonging to a well regulated Militia. The right to belong to the Militia and thus to keep and bear arms issue by the Militia cannot be infringed.
Gun ownership is not really a left or right view. History has shown that one of the first things any authoritarian does, is to confiscate civilian firearms.
Sherry says
@hippy. . . here are the actual words to the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A “strict interpretation” of the Constitution would prohibit anyone except those in a “Well Regulated Militia” from bearing arms. The local, state and federal governing bodies are our only constitutional “regulators”. The framers of our constitution put the words regarding ” a well regulated militia” for a reason. Many, many constitutional scholars believe strongly that the Supreme Court ignoring that language, and NOT using a “strict interpretation” of the constitution got it “WRONG”!
Ann Marie says
Let’s remove Biden from the ballot as well. Problem solved.
DaleL says
On what basis?
I would not object to a Constitutional amendment which sets a maximum age to be elected President. At this time the requirements are:
To be at least 35 years of age.
To be a natural born citizen. (A citizen by right of birth.)
To have been a resident of the U.S.A. for at least 14 years.
To have not broken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps no person upon attaining the age of 75 shall be qualified to be inaugurated to the office of President. (That would eliminate both Trump and Biden.)
Laurel says
DaleL: I agree with most of your comments, but here ageism strikes again. So, “Perhaps no person upon attaining the age of 75 shall be qualified to be inaugurated to the office of President.” What does that mean if that person becomes 75 while in office? What about the day after inauguration of the 74year, 364day old person? Clearly, by this standard, this same person would be ineligible to run for a second term. Is that Constitutional? While we’re at it, what about color? What about religion? What about nationality?
Ageism: The last acceptable bigotry (by liberals, no less).
The dude says
This ruling will not stand.
The bought and paid for SCOTUS will intervene and strike it down. As well they should.
The voters must decide on the soul of our country, not the judicial branch.
They must go to the polls and decide if we want more authoritarian hate, racism and fascism running our country and vote for the tiny handed, orange stained man who grovels at the feet of Putin, little Kim and Erdogan, et al… , or if they want the country to continue to be a democracy and a beacon of hope for all the world to aspire to.
So far, things don’t look especially good for democracy.
Laurel says
Just for argument’s sake, lets imagine the Supreme Court decides to reverse the Colorado State Supreme Court’s decision, and Trump wins the election, will he then, again, take the vow to uphold the Constitution that he has stated, on Truth Social, he wants to terminate (for obvious reasons)?
Without our Constitution, our country will decline rapidly.
Michael Cocchiola says
Logic means nothing to MAGA Republicans. Only power, and money… and cruelty.
Ed says
President Biden has said many times “America is Back”.
If we as a country had to return from a lost journey, why did the term used by President Trump “make America great again” become so toxic for the left? On the surface they are similar.
I inadvertently bought a solid red under armor hat because it was $8.00 cheaper than other colors and received negative comments from outspoken women (2) while playing pickleball at Holland park.
Let me share the two quotes-verbatim.
“I know who you voted for, it’s obvious.” “You should be embarrassed to be a maga”
Neither woman I knew, neither I spoke directly to and the only conversation I had on the sidelines waiting to play was to an officious woman that moved my paddle 3 times in the matter of 5 minutes.
So I retired my $26 red hat and have since played with these same two women in multiple games without incident or comments. They only know my name and the fact that I whip them every game!
My point is, we are all neighbors and of the Human race. The fact that a red hat is a dog whistle is absurd. And if the term maga was not coined by Trump, I’m guessing it would have been fine.
Ray W. says
Actually, the slogan used by the German National Socialist Party during the 1932 election that garnered the Nazis enough seats in the legislature to place Hitler in a prominent role in the government was: Make Germany Great Again!
William Shirer, an American journalist based in Europe prior to WWII wrote of this fact in the 1980’s in his The Nightmare Years.
When Shirer left Europe, fearing for his life after receiving reports from German acquaintances that the Nazis had decided to arrest him, he decided to pack his diary entries at the bottom of a travel steamer trunk. He then placed many years of Nazi approved news texts of his radio reports to America, with stamps of approval. Then he placed on top of the pile various maps of Europe given to him by German military censors as he traveled alongside the Wehrmacht in its race across western Europe in 1940. At the border, the Nazi customs agent began searching through the trunk. Seeing all the high-level Nazi stamps of approval caused the agent to stop his search. Only in that way was Shirer allowed to leave Nazi-controlled Europe with his priceless years of notes and impressions, written contemporaneously with the manifold chaotic events that accompanied the rise of the Nazi Party.
According to Shirer, for many years the text for his every radio address had to be submitted to German censors prior to the broadcast; if it failed their sensitive eyes, it didn’t reach its American audience.
When one presidential candidate says he is coming after journalists should he be elected, keep this in mind.
Ed says
Hello Ray,
I’m not as confident as you are of your inference that Hitler or the Natzi party coined the phrase, at least he did not use it as a mantra.
“Make Germany Great Again”
Multiple sources, debate and dispute your statement and at best they admit that his party praised him as making Germany great again on at least one occasion.
But, if your premise is correct according to one man’s writings it’s important for all of to know that one phrase was powerful enough to garner enough support to get Hitler seated.
Maybe, the ongoing tutoring you are providing to me is working. I’ve researched and am not willing to be quite as definitive about your claim. Maybe you are right.
But the point of my post for us neophytes ( like me)was the slogan on the surface, Make America Great Again, is innocuous. Maybe, there isn’t any connection to the Natzi party, I don’t know. I’m guessing Trump didn’t even come up with it and it was fed to him. Kind of like Biden with Bidenomics.
The left uses the term MAGA as if it’s the worst name you can call someone. They made it encompass everything negative in America.
Ray W. says
Finally! Thank you, Ed.
I have been hoping for this moment, though I concede that I have long hoped that JimboXYZ would be the one to have this breakthrough. You have always displayed the capacity, but for whatever reason you were loose with the facts behind your earlier comments. My hope has always been that whoever becomes a trustworthy voice of true conservatism on this site, as David Brooks is on the Times site, engages in the exercise of intellectual rigor and follows reason to whatever end it takes him or her. We all would be better off with a reasoned perspective that offers insight and wisdom.
I gave the source of my information, gleaned from something written some forty years ago by an American reporter who was in Europe from the 20’s and throughout the 30’s and into the early war years; it was his account of what he learned during his years in Berlin and elsewhere on the European continent both before and after most of Europe had fallen under the Nazi boot. Most Americans of my age know of Murrow’s radio addresses from London, which put CBS News on the American map. Shirer was hired by Murrow to be the American voice from the European continent. Shirer provided radio addresses from Vienna, Berlin, Rome and whatever other European capital that provided the unfolding news about the march of authoritarianism.
You expended the effort to cross-check the comment. You found evidence to support that it had indeed been made by the party, just as I characterized it. Shirer apparently was struck by the comment, or multiple comments, at the time he heard it to either write it as a diary entry at or around the time it was used or to remember it roughly 50 years after it had been made. You confirmed my confidence in Shirer’s writing of it.
Your next step is to concede that all it takes is for one person to hear or read about the very old slogan once for it to take root in a current candidate’s repertoire, regardless of the source. Perhaps that candidate read Shirer many years ago and was quite impressed by the slogan. Of course, the present candidate could have had it fed to him by an advisor who has an authoritarian bent and a penchant for that type of history and the candidate took it and ran with it. Or perhaps it is an innocuous coincidence that our authoritarian-minded former president, one who is not above dog whistling to white nationalists (Stand back and stand by and good people on both sides), made it his own slogan. Let’s ask the candidate and trust implicitly whatever he tells us.
MAGA very well might not be as innocuous as you hope to characterize it; it might be a virulent call to arms among those who understand the meanings hidden in the implicit message.
Gloves are off folks! says
Tit for Tat, Looks like Abbott and Desantis are looking into removing Biden from their ballot, This will get interesting. The white elephant in the white house is everyone knows Biden and Harris don’t have a snow ball’s chance in Hell of winning a normal election against Trump, he’s tanking in the polls in nearly all demographics and Trump will wipe the floor with him by a landslide unless they can pull some centuries old case law out of the basement closet and dust it off, something! anything! the desperation is real folks, Alex Soros, quick! cut more checks kid!! Heck I bet Trump could even still beat Biden from a penitentiary cell.