Reader Comments: Trump Right to Run -- The 14th Amendment - Readers Debate; A Just Peace in Ukraine - Readers Respond, Author Responds; Claudine Gay resignation letter; Minn Community & Labor Escalation; Emergency Summit for Gaza -Jan 12-13
C'mon. He tried to overthrow the very government he was in charge of...because he lost an election by more than 7million votes and lost by 4 1/2 percentage points! This is a rediculas point that you are trying to make. Treason is Treason!
When did any respectable leftist derive her/his political line based on an expectation of what the corrupt United States Supreme Court probably will eventually rule, especially when the issue the court will decide itself requires a political conclusion?
No court convicted Jefferson Davis of insurrection against the United States. Did he enjoy or should he have enjoyed the privilege of holding public office in the United States after 1865, absent a criminal conviction in a court of law?
I'm no fan of the U.S. Constitution, but for anyone who chooses to participate in presidential electoral politics, one must take for granted that every legitimate candidate must meet that document's minimum qualifications for that office to qualify for listing on a ballot: i.e., must have been born in the United States, must be at least 35 years of age, and must not have engaged in insurrection against the United States.
Is it an affront to democracy to deny someone below the age of 35 or someone born in a foreign land the right to run for president? Of course it is. But who ever thought the Constitution established a democracy? To play a game, you must obey its rules, or (as I hope we shall) change them.
Should any ordinary person who claims that a candidate fails to meet those qualifications be disparaged simply because her/his claim might be "doomed to fail." How often have we leftists been told that almost everything we fight for is doomed to fail? When has that persuaded us not to fight?
It's legitimate to debate whether people ought to spend time and resources challenging Donald Trump's qualification to stand for public office, but predictions of how the Supreme Court and aggrieved right-wingers might react to the challenge ought not determine the choice.
Ken Lawrence
Spring Mills, Pennsylvania
=====
Trump is a traitor and a Domestic Terrorist--and so is anyone who supports this Antichrist! And he lost the election, too! BY A WIDE MARGIN! The voters spoke, And Trump tried to overthrow Democracy! He's still trying! He still can't admit he LOST!
So much for letting the voters decide!!! Shut up, you Trump Nazi freaks!
Librarians in at least three states are asking the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to intervene after they were fired for refusing to ban books.
Given the extremist fanaticism and violent nature of the illegal settlers, I find it hard to imagine accomplishing even the limited step of restoring the West Bank to Palestinian sovereignty without a brutal civil war accompanied by acts of settler terrorism and genocide that would make Hamas look like amateurs.
14th Amendment. Passed by Congress after a bloody war ripped our country apart at a cost of over half a million lives. Because it was felt persons who decide to overthrow the will of the people violently should not be subsequently allowed to take public office.
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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."
Some are arguing that the orange shit hog should be allowed on the ballot, because either
1) They're afraid his followers will make the streets run with blood
2) They feel it is unfair because he has not been convicted of insurrection or rebellion yet, or even charged, and he didn't himself lead the assault on the capital in person. Bone spurs were acting up or something. Poor guy.
3) They feel it will increase his support, as he can claim democracy is being subverted by the deep state because they want to deny real Americans their choice.
In a word, poppycock. There is only one way you have a country where we stick to the electoral process.. No Brooks Brothers mobs at the counting stations. No MAGA Lardos kicking in the doors of Congress. No secretaries of state finding another 14,873 votes. No phony electors presenting credentials. A stop to all that.
The way you do that is you prosecute the people responsible for trying it to the fullest extent of the law, and come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The phoniest argument of all is the one that says "The 14th Amendment has never been invoked like this before, this is unprecedented!!" Yeah. Like a President who has lost an election whipping up a mob to storm Congress to prevent the certification of the election is something we've seen all the time?
Trump has been indicted for 91 felonies not because some secret cabal is out to get him. It is because the man has committed so many crimes that he won't live long enough to pay for all of them. Come on, this is the guy who has never, ever, kept a promise to anyone. Phoney cancer charity, for kids yet. Phoney college. Stiffing suppliers, workers, lawyers, police departments, wives, calling people the greatest when he hires them and calling them stupid and jerks when he fires them.
We didn't put Nixon, (yes, he was a crook) in slam. We should have. We SHOULD live in a nation where even the wealthy get properly handled, after the cops have chased after and caught them, and that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom.
To let him on the ballot is to accept this country's decline into fascism. Hey, there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't have a fascist! Well, in this case? There is.
Many media commentators have been relishing the irony that Trump might be undone by the very weapon he used unsuccessfully against President Obama, a presidential eligibility clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) in the United States Constitution.
They have lightheartedly implied that a parity exists between Clause 5 and the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
While the comparison between the Articles may be interesting it is also inapposite. Reading either text in the context of the other, that is, intertextually, renders the meanings of both as far away from their intended truths as anything the former president is wont to utter. Clause 5 merely establishes the requirements for a person to be eligible to become President, essentially that they are a natural born citizen, not under 35 years of age, and have been resident in the US for fourteen years.
By contrast, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment establishes a punitive measure against anyone who while in office violated their oath to support the Constitution. The punishment is that no such quisling shall hold office, unless a two-thirds majority vote of both Houses of Congress "removes the disability," that is, rehabilitates them.
Thus, when read side-by-side, these two Articles have nothing in common. First, eligibility and ability are not precisely synonymous and the subtle difference between them is important in this case. Section 3 says that a no person who has done what Trump did, that is, engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution, shall hold office. However, while Trump has lost his fitness to hold office, he nevertheless remains eligible for office and the people remain free to elect or choose him for office, because Section 3 also provides for his rehabilitation to hold office. Thus, so long as the provision for his possible rehabilitation, that is, removing the disability, remains in Section 3 of the Amendment, no matter how remote that possibility may be, it would be unconstitutional to remove Trump any presidential election ballot. He remains eligible and his supporters retain the right to elect or choose him, so long as the law holds out the possibility for his rehabilitation. Recently, in the light of Trump's lawyer's similar argument against the Maine decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot in that state, an eminent historian has denigrated this reasoning by labeling it a "word salad," but he is mistaken, and with all due respect to his knowledge, he simply must consider the text of the Section more closely.
Second, while the Eligibility Clause applies to a person seeking election to the presidency, Section 3 the 14th Amendment applies not only to persons who might seek to hold office in the future but also to those officers who might presently be holding office. This crucially important aspect of the Amendment has been completely overlooked by those scholar/commentators who are proponents of using the Amendment to prevent Trump from running for office. However, Section 3 clearly states, "No person shall...hold any office...." In fact, Trump was holding office at the time of the insurrection and rebellion, and soon afterwards some of the most eminent members of his own party characterized his actions as criminal. That being the case, the time to enforce the provisions stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment began on the evening of January 6, 2020, when Trump was holding office. From that night onwards, he was no longer able to hold office under the 14th Amendment, but no one at that time saw fit to argue the point. Even today the most respected scholars evade this point. For example, J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe, in their August 2023 essay for the Atlantic write, "the amendment's often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office...." No matter the other merits of their argument, they are simply incorrect about this point. The Amendment neither says not implies "future office," it says only "office," which must include not only future office but also present office.
The reason Trump was not immediately removed from office in January 2020 was that Congress had not and still has not resolved the single issue of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which delivers to Congress the power of enforcement through legislation of the provisions of the Amendment.
Several media commentators, many of whom are in the legal profession, have also been asserting that when it comes to the 14th Amendment and its relevance to the current candidacy of former president Trump, the question is whether, as President, Trump violated Section 3 by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, citing the events of January 6, 2020, as evidence that he did. On the other hand, they have also suggested that special counsel Jack Smith's four-count indictment against Trump appears not to include the charge of insurrection. Likewise, many of Trump's defenders say that not only has he not been indicted for or convicted of insurrection but also the president is not an "officer" of the United States. However, most of these individuals have failed to note that the 14th Amendment clearly specifies that the insurrection or rebellion shall be against the Constitution, and not necessarily the Capitol or any other physical arm of the government. Consequently, all four counts in the Smith indictment constitute instances of insurrection against the Constitution, which is precisely the crime referred to in the 14th Amendment
However, even though Section 3 of the Amendment asserts that a person shall not hold any office under the United States if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection of rebellion against it, or gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, the issue at hand is not whether Trump should be disqualified as an insurrectionist. Rather, and for two reasons, the question is whether the States have the Constitutional power to enforce the provisions of the Amendment. First, Section 3 also asserts that Congress can revoke the disability to hold office by a two-thirds majority vote in each House; and, second, Section 5 of the Amendment asserts that only Congress through legislation has the power to enforce its provisions. The States do not have the power of enforcement, which means that it is unconstitutional for any State to take any enforcement actions relative to the 14th Amendment, such as preventing Trump from appearing on the ballot or running for office.
In other words, and again despite what many media commentators have implied, the 14th Amendment does not assert that to run for office a person must be able to hold office. Therefore, even if Trump did violate the provisions of Section 3, barring him from appearing on a ballot and, thereby, barring the People from reelecting or not reelecting him to office is unconstitutional.
In addition, Section 3 also asserts that Trump may again hold office if two-thirds of each House of Congress votes to allow him to do so, despite his previous acts of insurrection or rebellion. That is, the Amendment clearly states that although Trump would not initially be able to hold office again, he might ultimately be able to hold office again if a successful vote by Congress enables him to do so. However, Congress cannot assert its power of the vote on the case if some other authority has barred Trump from running for office. In other words, by removing Trump from the ballot, supposedly under the provisions of Section 3 and, thereby, hobbling Trump's chances of being reelected, the States of Colorado and Maine are subverting the privilege Section 3 grants to Congress to vote on whether to allow Trump to hold office again. Congress would only have a reason to take that vote if Trump were reelected to office, and that cannot happen in states which have stricken his name from the ballot.
Consequently, the whole issue of Trump's candidacy vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment is presently irrelevant and will remain so unless and until Trump is reelected in November 2024. Congress would then probably want to vote on whether to rehabilitate Trump so he can hold office sometime after the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2025 but before they count the Electoral College votes on January 6, 2025.
Of course, the present Congress could vote on removing Trump's disability to hold office any time before the election. However, bringing that vote to the floor of both Houses is not likely to happen anytime soon because if it did, Trump would never get the required two-thirds vote to remove the disability. Theoretically that could change after the next election. Hence, a major issue for 2024 could be which party controls each of the Houses because both Houses must vote to remove the disability. Assuming the Houses vote along party lines, it is very unlikely that they will remove the disability if the majority parties remain different for each House. In which case, the 20th Amendment would likely come into play.
The 20th Amendment deals with situations in which "the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." The presence of the 20th Amendment further reinforces that idea that Trump remains eligible to be on the ballot even when he cannot hold office. In a sense, one could say that the 20th Amendment holds Trumps place while he waits to be requalified, i.e., rehabilitated.
It seems obvious that not being able to hold office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is prima facie the same as having failed to qualify to hold office, as described in the 20th Amendment, and perhaps the difference in wording is merely rhetorical. However, the point is that Congress can vote as often or as many times as they want to remove the disability, which would then qualify President-elect Trump to again hold office. The voting could go on for weeks, turning into a mammoth series of negotiations and compromises, before Trump could finally be rehabilitated and returned to office.
On the other hand, if the voting to remove the disability is ultimately unsuccessful, then under the 20th Amendment President-elect Trump would remain unable to hold office, leaving the vice-president elect to act as president and in that capacity nominate an acting vice-president for Congressional approval. Since the Constitution does not provide a guide for how to elect a qualified president in those circumstances, the acting president and vice president would likely hold power for one full term.
Presently, it appears that the actions of some states are likely to draw the Supreme court into the controversy over Trump's candidacy and the 14th Amendment. However, the Court can and probably will sidestep the question of whether Trump violated his oath to support the Constitution by participating in insurrection or rebellion against it, because the only issue the Court needs to determine is whether, given Section 5 of the Amendment, the States have the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment and in that capacity remove Trump's name from the ballot.
Finally, even after Congress enacts legislation under Section 5 to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court still will not need to decide the issue of whether Trump's actions violated his oath of office and, therefore, prevent him from holding office again, because Trump can merely challenge the enforcement legislation by appealing any unfavorable actions taken against him all the way to the Supreme Court. Each court would then stay the legislation, thereby stifling the actions of both the 14th and the 20th Amendments and allow Trump to take office. Given this wearying carrousel of lunacy is the most likely endgame of trying to defeat Trump Constitutionally in advance of election day, it would be best to let our free and fair presidential election process play out normally while doing everything possible to ensure that sanity prevails.
This article is delusional. Even if most Ukrainians support in the abstract a no-concessions stance toward giving up land already conquered by the Russians, in reality the Ukrainian government is having an increasingly difficult time finding military-age males who are willing to do the fighting and dying that would be required to make that pipedream have a chance of coming true. Instead, let's encourage all parties to advance to the negotiating table and end this bloody stalemate. The balance of forces on the ground is not going to get better for the Ukrainians. It's time they (and their American benefactors) make some hard choices about how this war should end.
John Tarleton
=====
This is so weak it defies description. We have genocide going on in Gaza right now. This article mentions it only in the last sentence. Would the US abstain? We know the answer.
Jeff Jones
=====
How could you possibly print such a US propaganda serving article. It's complete garbage. And particularly in this late stage. The complete condemnation of our participation must happen. These games if permitted is doomed to repeat itself, and it has over and over. Your participation is clear. And your participation will obscure the good articles you print, and to continue support for our hegemony will eventually make you useless. Independent needs to be reliable.
John Mudd
=====
Lawrence S. Wittner's piece, from Dec. 14, 2023, Replacing a Disastrous War With a Just Peace in Ukraine, is well-intended, but almost seems to suggest Russia's entitlement to a peace deal, and second, suggests that Russia could possibly view a UN-authored peace deal as just. Where Putin's ego is involved, there can be no settlement, nor justice served that does not fork over the coveted oil, gas, and coal reserves of Eastern Ukraine--along with all related ports and trade routes for shipping them. Consideration of peace will only come about once Russian defense resources are drained, and their fictitious economy is finally exposed to Putin loyalists, locally and abroad.
Recent increased Russian aerial attacks on Ukraine are far from a display of strength or success; rather, they should be viewed as part of Putin's re-election strategy. Since the invasion began, over a thousand international companies have pulled out of the Russian economy--industries necessary for supplying the war machine, but also vital to the chief sector feeding Russian GDP. Its oil production and output has, as a result, plummeted to about half, thereby negating any gains by having started the war in the first place. But Putin doesn't dare to publish these figures, as is internationally expected.
Putting faith in UN peace treaties is admirable, as we all fervently wish that they could have weight, but most Russian presidents' track records for abiding peacefully by them, and then later resisting genocidal urges to realize self-serving goals, leave much to be desired. Further, the UN itself, as Wittner points out, needs to stick to its own rules if it is to arrive at peaceful outcomes before victimized countries are shattered. Allowing the bully to participate in votes on such decisions is clearly self-serving on the part of Security Council nations who fail to object. Yet, because of this lapse in integrity, an entire people further endures brutal attacks and infrastructural devastation.
How is "a just peace" to come about if peace can only come to Ukraine after Russia is soundly chased out of its territories? Ukraine owes no concessions to Russia whatsoever. Russia, however, owes much to Ukraine for restoration, for lives lost or ruined, and for tens of thousands of children kidnapped. Russia must ultimately concede that it can no longer afford to invest in stealing through genocide. Of course, once UN restorations are ordered, the Russian economy will then also have to be restructured to compensate Ukraine--and to effectively pacify struggling Russians. Though wounds will run deep in Ukraine, peace will come, and prosperity with it. Russia will be resuscitated, without crediting the West. Hopefully, substantive corrections to the Russian economy can help steer its leaders to peacefully develop its own resources and encourage international investors to return.
Please, ask your UN representatives for settlements that have real teeth.
Natalia Kuzmyn,
Vancouver Island
=====
The author responds:
If we are going to end the "might makes right" approach to international relations that has destroyed so many lives and disgraced humanity for so many centuries, then it is necessary to agree upon and abide by rules for international behavior. The UN Charter, developed and agreed to by the nations of the world, represents a major attempt to develop such rules. Surely it's time to implement them, whether in the case of Russia's military invasion of Ukraine or in the case of the bloody Israel/Palestine conflict. Unfortunately, the use of the veto in the UN Security Council is preventing this implementation.
If there is a better way to end war and imperialism than empowering the United Nations to take action, please proceed with it. Otherwise, it's time to abandon overheated partisanship and turn to the hard task of seeing to it, through UN action, that nations live up to their professed principles and international agreements.
Claudine Gay, the first black president of Harvard, resigned from her position on Tuesday. (Photo: ABC)
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
It is with a heavy heart but a deep love for Harvard that I write to share that I will be stepping down as president. This is not a decision I came to easily. Indeed, it has been difficult beyond words because I have looked forward to working with so many of you to advance the commitment to academic excellence that has propelled this great university across centuries. But, after consultation with members of the Corporation, it has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the institution rather than any individual.
It is a singular honor to be a member of this university, which has been my home and my inspiration for most of my professional career. My deep sense of connection to Harvard and its people has made it all the more painful to witness the tensions and divisions that have riven our community in recent months, weakening the bonds of trust and reciprocity that should be our sources of strength and support in times of crisis. Amidst all of this, it has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor — two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am — and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.
I believe in the people of Harvard because I see in you the possibility and the promise of a better future. These last weeks have helped make clear the work we need to do to build that future — to combat bias and hate in all its forms, to create a learning environment in which we respect each other’s dignity and treat one another with compassion, and to affirm our enduring commitment to open inquiry and free expression in the pursuit of truth. I believe we have within us all that we need to heal from this period of tension and division and to emerge stronger. I had hoped with all my heart to lead us on that journey, in partnership with all of you. As I now return to the faculty, and to the scholarship and teaching that are the lifeblood of what we do, I pledge to continue working alongside you to build the community we all deserve.
When I became president, I considered myself particularly blessed by the opportunity to serve people from around the world who saw in my presidency a vision of Harvard that affirmed their sense of belonging — their sense that Harvard welcomes people of talent and promise, from every background imaginable, to learn from and grow with one another. To all of you, please know that those doors remain open, and Harvard will be stronger and better because they do.
As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity — and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for — and to our capacity to serve the world.
Minnesota labor unions and their community partners are gearing up for an unprecedented compression of potential strikes and community actions with a deadline of the first week of March 2024. Representing tens of thousands of workers with contracts expiring and other deadlines at that time, the groups are working together to align their demands and narratives to win at the bargaining table and push politicians at city hall and the state capitol.
MN has inspired workers and communities across the country by building powerful union and community alignments that can win big at the bargaining table, in the community, and in the legislature. Our speakers will give us an insider's look at what it took to build this alignment over the last few decades, and what’s possible in this spring’s escalation.
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
930 East 50th Street Chicago, IL 60615
Along with Rev. Jackson, the summit will feature such esteemed speakers as Dr. James Zogby, Peter Beinart, Congressman Jonathan Jackson, Rabbi Brant Rosen, Rev. Fahed Abu Akel, former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, Illinois State Representative Abdelnasser Rashid, Rev. Frederick Haynes, author Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, Dr. Cornel West, and IfNotNow national spokesperson Eva Borgwardt.
Hear from Rabbi Arthur Waskow and Rabbi Phyllis Berman on why they are joining Rev. Jackson, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Arab American Institute, Churches for Middle East Peace, Faith for Black Lives, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, IfNotNow, the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, the Muslim Civic Coalition, Progressive Democrats for America, Red Letter Christians, Tsuru for Solidarity, Sojourners, and the U.S. Palestinian Council in Chicago.
Along with a death toll of over 20,000, this war has also had a deeply troubling polarizing impact at home. Hate crimes and discrimination against American Jews and Arab Americans has risen horrifically. We will not be divided. Join us in Chicago and online to come together to say, “ENOUGH.” Enough to the relentless destruction in Gaza. Enough to the decades of U.S. unconditional aid in the form of instruments of death. Enough to the occupation. Enough to war. Enough to violence. Enough to hate. It’s time for peace.
Building on the legacy of Dr. King and Rev. Jackson
What Palestinians are enduring
The mass mobilizations occurring in our cities & on our campuses -- The mass/diverse mobilizations occurring in our cities & on our campuses: a new generation speaks
January 14, 2024 4:00 pm
Cost: $10 Suggested Donation
Location: 20 Puffin Way Teaneck, NJ 07666 Tickets and Reservations
Enjoy the art and poetry of Jan Barry and many other military veterans as they process their nightmares of war through creativity.
The Puffin Cultural Forum celebrates the publication of Waging Art: Tackling Grief and Trauma with Creative Arts, a collection of essays and art by author, activist, and veteran Jan Barry. Waging Art conveys extraordinary stories and life lessons from writing and art programs for military veterans and family members wrestling with the nightmares of war.
Poetry performances by Jan Barry, Jennifer Pacanowski, James Yee, Walt Nygard, and Tara Krause will be featured.
The event also serves as an exhibition opening for the accompanying art show of the same name. The show will feature artwork by military veterans affiliated with Frontline Arts and the Secaucus Vet Center Art Group. Invited artists include Jim Fallon, Tara Krause, David Keefe, Walt Nygard, Ron Erickson, Barry Jensen, Walter Mack, Mark Oldland, Nate Lewis, Eli Wright, and James Yee. The exhibition will be on view from January 13th to February 29th.
PLEASE NOTE: N95 or equivalent masks are required. A limited quantity will be available at the door for those without one.
Suggested Donation: $10 (can be paid in cash or check at the door)
“Waging Art… is a heartrending portrait of America today, and the harm too many ‘perpetual’ wars have inflicted upon the hearts and souls of our veterans… Having waged war, these veterans are now creating art with the same intensity and fervor, and it is a patriotic and very humanistic fervor…” —John Ketwig, author of Vietnam Reconsidered: The War, the Times, and Why They Matter.
Jan Barry, a Teaneck resident and retired reporter for the Bergen Record, is the New Jersey coordinator for the Warrior Writers project. A US Army veteran of the Vietnam War, he recently served a term as the Veterans For Peace Poet Laureate. An author of more than a dozen books of poetry and prose, his recent works include Earth Songs II: Poems of Love, Loss, and Life, and Sound Off: Warrior Writers NJ (co-editor). He creates art with Frontline Arts (formerly Combat Paper NJ) and the Secaucus Vet Center Art Group. He has performed spoken word poetry at many locales, most recently at the Newark Public Library and Pan Asian Repertory Theatre off-Broadway in New York, in collaboration with Iraq War veteran Jennifer Pacanowski.
