There’s an old adage that “politics is a dirty game”.
It is no more evident than in the ramblings, juxtapositions, contradictions, and quite frankly, outright lies from various politicians on both sides of the isle…daily. And that is just what we know about in the “news”.
One of the hot topics of discussion, and leverage in this dirty game, directly related to the upcoming election is the 14th Amendment and the legality of various tactics being employed in several states in an attempt to deny a past President a place on their primary ballots.
The conundrum of the challenges in various states is typically convoluted and confusing because it is based on the language in an Amendment adopted on July 9, 1869.
More specifically, the wording in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President… who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…”
Consequently, this brings us back to the politics of defining what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, as an “insurrection”. The use of insurrection in 1869 reflected a protracted war and the lingering tensions that precipitated that war. Therefore, equating what happened on a single day in 2021 to what had transpired between 1860-1865, is absurd.
It is equally absurd to suggest that said past President Trump participated in or encouraged an insurrection. As new video evidence proves, before his speech was done several blocks away, a large crowd of dissidents had already gathered and started to breach the capitol in direct opposition to his later exhortations to the contrary… “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Which brings us to today. Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” But, to muddy the waters even more, Judge Wallace also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump. Could you be any more confusing Judge Wallace?
Nevertheless, one judge in Colorado makes such a ruling, and several other states jump on the band wagon and cherry pick her statements to make advance disqualification cases in their states.
Language, and definitions of language, are now used as a weapon to justify, fortify and impose opinions of politicians. That is politics in its ugliest form.
Fortunately, there is sanity at the Supreme Court level. On March 4, 2024 SCOTUS rendered an opinion unanimously that such chicanery will not be tolerated. “For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
This debacle is also a perfect example of why Congress is incapable of writing Amendments that are not flawed and corrupted by politics. A convention of all 50 states, with suggestions carefully crafted by numerous legal experts in each state to be constitutionally sound, then debated and voted on by commissioners from all states, would ensure flawed language is not present, such as with the 14th Amendment.
If you would like to explore how an Article V convention of states is the only viable solution to the conflicts of today, go to conventionofstates.com to sign the petition, volunteer in your state and get more information.
