Hi, all, and happy Monday! I’m back in Los Angeles and happily ensconced in my office. Finally! I love going on vacation, but I must confess that as a political author and content creator I found trying to “relax” at this precise moment in history difficult, if not impossible. I did, occasionally, achieve a measure of repose over the last three weeks, but it never felt complete, nor entirely guilt-free. And that’s fine. It was still a wonderful trip, and I’m grateful for every moment of it.
You and I know Trump is guilty of insurrection and should have been convicted by the Senate on his second impeachment charges, But he was not, and even the 4th amendment, Section 3, (not article 3) provides that 2/3rds vote in each house can remove the disability. Our BEST recourse if a resounding landslide win in 2024. (Trump did not expect to win in 2016; it was all another TV show for him. Then he found he could make money with all that free publicity, even bad publicity. And we let him by pir history of sloppy governance and the sell out by media avoiding the responsibility that goes with Constitutional protection.) See "The Price Of Eggs Is Down" amazon kindle or paperback.
I urge a bit of caution regarding the excitement around the 14th Amendment. I had an exchange with Robert Hubbell earlier in today's Today's Edition Newsletter, where he agreed with my assessment that in order for the 14th Amendment to apply, there needs to be a finding of guilt in a court of law that TFG led, participated in, or gave aid and comfort. While we all know that he did all of the above, he hasn't been found guilty, and as Robert pointed out, the impeachment was thwarted by the Senate's acquittal. Robert said he may have more to say about it in tonight's newsletter.
But that seems to be exactly the opposite of what they’re saying in the article. There is absolutely no guilty plea required. The decision is made entirely by secretaries of state. I really encourage you to read the article. I think that information is simply incorrect, but I suppose I could be wrong.
I realize what they are saying, but I just urge caution. The article says that some folks don't agree with them, and their mention of state AGs sounds threatening rather than empowering. IF TFG is found in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to have engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort, I agree that the 14th automatically disqualifies him.
But TFG has been accused, not convicted. It seems to me that to take action based on accusations (however obvious) is anathema to our system of justice.
Thanks. I'm certainly no expert on the law, but Robert sure is! While there are still some shades of gray between the two sides, pursuing it may come at the expense of something more important and more certain.
It might actually be good for the Democrats if TFG continues to cause chaos within the Republican party, which he certainly will. He'll seek to win at all costs (especially if they're borne by others), while we seek to win by playing by the rules. We just need to keep the chaos from distracting us from our goal: creating a massive BLUE WAVE to wash away the toxic RED TIDE.
Thanks so much! I’ve been telling this to everyone who will listen. No matter how many petitions get signed, no matter the overwhelming evidence there has to be a legal conviction!
In respect of Article 14.3 of the Constitution, no one is precluded from running for office based on their participation in an insurrection or any of the other acts mentioned, they are precluded from serving in any office of government. It's a small difference and a rational party wouldn't nominate anyone who couldn't serve if they won the election but we're not really dealing with rational people in the GOP at this point. As much as we'd all like a magic "Get out of Trump Free" card, we'll have to ensure that the Democratic candidate in every race gets more votes than their disqualified opponent. Otherwise, we're looking at the possibility of Chief Justice Roberts having to refuse to administer the oath of office to an unqualified election winner. We'd also be confronted with the current Speaker of the House being unable to serve if he's re-elected and there being no one to refuse to swear in any Republican Congresspeople who assisted in the failed insurrection or any of the subsequent activities.
On a much more nitpicky point, it's unfortunate that the animal in the graphic appears to be a donkey because it suggests that the Democratic Party is largely responsible for the grifters on the Supreme Court.
I read the article by the two Federalists. The problem is proving Trump’s insurrection/ rebellion. Yes, we have the evidence, but unless there is some sort of conviction there’s no legal means of enforcement!
Got it. I read RH's post from last night and understand the issue better now. I think there are good arguments on both sides but for now I will stick with my previous approach, which is to focus on beating him at the ballot box next year.
Hello Jessica. I recently participated in a Zoom meeting featuring Laura Brill, a former law clerk of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and founder of The Civic Center, theciviccenter.org , an LA organization whose goal is to increase voter registration of high school students throughout the country. Based on her analysis of my state, Arizona, registration statistics, and her recommendations on how to register students in high schools, we have launched a state wide student registration project and hope to register 40,000 or more Arizona young people before Nov 2024. Brill's statistics indicate that 77 percent of young voters vote liberally. I urge you can contact Laura and if appropriate for Chop Wood, Carry Water, will spread the word
Hi CJ. I know of Brill and her organization and have recommended them many many times in this newsletter. Thank you for volunteering with them. They are an amazing group during incredible work.
I think we need to work towards all of it. It’s sort of like what they say about the solution to gun violence: There’s no one policy that will stop all of it but if you layer enough policies on top of each other, it’s kind of like many layers of Swiss cheese. Much more gets covered the more layers you have. And I think investigations by Senate Committees are also critical.
In order to expand the US Supreme Court or get a code of ethics, term limits, etc., passed into law, we need a solid majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and our President in the White House. That is a pretty hefty lift.
Something that might be far easier to do is to get a liberal majority on every State Supreme Court, because most of the laws they pass cannot be overturned by the the US Supreme Court. 28 States have Supreme Courts where vacancies are filled by appointment by the Governor. If we don't like who they nominate, we can go protest in their office, write letters, make calls, etc. until they change their mind. This was recently done in NY State to get a far better justice on their court.
For the remaining 22 states, the Justices are elected by the voters, as was recently done in Wisconsin with Janet Protasciewitz. These elections are state-wide, so gerrymandered districts have no effect on the outcomes of these elections. And apparently there are 75 justice seats up for election in 2024 with the possibility of flipping the majorities on 8 of those 22 courts. To me these elections seem far easier to succeed at than correcting anything we can do about the US Supreme Court in the short term.
To learn more about this situation read this article (which I may have originally read about in Jessica's column)
I just tried it and didn’t have a problem opening the article. Could you try using the link while in your personal email and then copying that into what you are writing for Wednesday? Don’t t know if it will work, but sometimes when I do weird stuff like that it works for me. Otherwise, I don’t know what to do. Sorry. And thanks fir trying.
Yes, please. And if you know of any groups on the ground who are focused on these elections please let us know. Our local Indivisable chapter wants to focus on these elections. 😊
Expanding the court won’t help. We could get more unethical judges! The same with term limits. Better to expend our time and energy on an enforceable ethics code!
You and I know Trump is guilty of insurrection and should have been convicted by the Senate on his second impeachment charges, But he was not, and even the 4th amendment, Section 3, (not article 3) provides that 2/3rds vote in each house can remove the disability. Our BEST recourse if a resounding landslide win in 2024. (Trump did not expect to win in 2016; it was all another TV show for him. Then he found he could make money with all that free publicity, even bad publicity. And we let him by pir history of sloppy governance and the sell out by media avoiding the responsibility that goes with Constitutional protection.) See "The Price Of Eggs Is Down" amazon kindle or paperback.
Hi Jess,
I urge a bit of caution regarding the excitement around the 14th Amendment. I had an exchange with Robert Hubbell earlier in today's Today's Edition Newsletter, where he agreed with my assessment that in order for the 14th Amendment to apply, there needs to be a finding of guilt in a court of law that TFG led, participated in, or gave aid and comfort. While we all know that he did all of the above, he hasn't been found guilty, and as Robert pointed out, the impeachment was thwarted by the Senate's acquittal. Robert said he may have more to say about it in tonight's newsletter.
But that seems to be exactly the opposite of what they’re saying in the article. There is absolutely no guilty plea required. The decision is made entirely by secretaries of state. I really encourage you to read the article. I think that information is simply incorrect, but I suppose I could be wrong.
I realize what they are saying, but I just urge caution. The article says that some folks don't agree with them, and their mention of state AGs sounds threatening rather than empowering. IF TFG is found in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to have engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort, I agree that the 14th automatically disqualifies him.
But TFG has been accused, not convicted. It seems to me that to take action based on accusations (however obvious) is anathema to our system of justice.
OK I've read Robert's post from last night and I'll return to my previous position of not pursuing this avenue for now. Thank you!
Thanks. I'm certainly no expert on the law, but Robert sure is! While there are still some shades of gray between the two sides, pursuing it may come at the expense of something more important and more certain.
It might actually be good for the Democrats if TFG continues to cause chaos within the Republican party, which he certainly will. He'll seek to win at all costs (especially if they're borne by others), while we seek to win by playing by the rules. We just need to keep the chaos from distracting us from our goal: creating a massive BLUE WAVE to wash away the toxic RED TIDE.
Thanks so much! I’ve been telling this to everyone who will listen. No matter how many petitions get signed, no matter the overwhelming evidence there has to be a legal conviction!
In respect of Article 14.3 of the Constitution, no one is precluded from running for office based on their participation in an insurrection or any of the other acts mentioned, they are precluded from serving in any office of government. It's a small difference and a rational party wouldn't nominate anyone who couldn't serve if they won the election but we're not really dealing with rational people in the GOP at this point. As much as we'd all like a magic "Get out of Trump Free" card, we'll have to ensure that the Democratic candidate in every race gets more votes than their disqualified opponent. Otherwise, we're looking at the possibility of Chief Justice Roberts having to refuse to administer the oath of office to an unqualified election winner. We'd also be confronted with the current Speaker of the House being unable to serve if he's re-elected and there being no one to refuse to swear in any Republican Congresspeople who assisted in the failed insurrection or any of the subsequent activities.
On a much more nitpicky point, it's unfortunate that the animal in the graphic appears to be a donkey because it suggests that the Democratic Party is largely responsible for the grifters on the Supreme Court.
Ha. Didn't even notice the donkey thing. And yes, see my above comments. My one-day foray into advocating for the 14th amendment is likely over.
I grant that the donkey does look a bit like the failed insurrectionist.
Thanks for prompt about Clarence Thomas. Sent email to Rep and Sen.
Thank you for doing that!
Off topic, but here is article in The Guardian about judge ruling in favor of activists in US climate trial!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/14/montana-climate-trial-young-activists-judge-order
Yes! I saw it the minute the news broke. Very heartening. This will be the top item in "Extra! Extra!" on Sunday!
I read the article by the two Federalists. The problem is proving Trump’s insurrection/ rebellion. Yes, we have the evidence, but unless there is some sort of conviction there’s no legal means of enforcement!
See above, that is not my understanding at all. My understanding is it is a decision made by secretaries of state.
Unfortunately there is no procedure for the implementation of the 14th Amendment Section 3, except that Congress can be involved in some way.
Got it. I read RH's post from last night and understand the issue better now. I think there are good arguments on both sides but for now I will stick with my previous approach, which is to focus on beating him at the ballot box next year.
my typo, 14th amendment, not 4th!!
Hello Jessica. I recently participated in a Zoom meeting featuring Laura Brill, a former law clerk of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and founder of The Civic Center, theciviccenter.org , an LA organization whose goal is to increase voter registration of high school students throughout the country. Based on her analysis of my state, Arizona, registration statistics, and her recommendations on how to register students in high schools, we have launched a state wide student registration project and hope to register 40,000 or more Arizona young people before Nov 2024. Brill's statistics indicate that 77 percent of young voters vote liberally. I urge you can contact Laura and if appropriate for Chop Wood, Carry Water, will spread the word
Hi CJ. I know of Brill and her organization and have recommended them many many times in this newsletter. Thank you for volunteering with them. They are an amazing group during incredible work.
I like it!
I agree that I am not sure about expansion. But ETHICS with enforcement sounds good
I think we need to work towards all of it. It’s sort of like what they say about the solution to gun violence: There’s no one policy that will stop all of it but if you layer enough policies on top of each other, it’s kind of like many layers of Swiss cheese. Much more gets covered the more layers you have. And I think investigations by Senate Committees are also critical.
Over on Letters From an American some years ago we started "We, the People, All of Us This Time!"
Love that.
In order to expand the US Supreme Court or get a code of ethics, term limits, etc., passed into law, we need a solid majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and our President in the White House. That is a pretty hefty lift.
Something that might be far easier to do is to get a liberal majority on every State Supreme Court, because most of the laws they pass cannot be overturned by the the US Supreme Court. 28 States have Supreme Courts where vacancies are filled by appointment by the Governor. If we don't like who they nominate, we can go protest in their office, write letters, make calls, etc. until they change their mind. This was recently done in NY State to get a far better justice on their court.
For the remaining 22 states, the Justices are elected by the voters, as was recently done in Wisconsin with Janet Protasciewitz. These elections are state-wide, so gerrymandered districts have no effect on the outcomes of these elections. And apparently there are 75 justice seats up for election in 2024 with the possibility of flipping the majorities on 8 of those 22 courts. To me these elections seem far easier to succeed at than correcting anything we can do about the US Supreme Court in the short term.
To learn more about this situation read this article (which I may have originally read about in Jessica's column)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/liberals-should-use-state-courts-to-check-the-supreme-court.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
At the moment there are over 70 vacancies for federal judges, held up by the Senate judiciary committee.
Blue slips, yes? That's why we call on those every couple of weeks. The practice needs to go.
Darnit I just went to put this in Wednesday's edition and realized the article is paywalled. Any way around that that you know of?
I just tried it and didn’t have a problem opening the article. Could you try using the link while in your personal email and then copying that into what you are writing for Wednesday? Don’t t know if it will work, but sometimes when I do weird stuff like that it works for me. Otherwise, I don’t know what to do. Sorry. And thanks fir trying.
Cathleen
This is an excellent approach! May I share this comment?
Yes, please. And if you know of any groups on the ground who are focused on these elections please let us know. Our local Indivisable chapter wants to focus on these elections. 😊
Expanding the court won’t help. We could get more unethical judges! The same with term limits. Better to expend our time and energy on an enforceable ethics code!