Do this immediately to slap down Trump
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Joel Pomerantz
Dec 27, 2024, 11:44:24 PM12/27/24
to Thinkwalks email list
Hello friends and associates.
I will get back to regular Thinkwalks programming when events allow. This is more important. This is urgent.
These times call for using every opportunity to get the word out.
It is generally assumed that Trump will take office in January and there’s nothing to stop him. But that assumption is worth a second look because it is incorrect. There is a perfectly legal, reasonable, and in fact a required action that could stop him.
If he is not stopped, the ascension of Trump to the presidency will directly cause all teeth to fall out of the U.S. Constitution. From that moment on, any use of laws or the Constitution will be subject to Trump’s whim and convenience only. There will be no further backstop. He will have demonstrated conclusively and convincingly that he is untouchable by the laws. Even the Supreme Court has told him he’s above the law. He will use this power to protect his ego and destroy everything he’s spooked by. It is pure denial for us to imagine that he will follow any limits as president. It’s simply wishful thinking.
Most humans are good at denial and don’t think often of this uncomfortable, simple truth. If we allow Donald Trump, the disqualified insurrectionist, to take office, despite specific, clear requirements in Article 14, Section 3 to prevent it, we must assume that the U.S. Constitution will be no longer in force. It is one of the most clearly stated clauses in the document.
Everyone in the executive branch, judicial branch, and legislative branch of the U.S. government has already sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They cannot legally allow, nor even stand by passively to allow, a violation of that document without violating their own oath.
Yes, there have been examples of the Constitution being violated in the past by officials who took oaths not to. Did those events invalidate the entire document? Seems not. It could be argued that they made this violation easier. But that neither here nor there because this violation, the act of allowing him to become president, is of a different nature. It puts us in a situation in which someone who has been adjudicated three times to have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution will take charge without restraints. None of the previous violations of the Constitution have put us in such a fix.
There is a movement building rapidly to get the required 20% of congress to object, which could possibly stop Trump in his tracks. We have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but to not pursue it is to throw our national and collective personal fate to the wind, with every indication that it will result in a new kind of lawlessness on high. The idea that it probably won’t succeed, so therefore we should just let fate take its course is not just cynical, it’s self-undermining. A sudden groundswell can and has changed cynical assumptions before and could do it again.
Let’s start our legal examination with this: The law forbids Trump to be President. You might think that the law is fuzzy on this. You’d be wrong. The law requires him to be stopped. For real.
Those who might say it’s now the “will of the people” for Trump to take office, via a vote. But they've forgotten two things. (1) Just as his incorrect argument that “there were no victims” doesn’t undo the fact that he illegally faked his business documents, the vote doesn’t undo the clear fact that he is not qualified to legally be president any more than a 12 year old would be legally qualified. (2) It is now well known that the vote was not the mandate Trump claims: voter suppression by Republicans, widespread refusal to take part in the vote, a plurality not a majority vote, etc. And We also know that many who hate Trump voted for him anyway because they either hate the Democrats more or just want to register overall dissatisfaction with the government or the system. There’s no mandate for Trump.
The three proceedings that found Trump to be an insurrectionist are noted below. Worth noting: No political body has concluded the opposite, i.e. that Trump was not engaged in insurrection. Specifically, No official, public, U.S. or state, deliberative body has found, via their standard procedure, that Trump is not guilty of this insurrection based on the events attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. All three branches of government have referred to the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection.
Let’s go through the legal details. They are not complicated. Much of this argument was laid out by two constitutional scholars in The Hill yesterday. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/
No need to click the link. Just read on. Anything in [square brackets] within this full quote of the article is my own words.
= = = = QUOTE = = = =
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion contributors - 12/26/24
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel. [Trump’s lawyers couldn’t make a convincing argument because there isn’t one.]
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed [i.e. agreed]. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court [didn’t disagree but] held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”
Some will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, precludes Congress from rejecting electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6, on the basis of 14th Amendment disqualification. This view lacks merit for three reasons. First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta are the musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta are not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab which Congress is not required to credit [i.e. obey].
Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.
Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.
The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.
To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.
The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
= = = = END QUOTE = = = =
I believe that Republicans will destroy themselves and everyone, throughout all earth’s countries and ecosystems—equal opportunity. If this method doesn't stop him, he could stop himself, but not in time. Don’t depend on him being sane. He is not. Don't depend on him bumbling and failing. He might not.
Anyone who is too scared of Trump’s revenge if they stand up against him has forgotten that he destroys people on any excuse. And he will destroy far more lives if he becomes President than if he does not. Look to history and other countries to see what unfettered power creates. Let’s join Brazil, South Korea, and others in squashing a “promising autocrat.”
Does the risk of retribution mean we should allow the final corruption of our social contract? That selfish, strategy fails immediately anyway when you realize Trump will destroy all you are and all you love whether you stand up against his presidency or not. He won’t surgically destroy only what you find troublesome about the system, that’s for certain. He’ll destroy what protects everyone but himself, as he has repeatedly promised.
Congress can stop him and the only way they will is if they are scared of us. You stand up and they will, too. People in congress are far more susceptible to public pressure than they let on. Scared of Trump? Share that feeling with Congress. Here’s something you can do.
Check out https://nowmarch.org/ and tell your friends. Be loud. Let congress take notice.
Joel
I will get back to regular Thinkwalks programming when events allow. This is more important. This is urgent.
These times call for using every opportunity to get the word out.
It is generally assumed that Trump will take office in January and there’s nothing to stop him. But that assumption is worth a second look because it is incorrect. There is a perfectly legal, reasonable, and in fact a required action that could stop him.
If he is not stopped, the ascension of Trump to the presidency will directly cause all teeth to fall out of the U.S. Constitution. From that moment on, any use of laws or the Constitution will be subject to Trump’s whim and convenience only. There will be no further backstop. He will have demonstrated conclusively and convincingly that he is untouchable by the laws. Even the Supreme Court has told him he’s above the law. He will use this power to protect his ego and destroy everything he’s spooked by. It is pure denial for us to imagine that he will follow any limits as president. It’s simply wishful thinking.
Most humans are good at denial and don’t think often of this uncomfortable, simple truth. If we allow Donald Trump, the disqualified insurrectionist, to take office, despite specific, clear requirements in Article 14, Section 3 to prevent it, we must assume that the U.S. Constitution will be no longer in force. It is one of the most clearly stated clauses in the document.
Everyone in the executive branch, judicial branch, and legislative branch of the U.S. government has already sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They cannot legally allow, nor even stand by passively to allow, a violation of that document without violating their own oath.
Yes, there have been examples of the Constitution being violated in the past by officials who took oaths not to. Did those events invalidate the entire document? Seems not. It could be argued that they made this violation easier. But that neither here nor there because this violation, the act of allowing him to become president, is of a different nature. It puts us in a situation in which someone who has been adjudicated three times to have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution will take charge without restraints. None of the previous violations of the Constitution have put us in such a fix.
There is a movement building rapidly to get the required 20% of congress to object, which could possibly stop Trump in his tracks. We have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but to not pursue it is to throw our national and collective personal fate to the wind, with every indication that it will result in a new kind of lawlessness on high. The idea that it probably won’t succeed, so therefore we should just let fate take its course is not just cynical, it’s self-undermining. A sudden groundswell can and has changed cynical assumptions before and could do it again.
Let’s start our legal examination with this: The law forbids Trump to be President. You might think that the law is fuzzy on this. You’d be wrong. The law requires him to be stopped. For real.
Those who might say it’s now the “will of the people” for Trump to take office, via a vote. But they've forgotten two things. (1) Just as his incorrect argument that “there were no victims” doesn’t undo the fact that he illegally faked his business documents, the vote doesn’t undo the clear fact that he is not qualified to legally be president any more than a 12 year old would be legally qualified. (2) It is now well known that the vote was not the mandate Trump claims: voter suppression by Republicans, widespread refusal to take part in the vote, a plurality not a majority vote, etc. And We also know that many who hate Trump voted for him anyway because they either hate the Democrats more or just want to register overall dissatisfaction with the government or the system. There’s no mandate for Trump.
The three proceedings that found Trump to be an insurrectionist are noted below. Worth noting: No political body has concluded the opposite, i.e. that Trump was not engaged in insurrection. Specifically, No official, public, U.S. or state, deliberative body has found, via their standard procedure, that Trump is not guilty of this insurrection based on the events attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. All three branches of government have referred to the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection.
Let’s go through the legal details. They are not complicated. Much of this argument was laid out by two constitutional scholars in The Hill yesterday. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/
No need to click the link. Just read on. Anything in [square brackets] within this full quote of the article is my own words.
= = = = QUOTE = = = =
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion contributors - 12/26/24
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel. [Trump’s lawyers couldn’t make a convincing argument because there isn’t one.]
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed [i.e. agreed]. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court [didn’t disagree but] held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”
Some will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, precludes Congress from rejecting electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6, on the basis of 14th Amendment disqualification. This view lacks merit for three reasons. First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta are the musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta are not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab which Congress is not required to credit [i.e. obey].
Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.
Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.
The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.
To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.
The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
= = = = END QUOTE = = = =
I believe that Republicans will destroy themselves and everyone, throughout all earth’s countries and ecosystems—equal opportunity. If this method doesn't stop him, he could stop himself, but not in time. Don’t depend on him being sane. He is not. Don't depend on him bumbling and failing. He might not.
Anyone who is too scared of Trump’s revenge if they stand up against him has forgotten that he destroys people on any excuse. And he will destroy far more lives if he becomes President than if he does not. Look to history and other countries to see what unfettered power creates. Let’s join Brazil, South Korea, and others in squashing a “promising autocrat.”
Does the risk of retribution mean we should allow the final corruption of our social contract? That selfish, strategy fails immediately anyway when you realize Trump will destroy all you are and all you love whether you stand up against his presidency or not. He won’t surgically destroy only what you find troublesome about the system, that’s for certain. He’ll destroy what protects everyone but himself, as he has repeatedly promised.
Congress can stop him and the only way they will is if they are scared of us. You stand up and they will, too. People in congress are far more susceptible to public pressure than they let on. Scared of Trump? Share that feeling with Congress. Here’s something you can do.
Check out https://nowmarch.org/ and tell your friends. Be loud. Let congress take notice.
Joel
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages