SAVING THE CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY

Saving the Constitution and Democracy

I have written several articles outlining my proposal to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House if he wins the electoral college vote. Let me clarify my position once more.

Amendment 14, Section 3 of the Constitution states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies, shall hold any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Indisputable evidence confirms that Trump is guilty of such actions.

While President Biden may win both the popular and electoral votes, there is a scenario where Trump could lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. Despite his ineligibility to hold office, it is prudent to wait and see if he loses the electoral vote and any subsequent challenges.

If Trump wins the electoral vote, President Biden must declare him ineligible and bar him from assuming office. This action will likely incite riots among Trump supporters, so Biden must be prepared to quell any violence swiftly.

Biden's actions in this scenario would not be undemocratic or unconstitutional. As the head of the Executive Branch, he is responsible for enforcing the law, including the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. By enforcing its provisions, Biden would be acting to preserve the Constitution and democracy itself.

While this action would contradict a potential Supreme Court ruling on the enforcement of the ineligibility provision, it is justified. Biden's decision to bar Trump would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but saving democracy from an avowed dictator justifies such a bold move. The opinion in the Colorado case was clearly wrong and politically motivated. Stare decisis supports Biden's action, as the Executive Branch enforces constitutional provisions regularly. Biden is justified in not adhering to an erroneous and politically motivated interpretation of the Constitution.

Section 5 does not change the responsibility of the President to enforce the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States included African Americans and slaves who had been freed after the American Civil War. Obviously, Congress would need to enact legislation relating to equal rights. Section 5 merely recognizes legislation may be necessary.

The ensuing riots would be seen as a justified defense of the Constitution. Biden would have the moral high ground and could effectively suppress the insurrection.

Critics of this proposal will argue that Biden is violating the principles of law and free elections he should uphold. However, this critique overlooks the fact that Trump and his coalition have openly announced their intentions to violate the Constitution and establish a dictatorship, with the ultimate goal of forming a theocracy. The overwhelming majority of voters will likely have supported Biden in the popular vote, absent the Electoral College manipulation. Justice and the rule of law align with Biden's actions in this scenario.

There have been instances in American history where the Executive Branch has defied or ignored Supreme Court decisions. Here are a couple of notable examples:

1.     Worcester v. Georgia (1832): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on Cherokee tribal lands. President Andrew Jackson is often quoted (although the quote's accuracy is debated) as saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Jackson did not take any action to enforce the Court's decision, and Georgia continued its policies, leading to the forced removal of the Cherokee people, known as the Trail of Tears.

2.     Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): While not an outright defiance, President Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, expressed his disagreement with the Dred Scott decision, which stated that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. Lincoln did not act directly against the ruling, but his administration worked to limit its impact and eventually contributed to the legal environment that led to the Civil War and the subsequent abolition of slavery through the 13th Amendment.

The Debate:

Bret Wacker View Bret Wacker’s profile 

William Spriggs I would disagree. Selling this theory after ballots are cast guarantees a Constitutional crisis because it would disenfranchise half the voting population by declaring their votes null and void. Further, since your theory relies on the idea that the holdings of SCOTUS are irrelevant, the theory removes any legal remedy for those disenfranchised voters

William Spriggs View William Spriggs’ profile

I disagree. Trump is ineligible and his plan creates a Constitutional crisis. My proposal does not create a crisis. I propose how to deal with it. Hopefully, Biden wins. If he does not, he must act to save democracy and the Constitution. Simple as that. So what if half of the voters are losers? They voted for a dictatorship. Of course, the losers will win in court.  But Biden can fail to follow the court's opinion to save the country from ruin. Whose side are you on? This is all about whose side you are on.