DENY TRUMP'S OVERTHROW OF OUR GOVERNMENT

Proposal to Deny Trump the Presidency

As America stands at the precipice of the 2024 presidential election, we face a critical juncture that will determine the future of our democracy. Donald Trump's candidacy directly threatens the foundational principles that have upheld our nation for centuries. It is imperative that we, as a nation, consider the proposal to deny Trump access to the Presidency.

Preserving Democratic Integrity

The cornerstone of our democracy is the integrity of our electoral process. Donald Trump's repeated attempts to undermine this process, from his baseless claims of election fraud to his incitement of the January 6th insurrection, demonstrate a clear and present danger to our democratic institutions. Allowing him to assume the Presidency legitimizes his attempts to subvert the will of the people and erodes trust in our electoral system.

Upholding the Rule of Law

The rule of law is non-negotiable in a functioning democracy. Trump's actions have shown a blatant disregard for legal norms and constitutional principles. States can reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law by denying him access to the office. This move is not about silencing opposition but protecting our legal framework from those seeking to dismantle it.

Protecting National Security

Trump's erratic behavior and controversial policies have often put national security at risk. His mishandling of classified information, cozying up to authoritarian regimes and undermining alliances have compromised America's global standing. Ensuring that he does not return to the highest office is a matter of national security. We cannot afford to have a leader who prioritizes personal gain over the safety and security of the nation.

Safeguarding Civil Liberties

Trump's tenure was marked by numerous attempts to curtail civil liberties, from his attacks on the press to his discriminatory policies against minority groups. Denying him the office is a stand against the erosion of civil liberties. It sends a powerful message that America will not tolerate leaders who seek to divide and disenfranchise its citizens.

SUPREME COURT ERROR

1. Historical Context and Original Intent:
• Historical Basis: Amendment 14, Section 3, was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War to address the issue of former Confederates holding public office. The framers intended for this provision to be self-executing, meaning it would automatically apply without the need for additional legislation.
• Original Intent: By ruling that Congress must pass enabling legislation, the Supreme Court deviated from the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment's framers. The framers likely did not anticipate that future enforcement of this provision would be contingent upon legislative action, especially considering the urgent need for its immediate application post-Civil War.
• Moreover, the decision wrongfully ignores the separation of powers and the mandate of the executive branch to enforce all laws, including the Constitution. The Department of Justice has an entire section devoted to Constitutional enforcement.
2. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:
• Judicial Overreach: The Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism by requiring Congressional action not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is an overreach of judicial power.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court’s opinion restrains the immediate enforceability of constitutional provisions meant to address urgent national issues.
3. Precedent and Legal Consistency:
• Inconsistent Precedent: The decision is inconsistent with previous rulings where the Court has recognized self-executing constitutional provisions and enforcement is solely the executive branch's responsibility. This inconsistency could lead to legal uncertainty and confusion about the enforceability of other constitutional mandates without explicit legislative action. More importantly, the executive branch enforces all laws, including the Constitution. The opinion thus flies in the face of the separation of powers.
4. Section 5 Incorrectly Interpreted: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—most notably, the provisions of Section One. The section enables needed implementation if appropriate. It does not require legislation for Section 3. This is a fatal flaw in the Court's opinion. 

The future of American democracy hinges on our ability to make tough decisions in the face of unprecedented challenges. Denying Trump access to the office is necessary to ensure that our nation remains a beacon of freedom, justice, and equality for all.

 William James Spriggs