Donald Trump has been denied ballot status in two states while challenges are pending in several others, including Wisconsin. The argument is that he’s guilty of insurrection and so ineligible under the 14th Amendment.
This is all a waste of time and energy. Let me offer some reasons.
First, that insurrection clause was aimed directly at Civil War rebels. It has never been employed until now, a situation unlike (well, less unlike then I’d like) a civil war.
Second, what’s an insurrectionist? The Supreme Court has never ruled on this language, which until now was just some long-forgotten box in the Constitution’s attic. The words were intended to apply to men who wanted to take their states out of the union. Trump has proposed no such thing. In fact, if he were reelected I’d want to take my state out of his union.
Third, you want a real civil war? Try having Joe Biden reelected while at least a couple states wouldn’t even allow Trump on the ballot. Trump’s lies about the 2020 election are bad enough. Now, he’d argue that he lost because liberal judges and election officials thwarted the will of the people.
Fourth, so far it wouldn’t matter anyway. Trump’s not likely to win Colorado or Maine whether he’s on the ballot or not. Might as well take him off in California and New York too while you’re at it.
Fifth, it sends the signal that Democrats are afraid of democracy. The message is that they fear they can’t win fair and square and so they’re trying legal maneuvers to hang onto power.
I’ll admit that there is part of me that is cheering on these ballot removal efforts. I see Donald Trump as such a danger to our American democracy and to my beloved classical liberal values that I’m willing to entertain drastic measures (including compromising my classical liberal values) to keep this awful man out of the White House.
But this insurrectionist gambit is a waste of resources, it has virtually no chance of success, and it just feeds the Trump victimhood narrative. It’s worse than useless.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
“But this insurrectionist gambit is a waste of resources, it has virtually no chance of success, and it just feeds the Trump victimhood narrative.”
No chance of success from a legal perspective but arguably it’s already enormously successful from a PROPAGANDA perspective.
As you point out there is a different perspective it shows – that we have a weaponized justice system.
Cute that you think we still have a democracy. Still hoping all the “dysfunctional radicals” can save what’s left of it.
Returning to the propaganda perspective, that is how I’ll be evaluating the 2024 campaigns. After 2016 and 2020 it’s clear propaganda, not issues, is the main driver of results. Probably been that way a lot longer than we all care to admit.
LikeLike
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe of Harvard as well as historians disagree with you.
Why would Section 3 of the 14th amendment be enshrined in our Constitution if it was narrowly applied to the Civil War ?
Funny how Originalists cling to the literal interpretation of legal texts and the public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law until…it applies to their preferred presidential candidate. But, we will see how SCOTUS rules on this.
LikeLike
I’m far from being an originalist, but I also don’t think you can ignore the context in which an amendment was adopted and I think it’s a safe assumption that this SCOTUS will do that. I only wish they’d apply the same thinking to the Second Amendment. The Founders could not have anticipated semi-automatics in the hands of anybody (not just members of a militia) who wants one.
LikeLike
I do like the idea of him playing whac a mole with the states trying to keep him off the ballot. Why should it be easy for him to run again?
LikeLike
Yeah, you’ve got a point. I’m just not sure that this doesn’t help him more than it hurts. It further excites his base while it turns off some independents.
LikeLike
How much more excited can his base possibly get?
LikeLike