Upholding the Constitution!
The Imperative of Due Process in Disqualifying Candidates for Alleged Insurrection
In light of the varied judicial opinions surrounding the issue of barring a candidate from appearing on ballots for alleged involvement in an insurrection, particularly in the context of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision and the dissenting opinion of Justice Samour, it is imperative to approach the matter from a conservative perspective that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law
.
Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge the role and power of Congress as stipulated in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. This section empowers Congress to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of the Amendment, including those concerning insurrectionists holding office as outlined in Section 3. In 1948, Congress exercised this power by replacing the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383. This law clearly states that a person convicted under it can be barred from holding office in the United States. Notably, as of now, the individual in question, former President Donald Trump, has not been charged under this statute.
From a constitutional conservative standpoint, it is fundamental to adhere strictly to the legal processes and safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and legislated by Congress. Therefore, any attempt to bar a candidate from appearing on ballots must be preceded by a lawful process that respects the principles of due process. This means that a criminal trial must occur, and a conviction must be secured under the relevant statute, in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, before any disqualification from holding office can be considered legitimate.
Furthermore, the necessity for a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate for such a removal adds another layer of constitutional protection. This requirement ensures that any decision to disqualify a candidate from office is legally grounded and has substantial legislative backing, preventing arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
In summary, the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress provide a clear and structured framework for addressing allegations of insurrection against a public official. This framework mandates a criminal trial and conviction before any punitive action can be taken, such as barring someone from holding office. Bypassing this process undermines the rule of law and the principles of due process, which are cornerstones of American democracy. As Justice Samour's dissent and a conservative interpretation of the Constitution suggest, any deviation from this prescribed legal pathway is inappropriate and unconstitutional. Therefore, until and unless the stipulated legal procedures are followed, including a trial and a potential conviction, the candidate remains eligible to appear on the ballot.
Despite the Left’s strong desire to remove Trump from the electoral process…the Constitution MUST be the sole arbiter of the procedure!