10/14/23
Newsletter #488
The Crack of Dawn
I am a student of history. Most of what I’ve read for the past 40 years has been history, with a focus on the U.S. presidency. I’ve read many books on U.S. presidents, from the Scholastic Books biography of Theodore Roosevelt in 5th grade, up through A Man of Iron by Troy Senik, a biography of Grover Cleveland that just came out in 2023 (it’s OK, but I don’t recommend it). Should anyone care to read any of these books, a few of the best are Truman and John Adams by David McCullough, Grant and Washington by Ron Chernow, Team of Rivals and The Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin (the latter is about both Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft). A section of Team of Rivals was the basis for Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012). Taking the alternate angle of fiction, I really enjoyed Gore Vidal’s novel, Lincoln (which might officially be, Gore Vidal’s Lincoln), that covers Lincoln’s entire presidency and really conveys just how small of a town Washington, D.C. was in the 1860s, as well as how close some of the battles of the Civil War were to the White House.
My point is that to me, U.S. presidential politics is not a passing fancy, I’ve always paid a lot of attention to it. Therefore, what is presently occurring in U.S. presidential politics I find extremely fascinating, not necessarily from a partisan perspective, but from an historical point of view. And much of what has been occurring since Donald Trump’s entrance onto the political stage has all been unprecedented. Whether you like it or you don’t like it, he promised to shake things up and he certainly has. Pro or con, I assure you Trump’s most interesting than Grover Cleveland.
I become obsessive about certain things – as you may have noticed – and my present obsession is hearing every motion and order for all of Trump’s legal cases, which are numerous. I follow three lawyers’ shows, Glenn Kirschner (a 30-year DOJ prosecutor), Michael Popok and Ben Meiselis. All three read, and explain, every legal movement of all the cases. Mr. Trump’s legal team files a lot of motions, particularly requests for dismissal, all of which have been quickly denied.
But the most recent request for dismissal occurred yesterday (10/13/23) in Colorado, and is the first time Trump has been denied a dismissal in this case, which is in regard to the 14th amendment, section three, which says:
Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The 14th amendment was added in 1868 in regard to Confederate politicians trying to get back into government after the war. An interesting, and important, distinction is given to the speaking of an oath. It meant a lot at the time to speak the words of an oath, in public, then go back on it. This goes along with another subject that I will attempt to tackle at some later point – honor.
So, I’ve reached my point. Donald Trump’s legal team filed a motion for dismissal in the Colorado court yesterday that was denied. Trump’s legal team proffered that he was not “. . . a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State . . .” Except, of course, that he was the Commander-in-Chief, and the President. Trump’s legal team also jumped on the word “support.” His lawyers contended that he had agreed to “preserve, protect and defend” the U.S. constitution as he spoke in his presidential oath, but he didn’t say “support,” as it states in the constitution, “. . . to support the Constitution of the United States.”
Motion for dismissal was denied.
This case goes to court in Colorado on Oct. 30. This case has nothing to do with all of the many other cases pending, or presently being litigated, against Donald Trump. This is a constitutional case. A perfect case for the Supreme Court, by the way.
The topic of the 14th amendment came to everybody’s attention in an article in The Atlantic by the well-known conservative judge Michael Luttig, and the famous liberal law professor, Lawrence Tribe. Both men are highly regarded constitutional scholars. They purported that the 14th Amendment was (and I’m paraphrasing), self-activating and self-actualizing. That it didn’t need a legal case to come into effect, nor any kind of ruling to be effective (although, besides the Colorado case, there are several other 14th amendment cases pending, including Michigan).
By Jan. 5, the Colorado Secretary of State must begin the printing process of the Republican Primary ballots. They await the court’s ruling, but ultimately the Secretary of State must decide – in all 50 states. And there is no way to be correct. If you put Donald Trump on the ballot – having watched him lead an insurrection on TV – you’re defying the constitution. If you don’t put him on the ballot, you’ll be sued. That’s 50 times over.
From a U.S. presidential history standpoint, this shit is like watching Tora! Tora! Tora!
Meanwhile, back to our regularly scheduled programming, whatever that is?
I can’t even believe it’s another day, but it is.
Tally ho!