Newsweek Calls 14th Amendment Appeals "Democrats Hail Mary"
Newsweek has never been anything more than a weekly national newspaper in magazine form. Even when I was studying journalism in college, a long time ago, it was not considered a career destination by anyone who took working in the media seriously. And it's not hard to see why.
Democrats are obviously looking for ways to prevent the former failed President 45 from getting back into the White House. That's politics, folks. And within the limits the party imposes on itself when it comes to avoiding using conspiracy theories, sticking with facts, emphasizing policy, thinking rationally and logically and comparing what the party offers to the people in the way of government leadership as opposed to what the other party offers, we do a good job.
We do not think like, or act like Republicans. Maybe sometimes a little bit more of a drammatic flair like this would be a good thing. But it's not the Democrats who are speculating about the use of the 14th amendment, nor are the Democrats using the indictments and potential trials and verdicts as a plan to keep Trump from the Presidency. The Democrats' plan is very, very simple. It is getting behind Joe Biden's re-election campaign, supporting it, helping fund it, and running to win back the White House in 2024 against whomever the GOP nominates. That's the Democratic party plan. Everything else is just media speculation.
Appealing to the 14th Amendments is Not the Democrats' "Hail Mary" Plan
The Newsweek article is actually a pick-up of an citation by Jonathan Turley in The Hill, who is responding to recent comments by a variety of legal experts who have appeared on various media outlets to answer questions and discuss the 14th amendment possibilities related to Trump against the backdrop of his large lead in polls among potential Republican primary voters. Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, tries to connect these scattered legal opinions to Democratic party strategy to keep Trump out of the White House by arguing that the charges against Trump related to January 6th wouldn't make him subject to the 14th amendment, even if he is found guilty. The legal experts with whom he disagrees here would seem to be Republican, and cite facts to support their contention.
But the discussion isn't part of any Democratic party plan. Turley's criticism focuses on William Baude and Michael Paulsen, law professors at the University of Chicago and St Thomas University, of the conservative Federalist Society. They've been cited in the media recently, claiming that the charges against Trump are relevant to the 14th amendment, and do indeed disqualify him from elected office, if he is convicted. Their opinion is supported by Lawrence Tribe, emeritus professor of constitutional law from Harvard, who has pointed out exactly how the 14th amendment would apply in this case.
Turley's assertion that Trump did nothing more than sulk in the Oval Office during the insurrection ignores a lot of facts. And it undermines the credibility of his assertion by identifying his own biased opinion. Tribe, who is perhaps the leading expert in the country on constitutional law, carries a lot more credibility, and focuses on a lot more of the details of Trump's activity on January 6th which Turley more or less ignores. If there are convictions in this case, I'm sure there will be consideration of applying the 14th amendment, since the Constitution is the law of the land.
No doubt there are Democrats who, with their grasp and understanding of how the Constitution works, are thinking about what applying the 14th amendment to Trump might happen. If we are to take the Constitution seriously, and it has this provision, a product of the Civil War, in place to protect the government of the United States from seditious insurrection, which is exactly what the Civil War was, then it should be followed when a situation arises that requires its application. And this situation certainly appears to fit the bill.
An Argument in a Vacuum
The Newsweek piece is written from the perspective that Trump would not be facing trials for his organizing and conducting the January 6th insurrection, the fake elector scheme, the attempted election fraud in Georgia by using his office to pressure the secretary of state into "finding" votes that didn't exist, if he weren't the GOP front runner for the presidential nomination, something the writer mentions more than once. They've done a good job of taking up Republican talking points to avoid any responsibility being required for breaking the law. And that's more or less taking the Republican, Conservative and Evangelical Christian position that a privileged person doesn't need to be under the enforcement of the law if they are in leadership.
But that's a political opinion, something newsmagazines like Newsweek are professionally supposed to avoid. The political affiliation of both prosecution and defendant is irrelevant here. Evidence strongly suggests that Trump broke the law, and regardless of whether he is running for President or playing golf at Bedminster, this is about holding a lawbreaker accountable, like every other American would be. And if Trump weren't a candidate for the GOP nomination, he would still be subject to the investigation, the grand jury indictments, and would still be brought to trial. Congress launched their investigation long before Trump announced he would run again.
Of course, if I were President Biden, I'd certainly be interested in observing how this was going. If I were a Democrat in a swing district, I'd be interested. But the lack of any citation from a Democrat within the party's governing structure to support this contention is evidence that this is not an election strategy of the Democratic party. Not by a long shot.
And Then There's This
I had to laugh, watching a well-known and once credible Sunday news host proclaim, after the indictments were handed down in the January 6th investigation, that Trump's approval numbers and poll numbers among Republican voters against the other candidates in the GOP Presidential field were unchanged following the indictments. There, on the screen, was the poll he was using, a Quinnipiac poll that was taken three days prior to the indictments. This isn't some first year journalist just out of college making the mistake of thinking he was doing his job by finding a poll tu support the contention as fact. This was an experienced journalist who knows how to manipulate a story and make people believe what amounts to political propaganda.
And, in fact, Trump's poll numbers among Republicans haven't moved very much, if at all, except in New Hampshire, where one poll showed him just one point ahead of Desantis following the Janiary 6th indictments. But that's not where to look to see whether the indictments are hurting him politically. There's a big difference between the needle not moving much among the mindless, ignorant, and blind Republicans, and the voters he really needs to win the Presidency, which would include independents, and the moderate slice of his own party, the 15% of Republicans who now say they won't support Trump at all under any circumstances.
In several polls, according to Five Thirty Eight, his disapproval rating average, whatever they call it, the percentage of voters who say they will not vote for Trump, has bumped up to 67% from 61% prior to the indictments. It's been as low as 58% since he left office. The percentage of independents who do not approve of the orange headed buffoon is 57%. The Washington Post has a poll out showing that if Manchin and Huntsman are the "No Labels" candidates, Biden's lead over Trump increases. This is all post-indictment data. This news is still sinking in and there's plenty of evidence that it is shaking a lot of Republicans out of their fog, and waking them up to the reality that their party sits on the brink of a disaster.
To be frank, I'm really not convinced Trump has enough support to win the GOP nomination, especially as the field narrows down quickly. They have a qurky way of allocating delegates to the nominating convention. Most Republicans won't be critical of him openly, because they fear Maga retribution, but there are some powerful Republicans who are working pretty hard to keep him from winning the nomination. I'll be curious to see what they come up with, and what he does if it appears he's not going to have enough convention support to win the nomination.
And, thanks to Lawrence Tribe, not to Newsweek, I'll be waiting to see, when he is convicted, exactly how the 14th amendment is applied.
No comments:
Post a Comment