I wrote a few days ago that Trump should not be removed from the ballot even though he unequivocally plotted to overturn the election he lost and provoked an insurrection against the orderly transfer of power. I was wrong. For me, it was a close call: I wanted him to lose convincingly at the hands of the voters; I predicted he would lose by 10 million votes in 2024.
But it should not have been a close call. Trump should not be allowed to run again. He violated his oath of office. I was persuaded I was wrong by the many comments by readers on this blog, by reading the new insider books by Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson, and by continuing to read other opinions, like that of Jamelle Bouie, whose columns will follow this one today.
Trump was exactly the kind of office-holder described in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
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.
In the lower federal court in Colorado, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, but concluded that the President of the U.S. was not an “officer” as defined in the amendment. This was a bizarre conclusion, and the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled by a vote of 4-3 that Trump should not be allowed to run for President because he did take an oath to support the Constitution, he served as the highest officer of the nation, and he did engage in an insurrection against the Constitution to which he swore an oath. It’s no more complicated than that.
The Supreme Court will review that decision.
Trump continues to tell the Big Lie. Despite the fact that he lost 60 court decisions, including decisions by judges he appointed, including two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court; despite the fact that his own Attorney General and his White House Counsel told him he lost, he continues to lie.
Trump continues to praise the insurrectionists. He has promised to pardon all of them who were convicted and sent to prison. He calls them “patriots” even though they defiled the U.S. Capitol, the seat of our government, and threatened the lives of Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence and the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and violently attacked police officers.
The members of Congress escaped the chamber where they were counting the electoral vote only minutes before Trump’s devoted followers broke through the doors. Had they broken through only five minutes sooner, there might have been a bloodbath, a massacre of our elected representatives. Some “patriots”!
Judges should not reach a decision based on fear of Trump’s mob.
Either the Constitution means what it says or it means whatever a politically appointed group of justices decide it says in contravention of the words themselves.
Either “no man is above the law” or only one man—named Donald Trump—is above the law.
Trump betrayed Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. He betrayed his oath of office. He incited, provoked, and engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution and the government that he swore to support.
Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot.

I totally agree! The future of our country is at stake ! I wish I had confidence in this supreme court to do the right thing but I do not. They don’t have the guts to make the tou togh call. I predict they will punt it to the lower courts. Very unfortunate!
LikeLike
Diane, I so appreciate your willingness, upon examination of evidence, to say, “I was wrong.” In my work with others as a science educator, we encouraged teachers to promote that practice with students. We used the phrase, “I used to think……. But, now I know…. because……,” when making sense of natural phenomena. If only more folks learned to do so!
LikeLike
Arthur,
It’s so important to admit it when you are wrong. I find it refreshing. Why carry the burden of repeating a lie? After Trump is gone, how many of his followers will admit they made a huge mistake?
LikeLike
Yeah, there will be a lot of hedging about former Trump support in the future . . .
as there was from Repugnicans and Dimocrats who supported the Vietnam War.
as there was from Repugnicans and Dimocrats who supported the Second Iraq War
After the fact, they were falling all over themselves to pretend that they hadn’t. And many were adamant, after the fact, that both were huge mistakes and obviously so.
LikeLike
Hello Diane: David Brooks also thought Trump should be allowed to be on the ballot . . . to be sure the American people would not be deprived of the decision about who would be our president. I don’t know if Brooks has changed his mind (I hope so); but “wrong” or right, I think the stand-alone idea of securing the vote for “the people” is a good one.
But of course, it’s not “standalone.” It’s like most of us have been floating in a nice boat, then Trump/MAGA punched a hole in the bottom, and we’re all so used to being dry and don’t want to give it up. All of our lives we’ve been able to assume a normative democratic respectful attitude from our laws and politicians. NADA now, and especially if we ignore the very Constitution that has kept the boat afloat for us for so long.
I hope at some point, we can go back to assuming a basic level of political integrity in the polity. As it is, Trump continues to use against us what is good about those who love the whole idea of America and the United States, and the integrity of our institutions and people, like judges who continue to respect, follow, and even love the law. To ignore the oh-so-obvious meaning of the Amendment, written by people who were wise enough and had so much clarity of vision, would only help Trump and his goons destroy democracy. CBK
LikeLike
Nice to see people willing to change their minds, but I disagree for the reasons I wrote in the other threads.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was a little surprised to see that post. I mean, why mess around with something like this to prove a point that could go horribly wrong for American Democracy? It was already proven 3 years ago on J6/21. There’s still time for Lady Justice to swing about and do her thing but that time is, indeed, running out.
LikeLike
I find it ironic that Alito, who will invariably lead the charge to overturn the Colorado decision, is so insistent that abortion is not a right because it is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution when he will rule the opposite in this case. There cannot be clearer interpretation of the office of the presidency than that of an officer duly elected to protect the Constitution. Nor can it be argued that Trump did not lead an insurrection, especially since two courts, in California and Colorado, have articulated that he did. If the Colorado and Maine decisions are overturned it will represent that end to our Federalist interpretation of the Constitution and the ability to enforce any statutes that apply. Trump’s shameless profiteering as President has already deemed the Emoluments Clause moot. The Supreme Court has shamelessly weakened the Voting Rights Act. Declining to hold Trump responsible for rebellion represents the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional democracy.
LikeLike
Alito will claim to be an originalist until it does not suit him. He is not an honest person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
exactly
LikeLike
The 5th grader convinced others to fulfill his tantrum. The voters spoke in 2020.
What I cannot fathom is why lawyers are backing this 5th grader and going to court to defend him. And why people are defending this nonsense. There are no alternative facts that support his tantrum.
LikeLike
Why are lawyers backing him? Your question, ladyfair, has a Zen tinge to it with the answer right in it: lawyers. Need we say more? The mere fact any lawyer is willing to stake their career on the Orange Troglodyte testifies to their utter scrupulousness as well as burnishes the reputation of lawyers as scumbags without any sense of decency, ethics or morals.
LikeLike
Regarding the “Trump was not an officer argument, I offer: “Article II, Section I of the Constitution: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows . . .”
“He shall hold his office . . .” that makes him an officer. And elsewhere the “Office of the President” is referred to.
LikeLike
Exactly, Steve
LikeLike
https://snyder.substack.com/p/courting-ridicule?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=310897&post_id=140451176&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3ljjp&utm_medium=email
LikeLike
I’m glad that you changed your mind, Diane, even though I understood your original motivation.
Related to this, I read something in recent days, either from a constitutional lawyer or quoted one, which said that the president is referred to as an officer 20-something times in the constitution. (I don’t remember the exact # but it was something like 25)
LikeLike
It is your capacity to change your mind, Diane, that I find most remarkable about you and your scholarship. It’s rare.
LikeLike
A correction: the Colorado Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 that Trump was disqualified from appearing on the ballot.
There are seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court, not fifteen.
LikeLike
As other people have already pointed out, you have so much integrity. You can acknowledge when you are wrong, which is why I trust your writings so much. Thank you.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Diane. You’ve helped clarify one of the most contentious events in American history. I’ve written several posts on the 14th Amendment and about Trump on my blog for year, turning much of that into a book published last year.
Still, I was as interested in what others have noted, including the Congressional Research Office (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569).
An analysis by William Baude and Michael Paulsen ( The Sweep and Force of Section Three), a 126 paper published in the University of Pennsylvania Review, Vol. 172, is perhaps the most cogent and convincing argument that Trump should be allowed to run for (any) office in the United States.
Another paper to consider is one by Michael Lattig and Lawrence H. Tribe, published in the Atlantic here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-constitution-prohibits-trump-from-ever-being-president-again/ar-AA1fu49R. They wrote a convincing piece that says that the Constitution prohibits Trump from every being President again. BTW, Lattig and Tribe say this about the Baude/Paulsen paper: “It’s momentous. Sooner or later, it will influence, if not determine, the course of American constitutional history—and American history itself.” I hope the Supreme Court and/or the lawyers testifying before the Court bring their arguments into the question facing the court. Baude and Paulsen are highly respected Republican lawyers.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s writing about authoritarians, especially Donald Trump, is important to study. Her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present points out how Trump uses the same playbook of previous and present dictators. She writes at https://lucid.substack.com/, and I highly recommend it.
Finally, people might want to consult the Colorado Supreme Court decision here (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf).
LikeLike
I just read that Harvard Law professor Laurence Lessig says the Supreme Court should overturn the Colorado ruling by 9-0.
I find it hard to follow his reasoning.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/06/smr-lessig-why-scotus-must-reject-colorado-trump-ban.cnn?cid=ios_app
——————————————-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-ballot-removal-colorado-wrong.html
LikeLike
Diane, What I read doesn’t make sense based on his article in the Atlantic. I’ll listen to his remarks later, but in his Atlantic article, he is very clear about why the 14th Amendment would bar Trump from office. He said this:
The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.
Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-constitution-prohibits-trump-from-ever-being-president-again/ar-AA1fu49R
LikeLike
Lessig’s argument is basically the political one.
You know it’s a problem when the argument includes purely political reasoning where a law professor says law doesn’t matter at all.
His arguments are laughable. He warns us that If a president who commits insurrection is struck off the ballot, then Texas’ banning Biden from the ballot would happen.
It’s like arguing that you can’t ever prosecute Trump for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, because Texas would decide to electrocute Biden for no reason.
How have we fallen this far? Fascism normalized. Powerful people who shoot someone in cold blood must be condoned, because their powerful friends might execute innocent people to retaliate.
A good example of the brainwashing of our society, which is what is necessary for fascism to thrive.
LikeLike
The judge you refer to is J. Michael Luttig, not “Michael Lattig”.
LikeLike
Thank you for noting this.
LikeLike
Please note this correction in the last sentence of paragraph 2:
it should read
Trump should (NOT) be allowed to run for (any) office in the United States.
LikeLike
Congressional Research Office paper: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
LikeLike
Not only should Traitor Trump be removed for the ballot, but he should also end up in prison for the rest of his life, living in isolation cut off from the world. Hopefully, in New York’s Rikers Island prison, cut off from everyone, even young blonds, golf, Diet Coke, and fast food.
LikeLike
Rikers Island is a jail, not a prison. Sentences under one year only, and state sentences, not federal. Misdemeanors, not felonies.
Trump is looking at federal prison, not jail.
LikeLike
You guys are hilarious! Pelosi set this up how else can you make sure this illegal election couldn’t send back to states. Pelosi own daughter was filming and she admitted with john sullivan next to her on film it worked they got trump. It’s insane you all are in belief this is trump and his supporters, very sad. Diane has gone Trump crazy. When there is so much to talk about Biden/Obama third term of hell. Must be sooo dissapointed Trump cleared Epstein when all your favorite celebs, clinton, obamas all going for pedo sex.
LikeLike
Trump was Jeffrey Epstein’s good friend for 15 years. 15! Neighbors in Palm Beach!
LikeLike
Politicians, academics, and business people availing themselves of Epstein’s services was a bipartisan affair.
This lawsuit was dismissed after the plaintiff became frightened for her life due to intimidation by ________.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
LikeLike
And conveniently for all those who used Epstein’s services, he was murdered in his jail cell ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT, all the tapes and photos from Epstein’s blackmail operation have disappeared down the memory hole, and none of the people invited to testify at Gislaine Maxwell’s trial were folks who could name names beyond those already known.
The level of corruption involved for all this to happen is breathtaking.
For a couple years now, people have been using a Christmas tree ornament that has on it a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and the words, “This ornament did not hang itself.”
LikeLike
This is an ugly and ignorant comment.
Pedophilia, though an obvious abomination, is quite rare criminal behavior. Tossing out accusations against people without factual proof (and no, Qanon ravings don’t qualify) could lead to an easy prima facie case of libel per se.
Meaning exemplary damages in the millions.
You should be quite careful whom you tar with such an accusation. Your target will need only a calculator to bankrupt you. And rightly so.
It speaks volumes about your character (and lack thereof) that you would make such a slur.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane, I was sick yesterday and not able to go online, so it came as such a relief to me to see this post now. Like Bob, I don’t often disagree with you but I did over this matter because it’s such a crucial issue for our country.
I really appreciate your rethinking this, as well as recognizing and admitting to your error. We have been subjected way too long to a bully at the forefront who is always afraid of looking weak and lacks even an ounce of humility, so he will NEVER, EVER own up to any of his (many) mistakes, despite how that impacts other people. (This includes the “Central Park Five” kids –for whom, years ago, he took out a fulll page ad in a NY paper demanding the death penalty for them & never apologized even after they were exonerated & had served 7 -13 years for something DNA proved they did NOT do!)
I find it very refreshing when people admit to their errors. Far from being a weakness, I think it’s a strength and demonstration of integrity which should be respected and admired by all. That restores my faith in people. Thank you ever so much for modeling it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, ECE Professional.
I am fearful that the SCOTUS will find a way to throw out the case. They have a chance to show whether they are truly Originalists or textualists or hypocrites.
LikeLike