In a recent turn of events, the removal of former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Maine and Colorado has sparked a nationwide debate. Maine's Secretary of State made the decision to disqualify Trump from running for office, citing his involvement in the insurrection on January 6th under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision has now moved the attention to the Supreme Court for further deliberation.
One might think that this controversial move by a state official to unilaterally remove a presidential candidate from the ballot would receive opposition only from Republicans. However, it seems that even Democrats and independents have expressed their discomfort with this decision. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a constitutional expert and top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, shared his insights on the matter.
Raskin points out that the Constitution is the foundational law of the land and that Trump's participation in the insurrection disqualifies him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Citing a law review article by conservative legal scholars, Raskin argues that the language in the amendment is clear and unambiguous. If a person has sworn an oath to support the Constitution and has violated that oath by engaging in insurrection, they are forever disqualified from holding public office.
To address concerns about potential bias, Raskin suggests that any Supreme Court justices with personal connections to Trump should recuse themselves from the case. He highlights the need for the Court to act promptly, as each state has the authority to control its own ballot access. However, he remains confident that the Court will make a decision based on the Constitution.
Shifting the focus to another matter, Raskin, as the ranking Democrat in the Oversight Committee, comments on the committee's request for documents from the White House regarding President Biden's involvement in his son Hunter's defiance of a subpoena from Republican committee members. Raskin emphasizes that the Biden White House has been cooperating and complying with requests, unlike the Trump administration.
In response to the argument of presidential immunity, Raskin vehemently dismisses the notion that a president can commit crimes with impunity while in office. He highlights the Constitution's clear rejection of such immunity and reminds us that impeachment does not shield a president from later criminal prosecution.
On a somber note, Raskin acknowledges the three-year anniversary of the passing of his son Tommy, expressing his appreciation for the support he has received.
As the controversy surrounding Trump's disqualification from the ballot unfolds, the nation eagerly awaits the Supreme Court's decision. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the future of American democracy.
