Jamie Raskin makes it clear that it is not only constitutional for Trump to be removed from the ballot. It is the most Democratic constitutional disqualification because, in his case, it’s self-inflicted.
Jamie Raskin makes the case for Trump’s removal from the ballot.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
By now, everyone knows that Representative Jamie Raskin is a formidable intellectual force within the Democratic Party, particularly in his recent discourse on Donald Trump’s eligibility for future presidential ballots. His argument, rooted in constitutional interpretation and democratic principles, offers a compelling perspective on how Trump has, by his actions, disqualified himself from holding the highest office in the land.
Raskin, known for his constitutional acumen, posits that while certain qualifications for the U.S. presidency are beyond an individual’s control, such as age and natural-born citizenship, the disqualification for insurrection is a choice. This distinction is crucial in understanding the democratic implications of Trump’s eligibility. Unlike the immutable characteristics of age or birthplace, engaging in insurrection is a deliberate act that, in Trump’s case, has self-imposed consequences regarding his fitness for the presidency.
We should note that Raskin knows of whence he speaks. He was a constitutional law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law for over 25 years. He is also the author of Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court versus the American People, We the Students: Supreme Court Cases For and About America’s Students, and Unthinkable Trauma, Truth and the Trials of American Democracy.
The January 6th insurrection, a dark day in American history, marked a pivotal moment where Trump’s actions aligned with the constitutional definition of an insurrectionist. As Raskin articulates, this designation is not merely a theoretical exercise but a practical impediment to Trump’s eligibility for future presidential runs. In its wisdom, the Constitution anticipates such scenarios, allowing for the disqualification of individuals who betray the foundational principles of democracy and the rule of law.
The comparison drawn by Raskin between the natural disqualifications and that of engaging in insurrection underscores the democratic nature of the latter. While one cannot choose one’s birthplace or the passage of time, one can certainly choose to uphold or subvert democratic norms and values. In this light, Trump’s actions on and leading up to January 6th represent a conscious decision to undermine the democratic process, thereby rendering him constitutionally ineligible for future presidential candidacy.
Raskin’s argument gains further weight considering the broader democratic implications. As the only national office representing all Americans, the presidency demands a holder who embodies the nation’s democratic ideals. Allowing someone who has actively worked against these principles to contend for or hold this office again would not only be a disservice to the Constitution but also to the democratic ethos of the nation.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s potential involvement in this matter underscores the urgency and complexity of ensuring the integrity of presidential qualifications. As Raskin notes, the Court’s decision could significantly impact the democratic fabric of the nation. It’s not merely a legal decision but a statement of the values and principles that define American democracy.
This discourse is crucial not only for legal and political scholars but also for the general public. It serves as a reminder of each citizen’s responsibility in safeguarding democracy. The actions and decisions of public figures, particularly those as influential as a former president, set precedents that shape the nation’s democratic health.
Representative Jamie Raskin’s insights into the democratic disqualification of Donald Trump from future presidential ballots provide a nuanced and constitutionally grounded perspective. It highlights the intersection between individual actions and democratic principles, emphasizing the responsibility of each citizen, especially those in positions of power, to uphold the tenets of democracy. His argument is a clarion call for vigilant citizenship and a reminder of the fragility and preciousness of democratic institutions.
For those who believe disqualifying the president from the ballot would create chaos, let’s be clear: the former president drew first blood. Noting that there is a distinct possibility he will lose in a popular vote landslide in 2024, it is clear that under all circumstances, he will be reactionary. As such, the country must abide by the Constitution.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
Support Our Politics Done Right Store
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
