Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Christmas Eve Edition- The Agains

We begin today with Jan-Werner Müller writing for the Guardian and asking whether barring Trump from being on a ballot— any ballot— is undemocratic.

The Colorado supreme court comprehensively refuted Trump’s claims, especially the ones bordering on the absurd. The justices patiently argued that parties cannot make autonomous, let alone idiosyncratic, decisions about who to put on the ballot – by that logic, they could nominate a 10-year-old for the presidency. They also painstakingly took apart the idea that the now famous section three of the 14th amendment covers every imaginable official expectation of the president. In terms clearly tailored to appeal to justices on the US supreme court, they explain that plain language and the intent of the drafters of the amendment suggest that insurrectionists – including ones at the very top – were not supposed to hold office again, unless Congress voted an amnesty with a two-thirds majority. [...]

We know that few Maga supporters will be swayed by the evidence – in fact, the entry ticket to Trump’s personality cult is precisely to deny that very evidence. But it is more disturbing that liberals still think that prudence dictates that Trump should run and just be defeated at the polls. [...]

Some liberals...appear to assume that, were Trump to lose in November 2024, their political nightmare would stop. But someone who has not accepted defeat before, doubled down on the “big lie”, and ramped up authoritarian rhetoric is not likely to just concede. Would the logic then still be that, even if the law says differently, Maga supporters must somehow be appeased?

The only question is: ...are any measures meant to protect democracy but not somehow involving the people as a whole as such illegitimate? Had Trump been impeached and convicted after January 6, would anyone have made the argument that this was the wrong process and that he just should keep running in elections no matter what?

IIRC (and I’m researching this), Section 3 of the 14th Amendment came about because newly re-admitted Southern states sent some of the same Confederate retreads back to the U.S. Congress in 1865 (including former vice-president of the confederacy Alexander Stephens). The Republicans of that time did not want to seat the retreads because they were “unrepentant”  and even considered the idea that they might try insurrection again.

The people’s elected representatives of that time passed a law at the highest possible “level” that a law can be passed: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. How is Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment undemocratic?

Or less democratic than people voting for the same retreads?

Not quite the same ol’ song from 1865. Blurred lines, though.