Is Trump disqualified?

Wednesday, December 20, 2023

Good afternoon,

Here's the agenda today:

UP FIRST: The 14th Amendment question is now unavoidable

CATCH UP: Indigenous activists fight to save Mexico's wintering butterflies

—Dylan Scott, senior correspondent

UP FIRST

Trump vs. the 14th Amendment

Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled late Tuesday that former President Donald Trump can't appear on the state's 2024 presidential ballot. Trump immediately promised to appeal, putting the question of when and why a candidate for the nation's highest office can be disqualified from running on the fast track to the US Supreme Court.

The court's decision was founded in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified shortly after the US Civil War and was initially intended to prevent Confederate politicians and military leaders from assuming new posts in the government they'd rebelled against. It states that anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States cannot hold any civil or military office.

Since those days, the amendment largely laid dormant … until Donald Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election and his supporters stormed the United States Capitol in a violent attempt to realize the outcome that Trump's legal arguments had failed to achieve.

Almost immediately, legal scholars began theorizing that the amendment's plain language disqualified Trump from office. While some suggested that state election officials could simply remove Trump from their ballots unilaterally, none of them agreed to do so. Instead, the issue went to the courts.

Now Colorado's high court has rendered its ruling. In their decision, the state judges openly acknowledged that the controversy will ultimately be settled by the US Supreme Court, which has three justices who were put on the bench by Trump himself. The smartest legal minds in our newsroom are doubtful that a SCOTUS dominated by conservatives would be willing to disqualify the likely Republican presidential nominee from next year's election.

Ultimately, even if we would like to pretend otherwise, this is a political question as much as a legal one. There is little precedent for interpreting the 14th Amendment outside of the Civil War context. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection — at least not yet — and he may never be. If not, how can he be considered an insurrectionist under the Constitution?

And yet, the former president poses a clear and present danger to American democracy: He already tried to reverse one election through extralegal means and some Republicans who saw his administration up close warn he would "unravel the rule of law" if elected again.

So what are we to do? Do we trust in democracy itself to stop him at the ballot box? Or are extraordinary measures necessary to prevent even the possibility that a man as openly hostile to democratic governance as Trump could reclaim the presidency?

It is an impossible question. That was my takeaway from reading Andrew Prokop's thoughtful analysis of the problem. Either option invites catastrophe. Let us briefly review the arguments on both sides.

The case for disqualifying Trump: He already tried to destroy American democracy through his actions on January 6 and if he were to win the presidency again, he's suggested he'd be willing to do worse. The harsh lesson of history is that you cannot simply count on elections to hold the authoritarians at bay: Even if they do win through legitimate means, they will quickly dismantle the system.

The case for not disqualifying Trump: Post WWII, Germany set up a rigorous, trusted system for ensuring dangerous politicians could not seek office. The 14th Amendment is similar in some ways; however, a lack of institutional trust in the federal government could spark a dangerous backlash if Trump is disqualified.

Andrew does not come to any firm conclusion, because our democracy has traveled into unchartered waters. I would not presume to have the answers either. Instead, I would urge you to read Andrew's piece and Ian Millheiser's coming legal analysis in full.

CATCH UP

Indigenous activists fight to save Mexico's wintering butterflies

Texas governor Greg Abbott sitting a speaking into a microphone. Donald Trump stands in the background.

Karlotta Freier for Vox

Mexico's winter home for monarch butterflies is under threat from logging and forest degradation, despite national and international efforts to protect them. So the indigenous community is stepping up, and putting their lives at risk, to do the job that others won't.

Animal migration is a wondrous thing. Just a few months ago, my kids and I were chasing a monarch butterfly through a city park. Today, many butterflies (and maybe even that one) have relocated thousands of miles away, to the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve northwest of Mexico City. It is home to 90 percent of the region's wintering butterfly population and has been declared a UNESCO World Heritage site.

But that precious habitat now finds itself endangered, as Anjan Sundaram writes for Vox in the latest entry in our ongoing climate series.

The number of butterfly roosting sites in Mexico has been cut in half over the past 40 years. Ten percent of all canopy cover was lost between 2001 and 2012. Even as the Mexican government stepped up enforcement, forest degradation still tripled in 2022, according to a World Wildlife Fund analysis.

The local Mazahua Indigenous community has established its own security force. These units are separate from state and national authorities. They have their own bases, all-terrain vehicles, and even weaponry to find and confront illegal loggers.

Environmental defenders face increasing threats of violence. In Mexico, cartel hitmen who benefit from the illegal trade have allied with the loggers who hide in the surrounding forests. Violence does occur: One activist who focused on the butterfly population was found dead in January 2020.

VERBATIM

🗣️ "Actually, it's the one human activity that you engage in for no purpose. Not for some kind of contrived goal that you want to attain and then you'll be happy or whatever. This is a practice for falling awake, so that you actually are living the life that's yours to live in the only moment that you ever have to live it, which we don't usually realize is this one now."

—Jon Kabat-Zinn, author of the 1994 mega-bestseller Wherever You Go, There You Are, on mindfulness and its increasing acceptance in the cultural mainstream. [Vox]

AROUND THE WEB

Hong Kong pro-democracy media tycoon's trial begins. Jimmy Lai, who founded Apple Daily in 1995, has been a consistent critic of the Chinese government. He's been imprisoned since 2020; this week, his trial began, with the possibility that he could be sentenced to life in prison. [BBC]
Age-gap couples say they're happy. So why is it so hard to believe them? A thoughtful exploration of one type of relationship that seems to fascinate and repulse many people in equal measure: the partners with a significant gap in their ages. [The Cut]
Elon Musk is spending a lot of money on private schools in Texas. The world's richest man has plans to open not only a new college, but also a grade school and high school in Austin, in a state that has signaled a strong interest in promoting alternatives to traditional public schools. [Business Insider]