To the editor: I couldn't disagree more with your editorial's argument that the U.S. Supreme Court was right to keep former President Trump on the ballot.
One of the first things one learns in law school is that if the meaning of a law is clear at first glance, then that is what one should follow. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who have violated their oath to the Constitution from holding public office, could not be clearer, especially when considered in its historical context.
However, the cafeteria constitutionalists of the United States Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision and struck down that plain meaning. The judges were charged with overturning the plain language of a provision of the Constitution.
Forget the constitutionally required amendment process: they don't care. They are the Supremes, working assiduously to achieve a zero approval rating, while tearing down democracy with them.
What a shameful and heartbreaking time to be an American.
Sara R. Nichols, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The Times editorial board praises the Supreme Court's decision to keep the former president on the Colorado ballot, saying the “primary consequence of the decision is to strengthen democracy.”
The editorial also reminds us that it almost destroyed democracy with the events of January 6, 2021.
The Times misses the point of this “once obscure” section of the 14th Amendment. The way to strengthen democracy is to not allow those who have shown disdain for it to hold public office.
Bill Seibel, Glendora
