To the editor: I heard an excellent argument made by a Yale history professor who suggested that we live by the rule of law or by fear.
Many fear that violence could occur if former President Trump is disqualified from the 2024 election. That is the modus operandi of dictators: creating fear.
The US Supreme Court, which heard arguments Thursday in Trump's disqualification case, must rule in accordance with the law. If judges allow themselves to be governed by fear, a century or two from now historians will look back on this period and laugh at how this democracy was destroyed by ridiculously twisted interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
We cannot allow ourselves to be dominated by fear.
Zena Thorpe, Chatsworth
..
To the editor: Those calling for Trump's disqualification from the election speak as if this is the only way Democrats can win in 2024: that the only path to victory is for a small group of judges to reinstate President Biden.
Has anyone thought about the political consequences of half the country seeing Biden as an illegitimate president?
Ray Hogenson, Valley of the Sun
..
To the editor: We don't need to rely on the Supreme Court to stop Trump from becoming president. We just need to trust ourselves.
In California, all registered Republicans can vote in the Republican presidential primary. If you are not yet a registered Republican, you can easily change your party affiliation by re-registering by March 5.
An overwhelming turnout by Republican candidate Nikki Haley in California (and all remaining primary states) could ultimately succeed in denying Trump the Republican nomination.
Helene Presskreischer, Needham, Massachusetts.
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court's analysis of the 14th Amendment, although there is nothing to analyze and it is written so clearly that even we humble citizens can understand it, sheds light on the cowardice of the judges.
Cloaked in the argument that a state, following the words of our Constitution and acting in good faith, could somehow lead the federal government and the country by the nose, the justices virtually ignored the textbook example of the need to the 14th Amendment that presents this case.
This is terrifying.
Martin Wauson, Anaheim
..
To the editor: It seems that many people are missing what seems to be the logical conclusion of the intent of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It seems to me that this is the “if you fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, it's my fault,” he rules.
It does not change any of the qualifications required by the Constitution to hold these government positions; rather, it adds an exception for a very specific and potentially dangerous situation.
In the case of the office of president, the Constitution does not exclude someone who has been arrested or convicted of a crime and is even in prison. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not change that.
Rather, it applies only to those who took an oath to the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection or rebellion against it. It is a matter of honor and integrity. The Constitution allows people to hold positions of great power and only requires that officials fulfill their oaths.
However, this disqualification is not even the final word, as the amendment allows someone to petition Congress to remove the restriction. What other criminal or civil proceedings offer that type of relief?
Bill Lawrence, Hawthorne
..
To the editor: Oral arguments at the Supreme Court indicate that the justices' likely excuse for allowing Trump to evade the consequences of participating in an insurrection will be the specious argument that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing but requires Congress to approve procedures to enforce the law.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this position, consider how the Supreme Court would approach Barack Obama's candidacy for the presidency for a third term. Would the court allow this obvious violation of the 22nd Amendment because Congress failed to enact legislation supporting it?
John Weinell, San Clemente
..
To the editor: If Trump says that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to him because the president is not an “official” of the US, and the amendment does not explicitly mention the president, then the same argument can be made regarding to Article VI of the 14th Amendment. the Constitution.
The final clause of Article VI says that all federal and state legislators and judicial and executive officers are bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for holding any “public office or office under the United States.” Joined”. USA”.
So if Article VI also does not involve the presidency, then Trump or any other president can be subjected to a religious test.
Trump’s “official” argument seems pretty absurd.
Rubén Jáuregui, Hacienda Heights
..
To the editor: Of course, the president is an “official” under our Constitution. In fact, the president is the highest officer in the United States: the commander in chief.
Jerry Rubin, Santa Monica
