Arnold Schwarzenegger might have been a very good candidate for President of the United States. Yet he was not and is not eligible. Is that anti-democratic? I don’t think so. It might be undemocratic in a sense, but no one seemed to be bothered by it.
Similarly,
30 year olds can’t be president of the US.
Naturalized citizens can’t be president of the US.
Non-citizens of the US can’t be President of the US.
No one seems to think any of the above are problematically anti-democratic. I gather something that is anti-democratic would be something that worked against starting or maintaining a democracy. I take it something undemocratic, by contrast, is simply something not done democratically. All of the above are undemocratic, but not anti-democratic. Their being undemocratic, though, does not seem problematic.
The rules barring Schwarzenegger, 30 year olds, other naturalized citizens, and non-citizens from being president were not democratically decided (well, that would need some qualification, but I put it to the side) but are not rules that work against democracy. They are rules the founders thought necessary to balance democracy with other values—importantly, liberal values as well as the value of sustaining democracy.
I take it those who favor democracy also favor liberal values—we do not want to be able to democratically remove the property, speech, religious, or other liberal rights from any group of people. I take it those who favor democracy also want to sustain democracy—we do not want to be able to democratically end democracy.
Of course, things can be done undemocratically that would be bad. But merely claiming something is undemocratic is simply not sufficient to show that it is bad. (Nor, I think, is claiming something is anti-democratic, but that is not to the point here.)
So, what to make of the Colorado case ruling that Trump could not be on the ballot for president?
The fact is, that for the same reason a naturalized citizen, a non-citizen, and a 30 year old cannot be president, someone who has been found guilty of participating in an insurrection against the United States government cannot be president. I do not think that is anti-democratic or undemocratic in a way that is any more problematic than any of the above. It’s no worse of a limit to democracy than the ineligibility of my 14 year old to be president.
Some might say there is a problem because there is a question of fact. The other cases involve matters of fact; the current case is debatable. I don’t see how that is supposed to work. If the relevant court rules the person in question did take part in insurrection and if the law clearly states a person who takes part in an insurrection cannot be president, the case should be closed. Both of those conditionals have been satisfied in the Colorado case.
Someone might say a court decision ruling that a person took part in insurrection is undemocratic. We don’t, after all, vote on how to settle court cases. The judges’ decision is undemocratic in that rather straightforward way. I suppose people do think this today. It is a strange view, though—at least if it’s meant as a complaint, as I assume it would have to be if it’s a concern.
Does anyone think the people of Wisconsin or Ohio (or the whole of the United States) should have voted to determine the guilt of Jeffery Dahmer? Does anyone think we should have voted to determine the outcome of Bush v. Gore? Of course not. Guilt or innocence is not determined by democratic vote; many legal questions are similarly not well-suited to be determined by democratic vote. Issues of fact are factual or not; courts determine whether they are facts for legal purposes. Eligibility to be President is not determined by vote. The limits imposed by the constitution may be undemocratic, but not in anyway that is problematic.
Granted, the Colorado court that decided Trump took part in an insurrection may have made a mistake. Its decision is nonetheless binding in Colorado. Those that think otherwise should oppose findings of guilt in any criminal case in any court—or at least oppose the imposition of consequences (like prison sentences) in those cases. They don’t though. They should similarly not oppose the Colorado decision on this basis.
I’ll end with a prediction I made a week or so ago on FB: SCOTUS will either not hear or will uphold the Colorado decision. I’ll now add to that: I also think SCOTUS would uphold the decision in Maine (by their Secretary of State) to keep Trump off the ballot there and the decision in California (by their Secretary of State) to keep Trump on the ballot there.
9-0
Sir, as a public servant you should limit your pronouncement to what you know and can be empirically verified. You are not a lawyer. I hope when the SCOTUS rules you would be humble and honest enough to admit your gross error both in facts and logics.