Yes, we Coloradans have been pummeling Gov. Polis' office with letters, phone calls and emails telling him to NOT pardon that....(insert expletive here), she expressed NO remorse and said she would do it again. We - the entire WORLD - are so tired, exhausted and fed up with all of this MAGA crap! That being said, we still have to keep going and fight back at every turn or we will lose our democracy and possibly witness World War 3.
I hate to say this but he should not pardon her because it will give the appearance of a governor submitting to the corrupt behavior of the President. Had Trump kept his nose out of it and quietly advocated for her release on humanitarian grounds (if he REALLY cared) then the Governor MIGHT consider a commutation (not a pardon) Trump, by declaring her to be a victim of a political witch-hunt and demanding her release through threats and even claiming he can pardon her himself, has made the choice to pardon impossible. He could also put off the commutation until his last day in office in January 2027. But only on humanitarian grounds.
I agree with the general thrust of this article, but it rests on a serious conceptual confusion that undermines the entire point.
You repeatedly use the term “liberal democracy” as if its components are synonymous. But liberalism refers to a system of government constrained by individual rights and the rule of law. Democracy refers to rule by popular majority. These concepts don't go together. This confusion then carries through to your conclusion.
You urge readers to “Stand Firm for Law and Democracy,” but in a democracy the law reflects the will of the majority. Trump is the popularly elected representative of that majority. If democracy is what you're advocating, then you should be urging the governor to follow Trump's instructions.
The word "liberal" serves as a qualifier for the model of "democracy" we defend. It's the kind of democratic system that is compatible with certain core liberal principles—such as the countermajoritarian protections in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional amendments against majority rule undoing key individual rights.
But America is not any kind of democracy. It's a rights-protecting republic. That's what liberal means.
And putting "democracy" in front of liberal doesn't act as a qualifier, it creates a contradiction in terms. Liberal and democracy are two opposing political systems.
It's like saying "freedom dictatorship," with the explanation being that the word "freedom acts as a qualifier..."
Trump is not the "popularly elected representative of that majority." The Electoral College is undemocratic by design. He also failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote.
I'm tired of reading how the Democrats got shellacked last election. It was a razor-thin win, once again decided by a few thousand votes in "battleground" states. The Senate majority is not large. The House majority was even slimmer, and has eroded since.
The fact is, Trump and the Republicans barely eked out a win this last election cycle. Unfortunately they're governing like they have a large electoral mandate. To be fair, Biden and the Democrats behaved in exactly the same way after 2020. These are the time we get to live in.
Whether Trump won by a landslide or by a hair isn’t actually relevant to my point (I believe he won the popular vote 49.8% to 48.3%). The issue is more fundamental.
Liberalism and democracy aren’t synonymous. Liberalism is about legal constraining government specifically to the function of protecting individual rights. Democracy is about who holds power. So, terms like "liberal democracy" don't make any sense.
Yes, the EC is undemocratic by design, and so are many core features of our system. That's the point. America is not a democracy.
Separation of powers, constitutional limits, and even voting representatives to Congress exist precisely to limit government to protecting individual rights. This is informed by political philosophy, not voting.
The issue we face in politics today is a crisis of expertise. Many political professionals no longer understand, nor defend, the philosophical foundations of the system they operate within. Instead, they blame voters and place their faith in procedural fixes, as if voting can solve what are essentially problems of knowledge and skills among the political class.
This means there's effectively no serious opposition to MAGA, or authoritarianism in general.
The CO Appellate Court has brought up several issues with how Peters was adjudicated. Further, CO has refused to provide DOJ with demanded historical election data and CO SoS Griswold is being sued. CO Supreme Court ruled to have POTUS candidate Trump removed from the CO state ballot only to have SCOTUS overturn this decision. CO needs to accept that they are ONE STATE and need to comply with federal law too.
The Supreme Court has erred before and they may have erred on this. However as practical matter Congress has failed to provide enabling legislation that would clarify how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be applied. Personally I think it (Section 3) has to do with seating and not electing. The House and Senate CAN refuse to swear in and seat a person whom they believe qualifies under Section 3 and that is how the section was applied in 1919 to Victor Berger--- The Supreme Court overturned that in 1921.
I don't think the Section ever contemplated the need for applying this to the office of the President because their imagination was incapable of envisioning a corrupt criminal like Trump ever being elected to office. The concern was for Congressional representatives and cabinet officers where Congress has power to refuse either to seat a Congressperson or refuse to confirm a cabinet appointee or the federal courts.
As it stands it remains up to every state to decide who qualifies for appearing on their ballot. In the case of Colorado and Maine it would have meant that Trump would have become a write-in candidate. Inconvenient but not an insurmountable obstacle to winning the election.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Trump v. Anderson (March 4, 2024) that states cannot remove a candidate (Donald Trump) from their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, deciding only Congress has the authority. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. Trump was never charged, tried nor convicted of insurrection. Further, for the charge of "insurrection" (18 U.S.C. § 2383) there has to be incitement or engagement in rebellion against the U.S..
And there was. The holding that a state can remove a candidate from the ballot for not paying a ballot access fee but not for being constitutionally ineligible will be treated like Dred Scott and Korematsu by history, the work of the same Court as the immunity holding.
My point being (as of today) states have the power to decide who is and is not on their ballot. They should not have bothered to use Section 3--- then Trump could sue in the state court, gone through the state appellate process, then the federal court, gone through the federal appellate process and then the Supreme Court. SCOTUS would then have decided, not on Section 3, but on whether the states have the authority to bar a candidate from their ballot as long as the criterion used was equally applied. For example a convicted felon, even if convicted in another jurisdiction, may not appear on an election ballot. In Colorado only convicted felons who have completed their sentence (not while their case is being appealed) can run for office. Can a state use that criterion for disallowing someone on the ballot? Is a state duty bound to promote the political interests of a criminally corrupt candidate? The higher duty is to protect the integrity of the entire democratic system of government and not the interests of political parties or craven candidates. Equality before the Law.
The DOJ suing SoS Griswold is a federal matter. The DOJ requesting CO historical election data is a federal matter. Finally, the CO Appellate court sees problems with the Peters prosecution.
Fine. Let the appellate court decide and if they find grounds for her release then release her. Polis should not pardon her until she a least has shown a modicum of regret for her crimes. DOJ suits are not relevant. In fact as a state matter it isn't the business of the DOJ unless they bring it to court and demand discovery. SoS Griswold is under no obligation to assist the DOJ on a fishing expedition until a grand jury has indicted him and a federal subpoena is issued by a judge.
Polis is (a major) part of the CO obstruction of DOJ. Many outside CO see Peters as a whistleblower who is being illegally retaliated against. Further, many of the buried cases regarding the 2020 election results may be resurrected following the recent SCOTUS ruling.
What a demonstration of the opposition party's dangerous weakness in an age of rising authoritarianism. The inability of Ds to bring Polis and Fetterman in line has not gone unnoticed.
Are you at liberty to expound on your firsthand experience with this? I think it could be useful to others to read about how that trust erodes in concrete terms.
Yes, we Coloradans have been pummeling Gov. Polis' office with letters, phone calls and emails telling him to NOT pardon that....(insert expletive here), she expressed NO remorse and said she would do it again. We - the entire WORLD - are so tired, exhausted and fed up with all of this MAGA crap! That being said, we still have to keep going and fight back at every turn or we will lose our democracy and possibly witness World War 3.
I hate to say this but he should not pardon her because it will give the appearance of a governor submitting to the corrupt behavior of the President. Had Trump kept his nose out of it and quietly advocated for her release on humanitarian grounds (if he REALLY cared) then the Governor MIGHT consider a commutation (not a pardon) Trump, by declaring her to be a victim of a political witch-hunt and demanding her release through threats and even claiming he can pardon her himself, has made the choice to pardon impossible. He could also put off the commutation until his last day in office in January 2027. But only on humanitarian grounds.
Just curious: Why do you "hate to say this"?
Poor choice of phrasing and a shift from my intentions as I wrote?
He’s not gonna pardon her. Polis is no bitch.
The Founders would be shocked that Congress is sitting silent. And that's a fundamental error on their part.
I agree with the general thrust of this article, but it rests on a serious conceptual confusion that undermines the entire point.
You repeatedly use the term “liberal democracy” as if its components are synonymous. But liberalism refers to a system of government constrained by individual rights and the rule of law. Democracy refers to rule by popular majority. These concepts don't go together. This confusion then carries through to your conclusion.
You urge readers to “Stand Firm for Law and Democracy,” but in a democracy the law reflects the will of the majority. Trump is the popularly elected representative of that majority. If democracy is what you're advocating, then you should be urging the governor to follow Trump's instructions.
The word "liberal" serves as a qualifier for the model of "democracy" we defend. It's the kind of democratic system that is compatible with certain core liberal principles—such as the countermajoritarian protections in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional amendments against majority rule undoing key individual rights.
But America is not any kind of democracy. It's a rights-protecting republic. That's what liberal means.
And putting "democracy" in front of liberal doesn't act as a qualifier, it creates a contradiction in terms. Liberal and democracy are two opposing political systems.
It's like saying "freedom dictatorship," with the explanation being that the word "freedom acts as a qualifier..."
Yes, America is an indirect democracy. This is pretty well-established.
But what kind of political system are you even trying to describe with that?
Trump is not the "popularly elected representative of that majority." The Electoral College is undemocratic by design. He also failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote.
I'm tired of reading how the Democrats got shellacked last election. It was a razor-thin win, once again decided by a few thousand votes in "battleground" states. The Senate majority is not large. The House majority was even slimmer, and has eroded since.
The fact is, Trump and the Republicans barely eked out a win this last election cycle. Unfortunately they're governing like they have a large electoral mandate. To be fair, Biden and the Democrats behaved in exactly the same way after 2020. These are the time we get to live in.
Whether Trump won by a landslide or by a hair isn’t actually relevant to my point (I believe he won the popular vote 49.8% to 48.3%). The issue is more fundamental.
Liberalism and democracy aren’t synonymous. Liberalism is about legal constraining government specifically to the function of protecting individual rights. Democracy is about who holds power. So, terms like "liberal democracy" don't make any sense.
Yes, the EC is undemocratic by design, and so are many core features of our system. That's the point. America is not a democracy.
Separation of powers, constitutional limits, and even voting representatives to Congress exist precisely to limit government to protecting individual rights. This is informed by political philosophy, not voting.
The issue we face in politics today is a crisis of expertise. Many political professionals no longer understand, nor defend, the philosophical foundations of the system they operate within. Instead, they blame voters and place their faith in procedural fixes, as if voting can solve what are essentially problems of knowledge and skills among the political class.
This means there's effectively no serious opposition to MAGA, or authoritarianism in general.
The CO Appellate Court has brought up several issues with how Peters was adjudicated. Further, CO has refused to provide DOJ with demanded historical election data and CO SoS Griswold is being sued. CO Supreme Court ruled to have POTUS candidate Trump removed from the CO state ballot only to have SCOTUS overturn this decision. CO needs to accept that they are ONE STATE and need to comply with federal law too.
The Supreme Court has erred before and they may have erred on this. However as practical matter Congress has failed to provide enabling legislation that would clarify how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be applied. Personally I think it (Section 3) has to do with seating and not electing. The House and Senate CAN refuse to swear in and seat a person whom they believe qualifies under Section 3 and that is how the section was applied in 1919 to Victor Berger--- The Supreme Court overturned that in 1921.
I don't think the Section ever contemplated the need for applying this to the office of the President because their imagination was incapable of envisioning a corrupt criminal like Trump ever being elected to office. The concern was for Congressional representatives and cabinet officers where Congress has power to refuse either to seat a Congressperson or refuse to confirm a cabinet appointee or the federal courts.
As it stands it remains up to every state to decide who qualifies for appearing on their ballot. In the case of Colorado and Maine it would have meant that Trump would have become a write-in candidate. Inconvenient but not an insurmountable obstacle to winning the election.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Trump v. Anderson (March 4, 2024) that states cannot remove a candidate (Donald Trump) from their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, deciding only Congress has the authority. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. Trump was never charged, tried nor convicted of insurrection. Further, for the charge of "insurrection" (18 U.S.C. § 2383) there has to be incitement or engagement in rebellion against the U.S..
And there was. The holding that a state can remove a candidate from the ballot for not paying a ballot access fee but not for being constitutionally ineligible will be treated like Dred Scott and Korematsu by history, the work of the same Court as the immunity holding.
All of which was noted in my post above.
My point being (as of today) states have the power to decide who is and is not on their ballot. They should not have bothered to use Section 3--- then Trump could sue in the state court, gone through the state appellate process, then the federal court, gone through the federal appellate process and then the Supreme Court. SCOTUS would then have decided, not on Section 3, but on whether the states have the authority to bar a candidate from their ballot as long as the criterion used was equally applied. For example a convicted felon, even if convicted in another jurisdiction, may not appear on an election ballot. In Colorado only convicted felons who have completed their sentence (not while their case is being appealed) can run for office. Can a state use that criterion for disallowing someone on the ballot? Is a state duty bound to promote the political interests of a criminally corrupt candidate? The higher duty is to protect the integrity of the entire democratic system of government and not the interests of political parties or craven candidates. Equality before the Law.
Federal law doesn’t say shit about letting Peters go free. It’s a state matter, Trump and the rest of the feds can go to hell.
The DOJ suing SoS Griswold is a federal matter. The DOJ requesting CO historical election data is a federal matter. Finally, the CO Appellate court sees problems with the Peters prosecution.
Fine. Let the appellate court decide and if they find grounds for her release then release her. Polis should not pardon her until she a least has shown a modicum of regret for her crimes. DOJ suits are not relevant. In fact as a state matter it isn't the business of the DOJ unless they bring it to court and demand discovery. SoS Griswold is under no obligation to assist the DOJ on a fishing expedition until a grand jury has indicted him and a federal subpoena is issued by a judge.
It might be possible for the House or Senate to
Polis is (a major) part of the CO obstruction of DOJ. Many outside CO see Peters as a whistleblower who is being illegally retaliated against. Further, many of the buried cases regarding the 2020 election results may be resurrected following the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Many people are morons and/or sympathetic to traitors. What's your point?
My point is that the Peters issue is far from finished whether Polis pardons or not.
What a demonstration of the opposition party's dangerous weakness in an age of rising authoritarianism. The inability of Ds to bring Polis and Fetterman in line has not gone unnoticed.
Are you at liberty to expound on your firsthand experience with this? I think it could be useful to others to read about how that trust erodes in concrete terms.