The Constitution
Re “Virginia is among states supporting a Supreme Court review of Trump’s ballot eligibility” (Jan. 8): On Thursday the Supreme Court will consider the Colorado Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution’s Article 14, Section 3, that former President Donald Trump is unfit to be president. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said this is “a clear abuse of power,” and that “In the United States, voters must maintain the power to choose their president.”
Voters should first obtain that power. If Trump wins the Electoral College vote this November, he will likely receive, for the third election in a row, fewer votes, by millions, than his opponent. Ah, some respond, that is the wisdom of our Constitution.
So it is with Article 14, Section 3. Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he’s convicted of attempting to overturn his last election defeat, and is virtually certain to falsely claim election fraud and incite violence if he loses again, doesn’t this affirm the wisdom of disqualifying him?
If Trump is convicted, the justices should disqualify him from holding office, but clarify that even an unrepentant felon can seek office. Voters could vote for him, and since Section 3 says Congress can waive the disqualification with a two-thirds vote, choices for Congress can be based on whether they would waive the court’s ruling if Trump wins.
We should respect the wishes of Republican primary voters. If Trump loses again, maybe his party will finally deemphasize MAGA and re-adopt traditional conservative principles. We must employ Section 3 though, because we can’t ignore the parts of the Constitution we find inconvenient.
David Meyerholz, Virginia Beach
Amendments
I hope that the Supreme Court applies the 14th Amendment to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for president again, in the same way that it applied the Second Amendment to increase gun owners’ rights throughout the years.
I believe that the Founding Fathers intended the interpretation of the Constitution to include future events, and it would be hypocritical to not include states that want to remove Trump from running due to his actions on Jan. 6.
Andrew Byrne, Hampton
Blind loyalty
Former President Donald Trump’s multiple indictments and impending trials have not shaken his ironclad grip on the Republican evangelical MAGA base; they just don’t care about his disgusting behavior.
In office, Trump repeatedly lied to the American people, allegedly disclosed highly classified info to the Russians and urged the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden’s son. His disrespect of the Constitution, his taking of classified documents and his incitement of an insurrection are just fine with his base, and these are the reasons why.
They accept his deceptive business dealings and multiple bankruptcies. They are OK with his being found liable for sexual abuse and with having been accused of cheating students at the defunct Trump University. He’s been found liable for fraud. With bravado, he blames Israel for being attacked, considers Russian President Vladimir Putin and other autocrats as excellent leaders, and fails to fully support Ukraine’s fight for democracy.
I totally agree with former Rep. Liz Cheney, “I have said since January 6 that I will do whatever it takes to ensure Donald Trump is never again anywhere near the Oval Office,” according to a Washington Post article. Unfortunately, his base will not hold him accountable; his immoral behavior is irrelevant to them, classic blind loyalty.
David N. Camaione, Virginia Beach
True peace
The world is pushing Israel to again agree to participate in a compromise two-state solution. Is it forgotten that Israel already accepted this position in 1948 while the Arabs rejected it then along with multiple follow-up efforts to trade land for peace.
I reluctantly agree with my Israeli family that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while he was a successful leader in years past, is now acting in his personal self-interest rather than the good of his country, and that he should and will lose power soon. Netanyahu rejects two states, but I reject Netanyahu’s overreach.
While I’m hopeful that the horrible recent suffering on all sides may finally result in a peaceful compromise from the Palestinians, I do not support Israel accepting any major changes until the other side presents real evidence of its readiness to offer full peace in exchange for full control of their own land. This proof will require years of evidence on at least the following issues.
- End the teaching of hatred of Jews and Israelis and the glorification of jihad.
- End the “pay for slay” policy of supporting families whose children have been killed, particularly those who attacked civilians on Oct. 7.
- End the insistence for “the right of return” after Jews were driven out of surrounding Arab states with no expectation of returning.
- Ensure that individual Palestinians in Gaza turn in Hamas fighters and report on the details of all underground tunnels.
I understand that these actions will be hard to achieve, but without these changes why should anyone expect Israel to lower its defenses? I do support a Palestinian state, but only a peaceful one.
Arthur Rosenfeld, Norfolk