Trump appears barred by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from running for president

by

Dispatches

1) David French, “The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong,” New York Times, January 4, 2024;

Analysis

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the following:

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Part of the breakdown in the Rule of Law in the United States is revealed by the number of calls for the Supreme Court to decide the case of Trump’s disqualification to run for president, one way or another, on the basis of political and/or practical arguments.

This reflects the widespread view, not without justification, that the Supreme Court acts on the basis of political considerations in important cases.

The Prime example is its decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 in which it decided the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

The Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court which had found Gore won Florida and with it the electoral votes to become president.

Since the Florida Court’s decision was based in part on Florida law, the Supreme Court could not reverse the decision without basing its decision on a provision in the U.S. Constitution and a Constitutional right based on such a provision.

No such right existed under the Court’s previous ruleings.

So the Supreme Court pulled a rabbit out of the hat, and by tortured reasoning found the Florida Court’s decision violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Moreover, the Court held that its decision, which was based on no precedent, could not be cited as a precedent for the new right it had created out of thin air.

In this manner, the Supreme Court decided the future course of American history.

Think of it: Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan after September 11, 2011, Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush’s use of torture in secret CIA prisons and at Abu Gharib, and much more.

It is not an overstatement to say that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore changed the direction of the United States in history, and not in a good way.

The decision cost the Supreme Court much of its legitimacy and authority in the coming years, as the process of nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices became overtly political.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings or a floor vote on Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, depriving the Democrats of a justice they had nominated who surely would have been confirmed had McCullough not resorted to strong-arm tactics in the Senate to thwart such an outcome.

After Donald Trump became President in 2017, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court. Gorsuch was confirmed in a bitterly partisan vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Let us now hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the Rule of Law by applying the plain text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president in 2024–or ever again.

David French lays out in cogent arguments why the Supreme Court should hold that Trump is barred from running for president by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

It is time to end the politicization of the Supreme Court.  Pulling another rabbit out the hat to ignore Section 3 would destroy what is left of the Court’s legitimacy and authority.

In contrast, a decision based on the plain text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would be a necessary and important step toward restoring the authority of the Court.

Harvard is at fault for Dr. Claudine Gay’s plagiarism and for selecting her as President

by

Dispatches

1) Douglas Murray, “Claudine Gay has exposed the rot at the heart of the woke establishment; The former Harvard president failed to stand up against racism. The BBC and the Left are bizarrely treating her as the victim,” The Telegraph, January 3, 2024 (7:47 pm);

2) Maureen Farrell and Rob Copeland, “How Harvard’s Board Broke Up With Claudine Gay; Facing intense pressure, it went from standing behind her as the university’s president to pushing her out within weeks,” New York Times, January 6, 2024 (7:40 am ET);

UPDATE

3) Jennifer Wilton, “Niall Ferguson (Interview): ‘Dann wird diese Welt überhaupt nicht mehr existieren, sie wird zerfallen,'” Die Welt, den 8. Januar 2024;

4) Jennifer Wilton,”Niall Ferguson (Interview): ‘Then this world will no longer exist at all, it will disintegrate,'” Die Welt, January 8, 2024;

Analysis

The plagiarism charge, and ample evidence of plagiarism, is what forced Claudine’s resignation as President of Harvard University.

Elise Stefanik’s ambush of the presidents of Harvard Penn and M.I.T. on December 12, 2033 revealed what a vile politician Stefanik is, and her utter lack of principle in trying to generate headlines and controversy that will serve the campaign narratives of the authoritarian Republican party controlled by Donald Trump.

Many who opposed Dr. Gay on other grounds joined the mob calling for her ouster.

The Harvard Corporation rightly refused to fire her because she answered Stefanik’s theatical questions with a succinct statement of the Constitutional law of free speech in the U.S.

What were Stefanik and the Republicans doing anyway conducting hearings into the conduct of presidents and administrations at leading private universities in the U.S.?

The plagiarism charge is the one that stuck. It was a clear indictment of the president of Harvard for conduct that could not be ignored–although at first the Corporation did its best to do so.

Israeli compliance with International Law including International Humanitarian Law–and policy of political assassination abroad

by

Adapted and expanded from an article published in The Trencant Observer, on December 1, 2023

Dispatches

1) Dion Nissenbaum”Israel Plans to Kill Hamas Leaders Around the World After War; Nation’s spy agencies have long history of targeted assassinations,” Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2023 (updated 12:06 am ET);

2) “Netanyahu’s references to violent biblical passages raise alarm among critics, NPR Morning Edition, November 7, 2023 (5:09 am ET);

3) Robert Kagan, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending,” Washington Post, November 30, 2023(8:00 a.m. EST);

4) Nicole Hong, “How a Suspected Indian Murder-for-Hire Plot on U.S. Soil Was Foiled; After a murder in Canada, a sting operation, prompted by an explosive tip through an unexpected channel, rushed to prevent another killing, New York Times, December 2, 2023 ( 301 a.m. ET);

Analysis

Nissenbaum refers to international law, but does not elaborate on the topic, which is perhaps understandable given the main thrust of his reporting and the outstanding contribution it makes. He or another Wall Street Journal reporter should address the international law consideration in a subsequent article, taking care to consult experts and authorities from cou tries other than or in addition to Israel and tge United States.

Today he merely mentions the issue, as follows:

Targeted killings abroad can violate international law and run the risk of blowback from nations in which assassins operate without their permission. In practice, however, Israel and others have pursued targeted killings and weathered the repercussions.

Israeli and American officials tend to have idiosyncratic views on the legality of targeted killings or assassinations in foreign countries, as both Israel and tge United States have engaged in such programs. Consequently, the legality of such actions under international law cannot be assessed consulting only officials from those two countries.

To gain an accurate appreciation of tbe requirements of international law and whether Israel is complying with them, reporters need to reach out to international law experts and officials in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico,Colombia, Chile, Nigeria, South Korea, and China.

See James Rowles, “What is International Law? Lesson One: International Law is INTERNATIONAL,” Trenchant Observations (Substack newsletter), November 17, 2023

During the American war in Afghanistan and the U.S. world-wide war on terror, the United States espoused some extreme interpretations of international humanitarian law, used in particular to justify its program of targeted assassinations not only in the war theater of Afghanistan but in far away countries in tge Middle East and Africa.

In Afghanistan, it appears the program of targeted assassination was an important factor in pushing rural populations toward greater sympathy with the Taliban.

U.S. interpretations of international humanitarian law were so extreme that they justified the assassination Al-Awqi in ____! despite the fact that he was a U.S. citizen and entitled to the due process under the Fifth Amendment before being deprived of his life.

See,

1) “U.S. Targeted Assassinations Violate Citizen’s Right to Life and Due Process, Undercut International Law,” The Trenchant Observer,February 3, 2010.

2) “UPDATE: Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes, The Trenchant Observer, August 6, 2010.

The fact that Israel and other countries (e.g., India) feel they can go and assassinate their opponents on foreign soil is in part due to the bad U.S. example and the extreme interpretations of international humanitarian law it has asvanced to justify its targeted killing programs.

The Trenchant Observer

As others see us: Lluis Bassetts of El País offers opinion on If Trump wins”

by

Developing. We are publishing this article as it is being written. Please check back for updates

Dispatches

1) Lluís Bassetts, “Tirana por libre elección popular: Si Trump sale vivo del avispero y llega a la meta, será el presidente con mayor poder de la historia de Estados Unidos, situado por encima de la ley con el aval del Supremo. En tal caso, no sabemos qué será de la Constitución ni de la democracia,” El País, el 20 de diciembre 2023 (23:00 EST);

Analysis

The Trenchant Observer

***

Ist Israels Vorgehen im Gaza-Streifen “verhältnismäßig und vom Völkerrecht gedeckt”?

by

von Dr. James Rowles

Doctor of Juridical Science in International Law (S.J.D.), Harvard University

Ein deutscher Professor hat geschrieben dass “Israels Vorgehen im Gaza-Streifen ist verhältnismäßig und vom Völkerrecht gedeckt.”1 Dr. Matthias Herdegen, ein bekannter Völkerrechtler aus Bonn, soll das Kriegsrecht besser kennen.

Was er geschrieben hat mag gar nicht stimmen.

Bemerkenswert ist die Tatsache dass der Artikel kein Namen des Autors trägt. Das heisst dass diejenigen die an Die Welt etwas über Völkerrecht wissen, jemand wie Clemens Wergin, zum Beispiel, soll nicht im Schreiben des Artikels teilgenommen haben.

Wie ist es möglich dass Die Welt, eine führende Zeitung Deutschlands, so ein Artikel veröffentlicht?

Ohne Zitat anderen Völkerrechtler aus Deutschland oder aus anderen Ländern?

Herdegen hat einfach die Israelishe Linie wiedergespiegelt.

Vom Prinzip von Verhaltnismässigkeit und der Tatsache von ungefähr 20,000 Getötete den Schluss zu ziehen, dass Israels Vorgehen im Gaza-Streifen nicht völkerrechtswidrig sei, ist einfach eigenartig.

Was meinen die anderen Völkerrechtler, besonders die Experten im Kriegsrecht oder das humanitäre Völkerrecht?

Es ist gar nicht so einfach wie Herdegen es präsentiert hat, und als Die Welt, ohne Weiteres, es veröffentlicht hat.

Sehen Sie dazu,

James Rowles, “Israel-Gaza Conflict: Is Israel complying with International Humanitarian Law? Trenchant Observations, November 21, 2023.

James Rowles ist Völkerrechtler, ehemaliger Lecturer on Law an der Universitat Harvard, und Professor von Völkerrecht an anderen Universitäten.

1
Matthias Herdegen, “Israels Vorgehen im Gaza-Streifen verhältnismäßig und vom Völkerrecht gedeckt,” Die Welt, den 16. Dezember, 2023,

The Global South offers disruption, but no new international order

by

1) Sylvie Kauffmann, “Influent et disrupteur, le Sud global défend ses intérêts, mais n’offre pas de modèle alternatif à l’ordre occidental; Les guerres en Ukraine et à Gaza ont fait émerger en 2023 un puissant mouvement de contestation des pays occidentaux et la revendication d’un ordre international plus équitable, relève dans sa chronique Sylvie Kauffmann, éditorialiste au ‘Monde’,” le 20 dêcembre 2023 (modifié à 07h14);

2) Sylvie Kauffmann, “”Influential and disruptive, the global South defends its interests, but does not offer an alternative model to the Western order; The wars in Ukraine and Gaza brought out in 2023 a powerful protest movement by Western countries and the demand for a more equitable international order, notes in her column Sylvie Kauffmann, columnist at “Le Monde’.” December 20, 2023 (Updated at 7:14 a.m.);