:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/HWP2TJ6RBPWPS26MTE7VWXZHEI.jpg)
Regarding the Colorado Supreme Court decision to bar Donald Trump from that state’s primary ballot, Alejandro Lugo’s letter in the Dec. 31 Tribune (“Trump’s disqualification”) clearly expresses why that decision should be upheld.
Many of our nation’s political pundits and TV analysts disagree with this decision, saying those who disapprove of Trump’s behavior should “defeat him at the ballot box.” They say we should “let the people decide.” However, in our country, presidents are not elected by the popular vote; they are elected by the states, each of which is constitutionally authorized to enforce its own electoral procedures, as Colorado has done in this instance.
But if that still doesn’t convince those who cry out that disqualifying a front-running candidate with a big national following is “anti-democratic” and will exacerbate already-intense partisan rancor, I would offer a couple of questions.
Why isn’t Barack Obama running for president? I’m sure there are tens of millions of voters who would support him. The answer is obvious: He has already served two terms and is therefore disqualified under the 22nd Amendment. But wait! Shouldn’t we “let the people decide”?
OK, so that is absurd. Well then, how about someone who has never served as president and has a big national following? How about Taylor Swift?
Oops. She’s only 34 years old and thus disqualified from the presidency under Article II of the Constitution. But look at how popular she is. Must we always abide by mere technicalities?
Clearly, neither Obama nor Swift is qualified to run for president in 2024 — and neither is, to quote the Colorado Supreme Court decision, an “oath-breaking insurrectionist,” which Trump surely is. The 14th Amendment is no less a part of the Constitution than the 22nd Amendment or Article II.
Neither an army of Trump supporters nor an army of poll-obsessed pundits can be allowed to trump the rule of law. Lugo is correct.
— Rick Knight, Brookfield
Fixated on the effects
Ever since the Colorado Supreme Court issued its ruling that the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from its ballot, political pundits have been doing a lot of hand-wringing over the effect this could have on our country. Those effects, they believe, should be enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Colorado’s ruling.
They may be right about the effects, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that effects don’t matter when it comes to upholding the original wording of the Constitution.
For example, look at its recent rulings on the Second Amendment; one of the effects of those decisions is that gun violence has become the leading cause of death of children in this country. Thousands of lives are upended every year by gun violence.
How about abortion? The effect of the court’s 2022 ruling is that half the population of this country has lost autonomy over their own bodies.
The 14th Amendment wording is clear. To not uphold it in Trump’s case because of the effects it might have on our country is hypocrisy of a very high order.
— Ronda Schiess, Oak Park
No limits to divisive politics
I thought we may have reached a point in which politics could not become more divisive; however, the recent actions by Colorado and Maine officials to keep Donald Trump off the Republican presidential primary ballot because he has been accused of involvement in an insurrection shows there are no longer any limits.
If Trump is convicted on related charges, then he should be kept off the ballot, but to take this action before there has been a trial is hard to understand. However, it reveals that there is no end to “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this obvious political stunt. It’s too bad Maine’s overly political secretary of state and Colorado’s Supreme Court cannot be punished for these egregious actions. Maybe then we could restore some faith in our public officials.
— Dan Schuchardt, Glen Ellyn
Consequences of insurrection
The Tribune, as have no doubt all media outlets, has reported on not only the decision of Maine’s secretary of state to disqualify Donald Trump from that state’s ballot but also provided follow-up reporting on threats to her — swatting of her home and even calls for her impeachment.
The same script has come out of Colorado after its high court disqualified Trump. Opposite results have been obtained in other states but without any such ensuing rancor. Isn’t it up to those of us not beguiled by Trump’s actions and rhetoric to insist that physical threats of violence, intimidation and fear can never be the result in a democracy to counter the bedrock commitment to the rule of law as the Colorado high court and Maine’s election official expressed in their decisions?
The battle lines have nonetheless been drawn, pitting the rule of law against the dictates of a despot preaching retribution for those who oppose him as Trump has articulated, but who is costumed as a false idol to all except his supporters.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to enter the fray, let’s hope it decides that a political solution is not the answer to applying constitutionally imposed consequences for insurrectionists seeking public office and that a democracy worth preserving includes not allowing voters to decide whether such individuals should remain on any ballot.
— Miles J. Zaremski, Highland Park
Ye’s mea culpa laughable
We all have said things in anger, frustration or desperation that we regret. Speaking these in the heat of the moment is one thing; writing them is another. You write with intention, with purpose, with reason. You can delete, you can revise, you can edit. Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, did none of these.
Here’s what he did do.
This is the process that Ye had to go through to share his antisemitic thoughts on X, formerly known as Twitter:
1. Go to X.
2. Click on the button to compose a tweet.
3. Compose the tweet.
4. Make sure everything is spelled correctly.
5. Post the tweet.
6. Remain silent for 14 months.
7. Listen to his public relations team, which mentions to him that the tweet probably should be addressed.
8. Concede to his PR team’s points.
9. Offer a tone-deaf, laughable response in Hebrew.
Nine steps. And zero respect for a man who intentionally said what he said, who has said it repeatedly and will undoubtedly say it again.
Go home, Ye. We’re all tired.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
— Rachel Waddick, Highland Park
Celebrating Italian Americans
As an Italian American, I was thrilled to see that Illinois will begin recognizing October as Italian Heritage month. I am now hoping the Christopher Columbus statue will be returned to its location in Little Italy.
Bravo, Springfield!
— Ann DeFronzo, Woodridge
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.