I 2024-02-20 06:30:24.267739+00:00 Params: [('source', 'https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication'), ('target', 'https://brid.gy/publish/mastodon')]
I 2024-02-20 06:30:24.268033+00:00 requests.head https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication {'headers': {}}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:25.149829+00:00 Received 200
I 2024-02-20 06:30:25.264789+00:00 Source: https://brid.gy/mastodon/@portside@mastodon.social , features ['publish', 'listen'], status disabled, poll status ok
I 2024-02-20 06:30:25.265085+00:00 Source: https://brid.gy/mastodon/@portside@portside.social , features ['listen', 'publish'], status enabled, poll status ok
D 2024-02-20 06:30:25.504758+00:00 Publish entity: agdicmlkLWd5cloLEg1QdWJsaXNoZWRQYWdlIjNodHRwczovL3BvcnRzaWRlLm9yZy8yMDI0LTAyLTE4L2hpc3RvcmljLWFiZGljYXRpb24MCxIHUHVibGlzaBiAgPjFo8yECQw
I 2024-02-20 06:30:25.551179+00:00 requests.get https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication {'headers': {}}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:26.229052+00:00 Received 200
D 2024-02-20 06:30:26.352562+00:00 Parsed microformats2: {
"items": [
{
"type": [
"h-entry"
],
"properties": {
"name": [
"A Historic Abdication"
],
"url": [
"https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication"
],
"published": [
"2024-02-18"
],
"content": [
{
"value": "Donald Trump leaving the stage of a watch party for the Nevada Republican caucus on the day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether he should be disqualified from the presidency, Las Vegas, February 8, 2024,Ian Maule/Bloomberg \nThe Supreme Court justices\u2019 responses last Thursday to the oral arguments over Donald Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment were worse than an embarrassment\u2014they were a disgrace. With the partial exception of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the members of the Court appeared woefully ignorant of the historical and constitutional issues before them. They took up in detail the ramifications of an eccentric 1869 circuit court ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase,\u00a0In re Griffin, that Section 3 could not be enforced without congressional approval, overlooking, except briefly and in passing, that in that case Chase flatly contradicted what he had ruled in another trial a year earlier. They fretted over whether the section\u2019s disqualifications applied to the presidency and vice-presidency as offices \u201cunder the United States,\u201d ignoring the explicit evidence from the Senate debates over the amendment in 1866, expressed most directly by Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, that they plainly did.\n\nOver the course of more than two hours of presentations and disputations, gradually it became evident that the justices seem to have no intention of ruling on the meaning of Section 3 and whether it disqualifies Trump. Instead they appear to be casting about for a rationale not to do so. One possibility, which would appeal to the justices across the ideological spectrum, would be to argue that disqualifying Trump would be seen as an act of usurpation, the worst sort of judicial activism, damaging if not ruining the Court\u2019s standing as an independent branch of government. The trouble is that,\u00a0as I have argued in these pages, both the amendment, interpreted on originalist grounds, and the facts of the case could not be clearer in demanding Trump\u2019s disqualification. The justices cannot avoid reaching that conclusion without appealing to some fictive, extraconstitutional principle. In an effort to preserve the Court\u2019s legitimacy, they seem ready to render it illegitimate. Worse still, they may be hastening the constitutional crisis they think they are heading off.\n\nTrump\u2019s able attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, relied heavily on Chase\u2019s ruling but shrewdly backed off from other strong claims made by Trump\u2019s defenders and even by Trump\u2019s own briefs. At one point, for example, he corrected Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by pointing out that there was indeed evidence that the framers of the amendment had the presidency in mind. Even as he stuck to Chase\u2019s reasoning, he took pains to remind the Court that it did contradict Chase\u2019s ruling from the previous year. But in these efforts to establish his own integrity, Mitchell also underscored how unfamiliar nearly all of the justices seem to be with the basic questions raised by the case.\n Share this article on Twitter Facebook Mail\nHad they mastered the relevant history, the justices would have understood that these seemingly evenhanded concessions exposed the groundlessness of Trump\u2019s claims. They would have recognized, above all, that what turned out to be the basis of Mitchell\u2019s argument\u2014Chase\u2019s eccentric, one-off judgement\u2014is not only extraconstitutional but essentially worthless, as the leading experts in the field\u00a0have concluded, in part because of Chase\u2019s earlier opinion. Instead, for the most part they persisted in treating\u00a0In re Griffin\u00a0as a significant precedent, even though, since Chase made the decision from a circuit court, they have no obligation to do so. Justice Brett Kavanaugh clung to\u00a0Griffin\u00a0especially closely as \u201chighly probative\u201d of Section 3\u2019s \u201coriginal public meaning.\u201d Justice Sotomayor, for her part, pushed back strongly against Mitchell\u2019s reliance on the\u00a0Griffin\u00a0case: \u201ca non-precedential decision that relies on policy, doesn\u2019t look at the language, doesn\u2019t look at the history, doesn\u2019t analyze anything than the disruption that such a suit would bring, you want us to credit as precedential?\u201d\n\n*\n\nThe Court seems likeliest to find an escape hatch in a point made by several of the justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito. Justice Elena Kagan stated it most starkly to Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Colorado voters: \u201cI think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president.\u201d Put that way, the question stands to reason; allowing a single state to dictate a presidential election sounds absurd. But the question is both irrelevant and evasive.\n\nUnder Article II of the Constitution, the states have the power to decide how electors for the presidency are to be chosen. Candidates for the presidency must meet any number of state-dictated requirements before earning a spot on the ballot. These include whether the candidate is actually qualified to hold the office under the state and federal constitutions. Individual states clearly, then, have the authority to bar any unqualified candidate, including, under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, an insurrectionist who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution. To deny the states that authority would be an extraordinary imposition of federal power. In the words of one\u00a0amicus brief\u00a0submitted by, among others, the Republican Party\u2019s longtime chief legal counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, if the Court were to rule \u201cthat Colorado was powerless to make a judicially-reviewable, pre-election decision concerning Mr. Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3,\u201d it \u201cwould turn our federalist election system upside down.\u201d\n\nThe phrase \u201cjudicially reviewable\u201d is central to the Court\u2019s evasion. Any state supreme court\u2019s decision to disqualify a presidential candidate can, of course, be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Ever since the John Marshall Court\u2019s landmark ruling in\u00a0Martin\u00a0v.\u00a0Hunter\u2019s Lessee\u00a0in 1816, the Court has assumed that its authority under the Constitution extends to adjudicating state rulings on federal law. Once it agreed to hear Trump\u2019s appeal on the Colorado ruling, the Court was fully empowered to decide whether that ruling should stand, above and beyond affirming the state\u2019s authority over elections\u2014that is, to decide the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\nMurray made the point explicitly in reply to Justice Kagan\u2019s skepticism about whether a single state should decide the presidency: \u201cNo, your honor, because ultimately it\u2019s this Court that\u2019s going to decide [the] question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.\u201d It appears, however, that this is precisely what the justices have decided not to do. The Court may wish not to be thrust into the middle of a presidential election for the second time in a quarter-century, after the debacle of\u00a0Bush\u00a0v.\u00a0Gore, but the prospect is staring the justices in the face. To decline to meet that responsibility, no matter the fallout, would be a historic abdication.\n\n\n\nIf you like this article, please sign up for Snapshot, Portside's daily summary.\nEmail\n(One summary e-mail a day, you can change anytime, and Portside is always free.)\n Leave this field blank\nIt would also be an invitation to constitutional chaos. To be sure, public discord would certainly ensue if the Court were to rule before the election that Trump, as an insurrectionist, is disqualified for a second term. But that unrest would in all likelihood be mild compared to what would follow if Trump were disqualified after being elected. The amicus brief spells out several possible scenarios. Were Trump to win the election, it is almost certain that members of Congress would try to have him declared unfit to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted in 2021 to, respectively, impeach and remove Trump over the insurrection, it is possible that such an effort might succeed. But even if it failed, the effort would invite serious political instability and turmoil between Election Day and Inauguration Day. By failing to rule now, the Court could lay the groundwork for future catastrophe.\n\nSean Wilentz is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton. His books include\u00a0No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation\u2019s Founding. (February 2024)\n\nThe New York Review of Books\u00a0has established itself, in\u00a0Esquire\u2019s words, as \u201cthe premier literary-intellectual magazine in the English language.\u201d\u00a0The New York Review\u00a0began during the New York publishing strike of 1963, when its founding editors, Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein, and their friends, decided to create a new kind of magazine\u2014one in which the most interesting and qualified minds of our time would discuss current books and issues in depth. Just as importantly, it was determined that the\u00a0Review\u00a0should be an independent publication; it began life as an independent editorial voice and it remains independent today.\u00a0Subscribe to New York Review of Books.\n Donald Trump Supreme Court Fourteenth Amendment elections Subscribe to Portside",
"lang": "en",
"html": "<div class=\"expanded-article-image-wrapper\">\n<img alt=\"\" class=\"expanded-article-image u-photo img-responsive\" height=\"410\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/TrumpLeavingTheStage-ic-2-18-2024.jpg\" width=\"615\"/>\n<div class=\"article-image-credit\">\n Donald Trump leaving the stage of a watch party for the Nevada Republican caucus on the day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether he should be disqualified from the presidency, Las Vegas, February 8, 2024,Ian Maule/Bloomberg\n </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"full-article-text-wrapper\">\n<p>The Supreme Court justices\u2019 responses last Thursday to the oral arguments over Donald Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment were worse than an embarrassment\u2014they were a disgrace. With the partial exception of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the members of the Court appeared woefully ignorant of the historical and constitutional issues before them. They took up in detail the ramifications of an eccentric 1869 circuit court ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase,\u00a0<em>In re Griffin</em>, that Section 3 could not be enforced without congressional approval, overlooking, except briefly and in passing, that in that case Chase flatly contradicted what he had ruled in another trial a year earlier. They fretted over whether the section\u2019s disqualifications applied to the presidency and vice-presidency as offices \u201cunder the United States,\u201d ignoring the explicit evidence from the Senate debates over the amendment in 1866, expressed most directly by Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, that they plainly did.</p>\n<p>Over the course of more than two hours of presentations and disputations, gradually it became evident that the justices seem to have no intention of ruling on the meaning of Section 3 and whether it disqualifies Trump. Instead they appear to be casting about for a rationale not to do so. One possibility, which would appeal to the justices across the ideological spectrum, would be to argue that disqualifying Trump would be seen as an act of usurpation, the worst sort of judicial activism, damaging if not ruining the Court\u2019s standing as an independent branch of government. The trouble is that,\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/02/22/the-case-for-disqualification-trump-sean-wilentz/\" target=\"_blank\">as I have argued in these pages</a>, both the amendment, interpreted on originalist grounds, and the facts of the case could not be clearer in demanding Trump\u2019s disqualification. The justices cannot avoid reaching that conclusion without appealing to some fictive, extraconstitutional principle. In an effort to preserve the Court\u2019s legitimacy, they seem ready to render it illegitimate. Worse still, they may be hastening the constitutional crisis they think they are heading off.</p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s able attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, relied heavily on Chase\u2019s ruling but shrewdly backed off from other strong claims made by Trump\u2019s defenders and even by Trump\u2019s own briefs. At one point, for example, he corrected Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by pointing out that there was indeed evidence that the framers of the amendment had the presidency in mind. Even as he stuck to Chase\u2019s reasoning, he took pains to remind the Court that it did contradict Chase\u2019s ruling from the previous year. But in these efforts to establish his own integrity, Mitchell also underscored how unfamiliar nearly all of the justices seem to be with the basic questions raised by the case.</p>\n<div class=\"links inline social-buttons-links tokens\" id=\"block-socialsimpleblock\">\n<div class=\"social-buttons\">\n<div class=\"social-buttons-title\">Share this article on</div>\n<ul class=\"links\">\n<li class=\"twitter\"><a data-placement=\"top\" data-popup-height=\"300\" data-popup-width=\"600\" data-toggle=\"tooltip\" href=\"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?url=https%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&amp;text=A%20Historic%20Abdication\" title=\"Twitter\"><i class=\"fa fa-twitter\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Twitter</span></a></li>\n<li class=\"facebook\"><a data-placement=\"top\" data-popup-height=\"300\" data-popup-width=\"600\" data-toggle=\"tooltip\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication\" title=\"Facebook\"><i class=\"fa fa-facebook\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Facebook</span></a></li>\n<li class=\"mail\"><a data-popup-open=\"false\" href=\"mailto:?body=%0AA%20Historic%20Abdication%0Ahttps%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&amp;subject=A%20Historic%20Abdication\" title=\"Mail\"><i class=\"fa fa-envelope\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Mail</span></a></li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n</div>\n<p>Had they mastered the relevant history, the justices would have understood that these seemingly evenhanded concessions exposed the groundlessness of Trump\u2019s claims. They would have recognized, above all, that what turned out to be the basis of Mitchell\u2019s argument\u2014Chase\u2019s eccentric, one-off judgement\u2014is not only extraconstitutional but essentially worthless, as the leading experts in the field\u00a0<a href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751\" target=\"_blank\">have concluded</a>, in part because of Chase\u2019s earlier opinion. Instead, for the most part they persisted in treating\u00a0<em>In re Griffin</em>\u00a0as a significant precedent, even though, since Chase made the decision from a circuit court, they have no obligation to do so. Justice Brett Kavanaugh clung to\u00a0<em>Griffin</em>\u00a0especially closely as \u201chighly probative\u201d of Section 3\u2019s \u201coriginal public meaning.\u201d Justice Sotomayor, for her part, pushed back strongly against Mitchell\u2019s reliance on the\u00a0<em>Griffin</em>\u00a0case: \u201ca non-precedential decision that relies on policy, doesn\u2019t look at the language, doesn\u2019t look at the history, doesn\u2019t analyze anything than the disruption that such a suit would bring, you want us to credit as precedential?\u201d</p>\n<p>*</p>\n<p>The Court seems likeliest to find an escape hatch in a point made by several of the justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito. Justice Elena Kagan stated it most starkly to Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Colorado voters: \u201cI think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president.\u201d Put that way, the question stands to reason; allowing a single state to dictate a presidential election sounds absurd. But the question is both irrelevant and evasive.</p>\n<p>Under Article II of the Constitution, the states have the power to decide how electors for the presidency are to be chosen. Candidates for the presidency must meet any number of state-dictated requirements before earning a spot on the ballot. These include whether the candidate is actually qualified to hold the office under the state and federal constitutions. Individual states clearly, then, have the authority to bar any unqualified candidate, including, under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, an insurrectionist who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution. To deny the states that authority would be an extraordinary imposition of federal power. In the words of one\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/297014/20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsberg.Hasen.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">amicus brief</a>\u00a0submitted by, among others, the Republican Party\u2019s longtime chief legal counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, if the Court were to rule \u201cthat Colorado was powerless to make a judicially-reviewable, pre-election decision concerning Mr. Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3,\u201d it \u201cwould turn our federalist election system upside down.\u201d</p>\n<p>The phrase \u201cjudicially reviewable\u201d is central to the Court\u2019s evasion. Any state supreme court\u2019s decision to disqualify a presidential candidate can, of course, be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Ever since the John Marshall Court\u2019s landmark ruling in\u00a0<em>Martin\u00a0</em>v.<em>\u00a0Hunter\u2019s Lessee</em>\u00a0in 1816, the Court has assumed that its authority under the Constitution extends to adjudicating state rulings on federal law. Once it agreed to hear Trump\u2019s appeal on the Colorado ruling, the Court was fully empowered to decide whether that ruling should stand, above and beyond affirming the state\u2019s authority over elections\u2014that is, to decide the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p>\n<p>Murray made the point explicitly in reply to Justice Kagan\u2019s skepticism about whether a single state should decide the presidency: \u201cNo, your honor, because ultimately it\u2019s this Court that\u2019s going to decide [the] question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.\u201d It appears, however, that this is precisely what the justices have decided not to do. The Court may wish not to be thrust into the middle of a presidential election for the second time in a quarter-century, after the debacle of\u00a0<em>Bush\u00a0</em>v.<em>\u00a0Gore</em>, but the prospect is staring the justices in the face. To decline to meet that responsibility, no matter the fallout, would be a historic abdication.</p>\n<p></p><div class=\"snapshot-mini-form tokens\" data-drupal-selector=\"snapshot-mini-form\" id=\"block-portsidelistservnewslettersubscribeminiform\">\n<form accept-charset=\"UTF-8\" action=\"#snapshot-mini-form\" class=\"form-horizontal\" id=\"snapshot-mini-form\" method=\"post\">\n<p class=\"helper-text\">If you like this article, please sign up for Snapshot, Portside's daily summary.</p><div class=\"subscribe-oneline\"><div class=\"row form-group js-form-item form-item js-form-type-email form-type-email js-form-item-email-address form-item-email-address\">\n<label class=\"col-sm-2 control-label js-form-required form-required\" for=\"edit-email-address\">Email</label>\n<div class=\"form--email col-sm-10 col-lg-8\">\n<input aria-required=\"true\" class=\"form-email required form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-email-address\" id=\"edit-email-address\" maxlength=\"64\" name=\"email_address\" required=\"required\" size=\"64\" type=\"email\" value=\"\"/>\n</div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"form-group\">\n<input class=\"btn-wide button js-form-submit form-submit btn-portside\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-submit\" id=\"edit-submit\" name=\"op\" type=\"submit\" value=\"Subscribe\"/>\n</div>\n</div><input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-list-name\" name=\"list_name\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"PORTSIDE-SNAPSHOT\"/>\n<p class=\"helper-text\">(One summary e-mail a day, you can <a href=\"https://portside.org/subscribe\">change anytime</a>, and Portside is always free.)</p><input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-honeypot-time\" name=\"honeypot_time\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"OynbzxED18b9WewS6_vEEtp4TBW6ran7r3rk2sJ7OGU\"/>\n<input autocomplete=\"off\" class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"form-givoh5msls7zeqjzoylzejat6dgjwegks8yyqsmeivc\" name=\"form_build_id\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"form-GIvOH5MSls7ZEqJzoYlZEJaT6dgjwegkS8YyQsmEIvc\"/>\n<input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-snapshot-mini-form\" name=\"form_id\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"snapshot_mini_form\"/>\n<div class=\"zip-textfield js-form-wrapper form-wrapper\" style=\"display: none !important;\"><div class=\"row form-group js-form-item form-item js-form-type-textfield form-type-textfield js-form-item-zip form-item-zip\">\n<label class=\"col-sm-2 control-label\" for=\"edit-zip\">Leave this field blank</label>\n<div class=\"form--textfield col-sm-10 col-lg-8\">\n<input autocomplete=\"off\" class=\"form-text form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-zip\" id=\"edit-zip\" maxlength=\"128\" name=\"zip\" size=\"20\" type=\"text\" value=\"\"/>\n</div>\n</div>\n</div>\n</form>\n</div>\n<p>It would also be an invitation to constitutional chaos. To be sure, public discord would certainly ensue if the Court were to rule before the election that Trump, as an insurrectionist, is disqualified for a second term. But that unrest would in all likelihood be mild compared to what would follow if Trump were disqualified after being elected. The amicus brief spells out several possible scenarios. Were Trump to win the election, it is almost certain that members of Congress would try to have him declared unfit to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted in 2021 to, respectively, impeach and remove Trump over the insurrection, it is possible that such an effort might succeed. But even if it failed, the effort would invite serious political instability and turmoil between Election Day and Inauguration Day. By failing to rule now, the Court could lay the groundwork for future catastrophe.</p>\n<hr/>\n<p><strong>Sean Wilentz </strong>is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton. His books include\u00a0<em>No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation\u2019s Founding</em>. (February 2024)</p>\n<p><em><strong>The New York Review of Books</strong>\u00a0has established itself, in\u00a0Esquire\u2019s words, as \u201cthe premier literary-intellectual magazine in the English language.\u201d\u00a0The New York Review\u00a0began during the New York publishing strike of 1963, when its founding editors, Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein, and their friends, decided to create a new kind of magazine\u2014one in which the most interesting and qualified minds of our time would discuss current books and issues in depth. Just as importantly, it was determined that the\u00a0Review\u00a0should be an independent publication; it began life as an independent editorial voice and it remains independent today.\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.nybooks.com/about/subscription-rates/\">Subscribe to New York Review of Books.</a></em></p>\n</div>\n<div>\n<span class=\"hidden\"><a href=\"https://brid.gy/publish/twitter\"></a></span><span class=\"hidden\"><a href=\"https://brid.gy/publish/mastodon\"></a></span><div class=\"node_view\"></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tags\">\n<ul class=\"tags\">\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/donald-trump\" hreflang=\"en\">Donald Trump</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/supreme-court\" hreflang=\"en\">Supreme Court</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/fourteenth-amendment\" hreflang=\"en\">Fourteenth Amendment</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/elections\" hreflang=\"en\">elections</a></li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n<div class=\"buttons-article-end\">\n<div class=\"subscribe-article-end\">\n<a class=\"btn btn-primary\" href=\"https://portside.org/subscribe\">Subscribe to Portside</a>\n</div>\n</div>"
}
],
"photo": [
{
"value": "https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/TrumpLeavingTheStage-ic-2-18-2024.jpg",
"alt": ""
}
]
},
"children": [
{
"type": [
"h-category"
],
"properties": {
"name": [
"Donald Trump"
],
"url": [
"https://portside.org/donald-trump"
]
},
"lang": "en"
},
{
"type": [
"h-category"
],
"properties": {
"name": [
"Supreme Court"
],
"url": [
"https://portside.org/supreme-court"
]
},
"lang": "en"
},
{
"type": [
"h-category"
],
"properties": {
"name": [
"Fourteenth Amendment"
],
"url": [
"https://portside.org/fourteenth-amendment"
]
},
"lang": "en"
},
{
"type": [
"h-category"
],
"properties": {
"name": [
"elections"
],
"url": [
"https://portside.org/elections"
]
},
"lang": "en"
}
],
"lang": "en"
}
],
"rels": {
"canonical": [
"https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication"
],
"alternate": [
"https://portside.org/node/33458?_format=activity_json"
],
"icon": [
"https://portside.org/themes/popeye/favicon.ico"
],
"stylesheet": [
"https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css",
"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/css/css_rNeKn1LRXiQXZREdP0YhHXZrM2cD8f4LNccKSkBzYUo.css?delta=1&language=en&theme=popeye&include=eJxdjlGOwzAIRC_k1EeKcMx6aYixzGSzvn2jSmm7-4PgMdK8ZeUssD5LzVyR1JY1fuyhmBXlmSrpgCwe_4Pgw8FbTOQcmjUeHItaIp0cQ6WWi35ZhV8HDgG4T4fkwgg_wofH57xtlnflP4ju9BscBPGnRO57I729SWhdKigpx1NdMKazeT3lbBHS2WVr5yvtgNWXQ7MOl8xhr-Lf1K_AA5skbbY",
"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/css/css_4zPkfZxHgw2OcfGDcpsKq-yWFUdzfy1V4Cf3-HComZU.css?delta=2&language=en&theme=popeye&include=eJxdjlGOwzAIRC_k1EeKcMx6aYixzGSzvn2jSmm7-4PgMdK8ZeUssD5LzVyR1JY1fuyhmBXlmSrpgCwe_4Pgw8FbTOQcmjUeHItaIp0cQ6WWi35ZhV8HDgG4T4fkwgg_wofH57xtlnflP4ju9BscBPGnRO57I729SWhdKigpx1NdMKazeT3lbBHS2WVr5yvtgNWXQ7MOl8xhr-Lf1K_AA5skbbY",
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans+Condensed:300,300italic,700&display=swap",
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:400,300,300italic,400italic,600,600italic,700,700italic,800,800italic&display=swap",
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Patua+One&display=swap",
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Hind:400,300,500,600,700|Oxygen:400,300,700|Cuprum:400,400italic,700,700italic|Rubik:400,300,300italic,400italic,500italic,500,700,700italic,900italic,900|Istok+Web:400,700,400italic,700italic|Pontano+Sans&display=swap"
],
"me": [
"https://twitter.com/PortsideOrg",
"https://mastodon.social/@portside"
],
"home": [
"https://portside.org/"
],
"bookmark": [
"https://portside.org/2024-02-19/billionaire-bully-who-wants-turn-texas-christian-theocracy",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/friday-nite-videos-february-16-2024",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/donald-trump-ordered-pay-over-350m-new-york-financial-fraud-case",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/things-should-cant-be-said-us-leaders-still-delusional-despite-israels-genocidal-assault",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/warn-voters-about-radicalism-beyond-trump",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-08/super-bowl-ads-promote-israel",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-10/troubadour-1960s-new-left-celebrated-new-exhibit-woody-guthrie-museum",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/tens-thousands-workers-florida-have-just-lost-their-labor-unions-more-coming",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-10/america-not-democracy",
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/what-legendary-historian-tells-us-about-contempt-todays-working-class"
],
"noopener": [
"mailto:?subject=A Historic Abdication&body=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"https://toot.karamoff.dev/?text=A Historic Abdication%0dhttps://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"https://facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?text=A Historic Abdication&url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"https://www.tumblr.com/widgets/share/tool?posttype=link&title=A Historic Abdication&caption=Portside&content=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&canonicalUrl=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&shareSource=tumblr_share_button",
"https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&media=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&description=A Historic Abdication",
"https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&title=A Historic Abdication&summary=Portside&source=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"https://reddit.com/submit/?url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&resubmit=true&title=A Historic Abdication",
"https://www.xing.com/app/user?op=share;url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication;title=A Historic Abdication",
"https://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&t=A Historic Abdication"
]
},
"rel-urls": {
"https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"canonical"
]
},
"https://portside.org/node/33458?_format=activity_json": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"alternate"
],
"type": "application/activity+json"
},
"https://portside.org/themes/popeye/favicon.ico": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"icon"
],
"type": "image/vnd.microsoft.icon"
},
"https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/css/css_rNeKn1LRXiQXZREdP0YhHXZrM2cD8f4LNccKSkBzYUo.css?delta=1&language=en&theme=popeye&include=eJxdjlGOwzAIRC_k1EeKcMx6aYixzGSzvn2jSmm7-4PgMdK8ZeUssD5LzVyR1JY1fuyhmBXlmSrpgCwe_4Pgw8FbTOQcmjUeHItaIp0cQ6WWi35ZhV8HDgG4T4fkwgg_wofH57xtlnflP4ju9BscBPGnRO57I729SWhdKigpx1NdMKazeT3lbBHS2WVr5yvtgNWXQ7MOl8xhr-Lf1K_AA5skbbY": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/css/css_4zPkfZxHgw2OcfGDcpsKq-yWFUdzfy1V4Cf3-HComZU.css?delta=2&language=en&theme=popeye&include=eJxdjlGOwzAIRC_k1EeKcMx6aYixzGSzvn2jSmm7-4PgMdK8ZeUssD5LzVyR1JY1fuyhmBXlmSrpgCwe_4Pgw8FbTOQcmjUeHItaIp0cQ6WWi35ZhV8HDgG4T4fkwgg_wofH57xtlnflP4ju9BscBPGnRO57I729SWhdKigpx1NdMKazeT3lbBHS2WVr5yvtgNWXQ7MOl8xhr-Lf1K_AA5skbbY": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans+Condensed:300,300italic,700&display=swap": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:400,300,300italic,400italic,600,600italic,700,700italic,800,800italic&display=swap": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Patua+One&display=swap": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Hind:400,300,500,600,700|Oxygen:400,300,700|Cuprum:400,400italic,700,700italic|Rubik:400,300,300italic,400italic,500italic,500,700,700italic,900italic,900|Istok+Web:400,700,400italic,700italic|Pontano+Sans&display=swap": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"stylesheet"
],
"media": "all"
},
"https://twitter.com/PortsideOrg": {
"text": "Twitter",
"rels": [
"me"
],
"title": "Follow Portside on Twitter"
},
"https://mastodon.social/@portside": {
"text": "Mastodon",
"rels": [
"me"
],
"title": "Follow Portside on Mastodon"
},
"https://portside.org/": {
"text": "",
"rels": [
"home"
],
"title": "Home"
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-19/billionaire-bully-who-wants-turn-texas-christian-theocracy": {
"text": "The Billionaire Bully Who Wants To Turn Texas Into a Christian Theocracy",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/friday-nite-videos-february-16-2024": {
"text": "Friday Nite Videos | February 16, 2024",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/donald-trump-ordered-pay-over-350m-new-york-financial-fraud-case": {
"text": "Donald Trump Ordered To Pay Over $350M in New York Financial Fraud Case",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/things-should-cant-be-said-us-leaders-still-delusional-despite-israels-genocidal-assault": {
"text": "Things That Should but Can\u2019t Be Said \u2013 US Leaders Still Delusional Despite Israel\u2019s Genocidal Assault on Gaza",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/warn-voters-about-radicalism-beyond-trump": {
"text": "Warn Voters About the Radicalism Beyond Trump",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-08/super-bowl-ads-promote-israel": {
"text": "Super Bowl Ads To Promote Israel",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-10/troubadour-1960s-new-left-celebrated-new-exhibit-woody-guthrie-museum": {
"text": "Troubadour of 1960s New Left Is Celebrated in New Exhibit at Woody Guthrie Museum",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-16/tens-thousands-workers-florida-have-just-lost-their-labor-unions-more-coming": {
"text": "Tens of Thousands of Workers in Florida Have Just Lost Their Labor Unions. More Is Coming",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-10/america-not-democracy": {
"text": "America Is Not a Democracy",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"https://portside.org/2024-02-15/what-legendary-historian-tells-us-about-contempt-todays-working-class": {
"text": "What a Legendary Historian Tells Us About the Contempt for Today\u2019s Working Class",
"rels": [
"bookmark"
]
},
"mailto:?subject=A Historic Abdication&body=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "E-Mail",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://toot.karamoff.dev/?text=A Historic Abdication%0dhttps://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "Mastodon",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "Facebook",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?text=A Historic Abdication&url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "Twitter",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://www.tumblr.com/widgets/share/tool?posttype=link&title=A Historic Abdication&caption=Portside&content=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&canonicalUrl=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&shareSource=tumblr_share_button": {
"text": "Tumblr",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&media=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&description=A Historic Abdication": {
"text": "Pinterest",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&title=A Historic Abdication&summary=Portside&source=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication": {
"text": "LinkedIn",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://reddit.com/submit/?url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&resubmit=true&title=A Historic Abdication": {
"text": "Reddit",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://www.xing.com/app/user?op=share;url=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication;title=A Historic Abdication": {
"text": "XING",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
},
"https://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&t=A Historic Abdication": {
"text": "Hacker News",
"rels": [
"noopener"
]
}
},
"debug": {
"description": "mf2py - microformats2 parser for python",
"source": "https://github.com/microformats/mf2py",
"version": "2.0.1",
"markup parser": "lxml"
},
"alternates": [
{
"url": "https://portside.org/node/33458?_format=activity_json",
"text": "",
"type": "application/activity+json"
}
]
}
D 2024-02-20 06:30:26.458519+00:00 Converted to ActivityStreams object: {
"objectType": "article",
"published": "2024-02-18T00:00:00",
"displayName": "A Historic Abdication",
"content": "<div class=\"expanded-article-image-wrapper\">\n<img alt=\"\" class=\"expanded-article-image u-photo img-responsive\" height=\"410\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/TrumpLeavingTheStage-ic-2-18-2024.jpg\" width=\"615\"/>\n<div class=\"article-image-credit\">\n Donald Trump leaving the stage of a watch party for the Nevada Republican caucus on the day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether he should be disqualified from the presidency, Las Vegas, February 8, 2024,Ian Maule/Bloomberg\n </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"full-article-text-wrapper\">\n<p>The Supreme Court justices\u2019 responses last Thursday to the oral arguments over Donald Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment were worse than an embarrassment\u2014they were a disgrace. With the partial exception of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the members of the Court appeared woefully ignorant of the historical and constitutional issues before them. They took up in detail the ramifications of an eccentric 1869 circuit court ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase,\u00a0<em>In re Griffin</em>, that Section 3 could not be enforced without congressional approval, overlooking, except briefly and in passing, that in that case Chase flatly contradicted what he had ruled in another trial a year earlier. They fretted over whether the section\u2019s disqualifications applied to the presidency and vice-presidency as offices \u201cunder the United States,\u201d ignoring the explicit evidence from the Senate debates over the amendment in 1866, expressed most directly by Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, that they plainly did.</p>\n<p>Over the course of more than two hours of presentations and disputations, gradually it became evident that the justices seem to have no intention of ruling on the meaning of Section 3 and whether it disqualifies Trump. Instead they appear to be casting about for a rationale not to do so. One possibility, which would appeal to the justices across the ideological spectrum, would be to argue that disqualifying Trump would be seen as an act of usurpation, the worst sort of judicial activism, damaging if not ruining the Court\u2019s standing as an independent branch of government. The trouble is that,\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/02/22/the-case-for-disqualification-trump-sean-wilentz/\" target=\"_blank\">as I have argued in these pages</a>, both the amendment, interpreted on originalist grounds, and the facts of the case could not be clearer in demanding Trump\u2019s disqualification. The justices cannot avoid reaching that conclusion without appealing to some fictive, extraconstitutional principle. In an effort to preserve the Court\u2019s legitimacy, they seem ready to render it illegitimate. Worse still, they may be hastening the constitutional crisis they think they are heading off.</p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s able attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, relied heavily on Chase\u2019s ruling but shrewdly backed off from other strong claims made by Trump\u2019s defenders and even by Trump\u2019s own briefs. At one point, for example, he corrected Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by pointing out that there was indeed evidence that the framers of the amendment had the presidency in mind. Even as he stuck to Chase\u2019s reasoning, he took pains to remind the Court that it did contradict Chase\u2019s ruling from the previous year. But in these efforts to establish his own integrity, Mitchell also underscored how unfamiliar nearly all of the justices seem to be with the basic questions raised by the case.</p>\n<div class=\"links inline social-buttons-links tokens\" id=\"block-socialsimpleblock\">\n<div class=\"social-buttons\">\n<div class=\"social-buttons-title\">Share this article on</div>\n<ul class=\"links\">\n<li class=\"twitter\"><a data-placement=\"top\" data-popup-height=\"300\" data-popup-width=\"600\" data-toggle=\"tooltip\" href=\"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?url=https%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&amp;text=A%20Historic%20Abdication\" title=\"Twitter\"><i class=\"fa fa-twitter\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Twitter</span></a></li>\n<li class=\"facebook\"><a data-placement=\"top\" data-popup-height=\"300\" data-popup-width=\"600\" data-toggle=\"tooltip\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication\" title=\"Facebook\"><i class=\"fa fa-facebook\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Facebook</span></a></li>\n<li class=\"mail\"><a data-popup-open=\"false\" href=\"mailto:?body=%0AA%20Historic%20Abdication%0Ahttps%3A//portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication&amp;subject=A%20Historic%20Abdication\" title=\"Mail\"><i class=\"fa fa-envelope\"></i><span class=\"visually-hidden\">Mail</span></a></li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n</div>\n<p>Had they mastered the relevant history, the justices would have understood that these seemingly evenhanded concessions exposed the groundlessness of Trump\u2019s claims. They would have recognized, above all, that what turned out to be the basis of Mitchell\u2019s argument\u2014Chase\u2019s eccentric, one-off judgement\u2014is not only extraconstitutional but essentially worthless, as the leading experts in the field\u00a0<a href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751\" target=\"_blank\">have concluded</a>, in part because of Chase\u2019s earlier opinion. Instead, for the most part they persisted in treating\u00a0<em>In re Griffin</em>\u00a0as a significant precedent, even though, since Chase made the decision from a circuit court, they have no obligation to do so. Justice Brett Kavanaugh clung to\u00a0<em>Griffin</em>\u00a0especially closely as \u201chighly probative\u201d of Section 3\u2019s \u201coriginal public meaning.\u201d Justice Sotomayor, for her part, pushed back strongly against Mitchell\u2019s reliance on the\u00a0<em>Griffin</em>\u00a0case: \u201ca non-precedential decision that relies on policy, doesn\u2019t look at the language, doesn\u2019t look at the history, doesn\u2019t analyze anything than the disruption that such a suit would bring, you want us to credit as precedential?\u201d</p>\n<p>*</p>\n<p>The Court seems likeliest to find an escape hatch in a point made by several of the justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito. Justice Elena Kagan stated it most starkly to Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Colorado voters: \u201cI think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president.\u201d Put that way, the question stands to reason; allowing a single state to dictate a presidential election sounds absurd. But the question is both irrelevant and evasive.</p>\n<p>Under Article II of the Constitution, the states have the power to decide how electors for the presidency are to be chosen. Candidates for the presidency must meet any number of state-dictated requirements before earning a spot on the ballot. These include whether the candidate is actually qualified to hold the office under the state and federal constitutions. Individual states clearly, then, have the authority to bar any unqualified candidate, including, under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, an insurrectionist who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution. To deny the states that authority would be an extraordinary imposition of federal power. In the words of one\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/297014/20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsberg.Hasen.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">amicus brief</a>\u00a0submitted by, among others, the Republican Party\u2019s longtime chief legal counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, if the Court were to rule \u201cthat Colorado was powerless to make a judicially-reviewable, pre-election decision concerning Mr. Trump\u2019s disqualification under Section 3,\u201d it \u201cwould turn our federalist election system upside down.\u201d</p>\n<p>The phrase \u201cjudicially reviewable\u201d is central to the Court\u2019s evasion. Any state supreme court\u2019s decision to disqualify a presidential candidate can, of course, be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Ever since the John Marshall Court\u2019s landmark ruling in\u00a0<em>Martin\u00a0</em>v.<em>\u00a0Hunter\u2019s Lessee</em>\u00a0in 1816, the Court has assumed that its authority under the Constitution extends to adjudicating state rulings on federal law. Once it agreed to hear Trump\u2019s appeal on the Colorado ruling, the Court was fully empowered to decide whether that ruling should stand, above and beyond affirming the state\u2019s authority over elections\u2014that is, to decide the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p>\n<p>Murray made the point explicitly in reply to Justice Kagan\u2019s skepticism about whether a single state should decide the presidency: \u201cNo, your honor, because ultimately it\u2019s this Court that\u2019s going to decide [the] question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.\u201d It appears, however, that this is precisely what the justices have decided not to do. The Court may wish not to be thrust into the middle of a presidential election for the second time in a quarter-century, after the debacle of\u00a0<em>Bush\u00a0</em>v.<em>\u00a0Gore</em>, but the prospect is staring the justices in the face. To decline to meet that responsibility, no matter the fallout, would be a historic abdication.</p>\n<p></p><div class=\"snapshot-mini-form tokens\" data-drupal-selector=\"snapshot-mini-form\" id=\"block-portsidelistservnewslettersubscribeminiform\">\n<form accept-charset=\"UTF-8\" action=\"#snapshot-mini-form\" class=\"form-horizontal\" id=\"snapshot-mini-form\" method=\"post\">\n<p class=\"helper-text\">If you like this article, please sign up for Snapshot, Portside's daily summary.</p><div class=\"subscribe-oneline\"><div class=\"row form-group js-form-item form-item js-form-type-email form-type-email js-form-item-email-address form-item-email-address\">\n<label class=\"col-sm-2 control-label js-form-required form-required\" for=\"edit-email-address\">Email</label>\n<div class=\"form--email col-sm-10 col-lg-8\">\n<input aria-required=\"true\" class=\"form-email required form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-email-address\" id=\"edit-email-address\" maxlength=\"64\" name=\"email_address\" required=\"required\" size=\"64\" type=\"email\" value=\"\"/>\n</div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"form-group\">\n<input class=\"btn-wide button js-form-submit form-submit btn-portside\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-submit\" id=\"edit-submit\" name=\"op\" type=\"submit\" value=\"Subscribe\"/>\n</div>\n</div><input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-list-name\" name=\"list_name\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"PORTSIDE-SNAPSHOT\"/>\n<p class=\"helper-text\">(One summary e-mail a day, you can <a href=\"https://portside.org/subscribe\">change anytime</a>, and Portside is always free.)</p><input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-honeypot-time\" name=\"honeypot_time\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"OynbzxED18b9WewS6_vEEtp4TBW6ran7r3rk2sJ7OGU\"/>\n<input autocomplete=\"off\" class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"form-givoh5msls7zeqjzoylzejat6dgjwegks8yyqsmeivc\" name=\"form_build_id\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"form-GIvOH5MSls7ZEqJzoYlZEJaT6dgjwegkS8YyQsmEIvc\"/>\n<input class=\"form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-snapshot-mini-form\" name=\"form_id\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"snapshot_mini_form\"/>\n<div class=\"zip-textfield js-form-wrapper form-wrapper\" style=\"display: none !important;\"><div class=\"row form-group js-form-item form-item js-form-type-textfield form-type-textfield js-form-item-zip form-item-zip\">\n<label class=\"col-sm-2 control-label\" for=\"edit-zip\">Leave this field blank</label>\n<div class=\"form--textfield col-sm-10 col-lg-8\">\n<input autocomplete=\"off\" class=\"form-text form-control input--text\" data-drupal-selector=\"edit-zip\" id=\"edit-zip\" maxlength=\"128\" name=\"zip\" size=\"20\" type=\"text\" value=\"\"/>\n</div>\n</div>\n</div>\n</form>\n</div>\n<p>It would also be an invitation to constitutional chaos. To be sure, public discord would certainly ensue if the Court were to rule before the election that Trump, as an insurrectionist, is disqualified for a second term. But that unrest would in all likelihood be mild compared to what would follow if Trump were disqualified after being elected. The amicus brief spells out several possible scenarios. Were Trump to win the election, it is almost certain that members of Congress would try to have him declared unfit to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted in 2021 to, respectively, impeach and remove Trump over the insurrection, it is possible that such an effort might succeed. But even if it failed, the effort would invite serious political instability and turmoil between Election Day and Inauguration Day. By failing to rule now, the Court could lay the groundwork for future catastrophe.</p>\n<hr/>\n<p><strong>Sean Wilentz </strong>is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton. His books include\u00a0<em>No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation\u2019s Founding</em>. (February 2024)</p>\n<p><em><strong>The New York Review of Books</strong>\u00a0has established itself, in\u00a0Esquire\u2019s words, as \u201cthe premier literary-intellectual magazine in the English language.\u201d\u00a0The New York Review\u00a0began during the New York publishing strike of 1963, when its founding editors, Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein, and their friends, decided to create a new kind of magazine\u2014one in which the most interesting and qualified minds of our time would discuss current books and issues in depth. Just as importantly, it was determined that the\u00a0Review\u00a0should be an independent publication; it began life as an independent editorial voice and it remains independent today.\u00a0<a href=\"https://www.nybooks.com/about/subscription-rates/\">Subscribe to New York Review of Books.</a></em></p>\n</div>\n<div>\n<span class=\"hidden\"><a href=\"https://brid.gy/publish/twitter\"></a></span><span class=\"hidden\"><a href=\"https://brid.gy/publish/mastodon\"></a></span><div class=\"node_view\"></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tags\">\n<ul class=\"tags\">\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/donald-trump\" hreflang=\"en\">Donald Trump</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/supreme-court\" hreflang=\"en\">Supreme Court</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/fourteenth-amendment\" hreflang=\"en\">Fourteenth Amendment</a></li>\n<li class=\"h-category\"><a href=\"https://portside.org/elections\" hreflang=\"en\">elections</a></li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n<div class=\"buttons-article-end\">\n<div class=\"subscribe-article-end\">\n<a class=\"btn btn-primary\" href=\"https://portside.org/subscribe\">Subscribe to Portside</a>\n</div>\n</div>",
"url": "https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication",
"image": [
{
"url": "https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/TrumpLeavingTheStage-ic-2-18-2024.jpg"
}
]
}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:26.559248+00:00 no refresh_token
I 2024-02-20 06:30:26.772925+00:00 requests.get https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/TrumpLeavingTheStage-ic-2-18-2024.jpg {}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:27.198678+00:00 Received 200
I 2024-02-20 06:30:27.199000+00:00 requests.post https://portside.social/api/v1/media {'files': {'file': <urllib3.response.HTTPResponse object at 0x3e9e64766140>}, 'data': {}, 'headers': {'Authorization': '...'}}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:27.974094+00:00 Received 200
I 2024-02-20 06:30:27.975441+00:00 Got: {'id': '111962398913560239', 'type': 'image', 'url': 'https://portside.social/system/media_attachments/files/111/962/398/913/560/239/original/d1ead63552d2b431.jpeg', 'preview_url': 'https://portside.social/system/media_attachments/files/111/962/398/913/560/239/small/d1ead63552d2b431.jpeg', 'remote_url': None, 'preview_remote_url': None, 'text_url': None, 'meta': {'original': {'width': 615, 'height': 410, 'size': '615x410', 'aspect': 1.5}, 'small': {'width': 588, 'height': 392, 'size': '588x392', 'aspect': 1.5}}, 'description': None, 'blurhash': 'UB7c]n}?}]^P9@EMI.I:Naj[S1NaoLS2a{of'}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:27.977211+00:00 requests.post https://portside.social/api/v1/statuses {'json': {'status': 'A Historic Abdication: https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication', 'media_ids': ['111962398913560239']}, 'headers': {'Authorization': '...'}}
I 2024-02-20 06:30:28.297014+00:00 Received 200
I 2024-02-20 06:30:28.299318+00:00 Returning {
"id": "111962398932052363",
"created_at": "2024-02-20T06:30:28.236Z",
"in_reply_to_id": null,
"in_reply_to_account_id": null,
"sensitive": false,
"spoiler_text": "",
"visibility": "public",
"language": "en",
"uri": "https://portside.social/users/portside/statuses/111962398932052363",
"url": "https://portside.social/@portside/111962398932052363",
"replies_count": 0,
"reblogs_count": 0,
"favourites_count": 0,
"edited_at": null,
"favourited": false,
"reblogged": false,
"muted": false,
"bookmarked": false,
"pinned": false,
"content": "<p>A Historic Abdication: <a href=\"https://portside.org/2024-02-18/historic-abdication\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"ellipsis\">portside.org/2024-02-18/histor</span><span class=\"invisible\">ic-abdication</span></a></p>",
"filtered": [],
"reblog": null,
"application": {
"name": "Bridgy",
"website": "https://brid.gy/"
},
"account": {
"id": "109678432722070379",
"username": "portside",
"acct": "portside",
"display_name": "Portside",
"locked": false,
"bot": false,
"discoverable": true,
"group": false,
"created_at": "2023-01-12T00:00:00.000Z",
"note": "<p>Portside aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world, and to change it.</p>",
"url": "https://portside.social/@portside",
"uri": "https://portside.social/users/portside",
"avatar": "https://portside.social/system/accounts/avatars/109/678/432/722/070/379/original/d3e2366b29e88bfe.jpeg",
"avatar_static": "https://portside.social/system/accounts/avatars/109/678/432/722/070/379/original/d3e2366b29e88bfe.jpeg",
"header": "https://portside.social/system/accounts/headers/109/678/432/722/070/379/original/3963661c8432378a.png",
"header_static": "https://portside.social/system/accounts/headers/109/678/432/722/070/379/original/3963661c8432378a.png",
"followers_count": 215,
"following_count": 98,
"statuses_count": 2481,
"last_status_at": "2024-02-20",
"noindex": false,
"emojis": [],
"roles": [],
"fields": [
{
"name": "Website",
"value": "<a href=\"https://portside.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer me\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"\">portside.org</span><span class=\"invisible\"></span></a>",
"verified_at": null
},
{
"name": "Material of Interest",
"value": "to People on the Left",
"verified_at": null
},
{
"name": "Interpret the world",
"value": "and change it",
"verified_at": null
}
]
},
"media_attachments": [
{
"id": "111962398913560239",
"type": "image",
"url": "https://portside.social/system/media_attachments/files/111/962/398/913/560/239/original/d1ead63552d2b431.jpeg",
"preview_url": "https://portside.social/system/media_attachments/files/111/962/398/913/560/239/small/d1ead63552d2b431.jpeg",
"remote_url": null,
"preview_remote_url": null,
"text_url": null,
"meta": {
"original": {
"width": 615,
"height": 410,
"size": "615x410",
"aspect": 1.5
},
"small": {
"width": 588,
"height": 392,
"size": "588x392",
"aspect": 1.5
}
},
"description": null,
"blurhash": "UB7c]n}?}]^P9@EMI.I:Naj[S1NaoLS2a{of"
}
],
"mentions": [],
"tags": [],
"emojis": [],
"card": null,
"poll": null
}