Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trump is dangerously unfit for office. But leave him on the ballot so voters can give him the boot

Published

on

Column: Trump is dangerously unfit for office. But leave him on the ballot so voters can give him the boot

Even a despicable menace like Donald Trump deserves a fair shake. He shouldn’t be punished before being convicted.

In America, everyone’s innocent until proved guilty, right? At least that’s what was drummed into me growing up.

Many people — mainly Democrats and left-leaners — want to deny Trump access to presidential primary ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Written right after the Civil War, Section 3 decrees that “no person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state” who took an oath “to support the Constitution” and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies.”

Advertisement

That made perfect sense. If you fought to cripple the nation after pledging to protect it, once you’ve failed you shouldn’t be allowed to help lead the country.

Now there’s the movement to prevent former President Trump from running again for the Oval Office because he allegedly inspired — ”engaged in” — insurrection by armed thugs and wackos. After Trump’s pep talk, they stormed the nation’s Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and tried to prevent Congress’ certification of President Biden’s election victory over the sour loser who lied about massive voter fraud.

Give credit to Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, California’s top election official. These two liberal Democrats haven’t joined the chorus to deny Trump ballot access. They want nothing to do with it.

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy, but in California we defeat candidates we don’t like at the polls,” Newsom said in his only public comment on the matter. “Everything else is a political distraction.”

Weber put Trump on California’s March 5 Republican primary ballot despite pressure from Democratic Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis to boot him.

Advertisement

“I must place the sanctity of these elections above partisan politics,” Weber said in a statement.

“While we can agree that the attack on the Capitol and the former president’s conduct was abhorrent, there are complex legal issues surrounding this matter.“

She added that Trump’s conduct “tainted and continues to sow the public’s mistrust in government and the legitimacy of elections, so it is more critical than ever to safeguard elections in a way that transcends political divisions.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Advertisement

In my view, the nation — and certainly democracy — would be a lot better off if Trump were never allowed anywhere near power again. He’s dangerously divisive, shamelessly immoral and a terrible role model for the nation’s youth. At 77, the Republican front-runner may even be slipping in the head, yakking about becoming dictator for a day, taking revenge on opponents and mimicking Hitler rhetoric.

OK, but Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. No prosecutor has even charged him with that, although he has been indicted on nearly 100 other criminal counts.

Where’s the due process that’s guaranteed by the Constitution? The right to a jury trial? To cross-examine prosecution witnesses? And what’s an “insurrection” anyway? We’d better have a solid definition before denying someone public office because he “engaged” in it.

But I’m just rambling on like the non-lawyer layman that I am, reflecting — I suspect — similar attitudes among numerous citizens.

Advertisement

I contacted some legal scholars and asked where I was off base. They obliged.

All of them told me that no conviction on an insurrection charge is apparently necessary to kick Trump off state ballots.

“There is nothing in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that requires a conviction,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

“I don’t read Section 3 as requiring that anyone be convicted,” said Jessica Levinson, who specializes in election law at Loyola Law School.

Denying someone ballot access “is not a criminal punishment,” UCLA election law professor Richard Hasen said. “It’s not going to jail. It’s not paying a fine. It’s not being denied a right.”

Advertisement

Running for office is not a “right,” I was told by the professors. It’s a “privilege.”

“That said,” Hasen added, “there’s a due process question.”

Colorado’s Supreme Court kicked Trump off the primary ballot, ruling that he engaged in insurrection. First there was a five-day administrative hearing that the court said sufficed for due process. Trump disagreed and is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Maine’s secretary of state removed Trump from the ballot on her own.

Trump deserves some due process, Hasen said.

“There are two separate questions,” the professor said. “Was he participating in an insurrection? How do we know?”

Advertisement

Exactly.

Who gets to decide?

The U.S. Senate should have solved the Trump mess after the Capitol mob attack. The House impeached him for inciting an insurrection. But too many Republicans cowered on a Senate vote to convict. The vote fell 10 short of the two-thirds needed. A conviction would have barred Trump from ever holding office again.

Weber told me she concluded it was outside her authority to keep Trump off California’s ballot. And if she did, the secretary of state added, “it would feed those folks” who already believe elections are rigged against Trump. “It would just stoke the fire.”

Does she personally believe Trump’s an insurrectionist? “Oh, yeah,” she answered. “He’s telling people to fight and all of a sudden they’re climbing over walls at the Capitol, breaking in and going after the vice president? Is this insurrection? Oh my God! ….

Advertisement

“I hope and pray the Supreme Court takes up the issue and gives us a good definition of insurrection so people know exactly what it is, and whatever the outcome we’re not in a state of confusion.”

The court announced on Friday it will soon hear the case.

Yes, the best solution for democracy would be for the Supreme Court to deny Trump the right to serve again in public office. But that’s probably asking too much of this conservative outfit that includes three justices Trump appointed.

Short of that, we need to trust the democratic process to legitimately deny this guy another power grab. Let the voters find him guilty.

Advertisement

Politics

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Published

on

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.

In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.

In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”

The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).

Advertisement

Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.

On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.

Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.

In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”

Advertisement

“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”

Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.

In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.

“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.

Advertisement

Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.

The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.

“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Published

on

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

new video loaded: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

transcript

transcript

Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop. We ask the courts to end the D.H.S. unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes.

Advertisement
Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

By Jackeline Luna

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

Published

on

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in a residential neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota on Jan. 7.

Khanna also urged Congress to back his legislation with Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to require ICE agents to wear body cameras, display visible identification, stop wearing masks during operations and be subject to independent oversight.

In a post shared on X, the former Obama administration official said: “I am calling for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good.”

“I am also calling on Congress to support my bill with @JasmineForUS to force ICE agents to wear body cameras, not wear masks, have visible identification, and ensure ICE has independent oversight,” Khanna added.

Advertisement

MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DROPS OUT OF ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING INVESTIGATION

An ICE agent shot and killed the 37-year-old Minneapolis woman during a federal enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials have said agents were attempting to make arrests when the woman tried to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers, prompting an ICE agent to fire in self-defense.

Good’s death sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the U.S. as demonstrators called for changes to federal immigration enforcement.

Renee Nicole Good moments before she was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis.  (Obtained by Fox News)

Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, criticized the federal account of the incident and rejected the claim that the officer acted in self-defense. Minnesota has since sued the Trump administration, claiming the immigration enforcement surge in the state is “unlawful” and “unprecedented.”

Advertisement

“What we are seeing right now is not normal immigration enforcement,” Frey said. “The scale is wildly disproportionate, and it has nothing to do with keeping people safe.”

The Trump administration pushed back sharply against the lawsuit, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accusing Minnesota leaders of undermining public safety and obstructing federal law enforcement.

MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES

Federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, maintained that the agent fired in self-defense.

Renee Good’s crashed car after the shooting. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Noem critisized Democrats on Sunday amid an Illinois lawmaker’s push to impeach her following the deadly shooting.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“These law enforcement officers are trained to be in situations that are dangerous, and they rely on that training each and every day to make the right decisions,” Noem said during “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending