Politics
Column: The Supreme Court has 6 options for keeping Trump on the ballot. All of them are flawed
I recently surmised that in considering former President Trump’s eligibility to run for office under the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court will seek a national solution that applies to all 50 states. That dictates a reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification of Trump for engaging in insurrection, on grounds that preclude other states from following suit.
This case is among the rare instances in which the court probably should factor broad social and political issues into its opinion. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will be looking for a rationale that can command the greatest possible consensus and minimize the fallout from a divided decision.
So what are the court’s options for overturning Colorado? I count six possible grounds, each of them flawed to one degree or another.
Trump did not engage in insurrection: The court could differ with the Colorado court on this point in two ways.
First, it could find that Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, did not constitute incitement of imminent lawlessness and was therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. Trump argues that his “only explicit instructions called for protesting ‘peacefully and patriotically’” and other bland encouragements. But it’s virtually inconceivable to me that the court would side with Trump on this dubious characterization of events in the absence of a developed factual record.
Alternatively, the court could agree with Trump’s argument that the definition of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment should be limited to a conflict such as the Civil War, in keeping with the provision’s historical context. By contrast, Jan. 6 was just a political protest that “turned violent,” his lawyers argue.
Adopting this line would drastically narrow the reach of Section 3 of the amendment, leaving it close to a constitutional nullity. Further, it would contradict not just the Colorado courts’ persuasive analysis but also historical practice. The courts and Congress have disqualified federal officials based on much less, among them Victor Berger, whom Congress refused to seat based on his socialist and anti-World War I views.
The justices lack sufficient standards for applying the amendment: Trump’s lead argument is that without a statute passed by Congress to provide guidance on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, “courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over presidential qualifications.” This implicitly invokes the Supreme Court’s rationale for taking itself out of the business of checking extreme partisan gerrymandering.
One problem with this argument is that there is nothing inscrutable about the ban on insurrectionists. Courts determine issues of similar complexity all the time.
Second, the constraint invoked is one the Supreme Court adopted for itself; it doesn’t prevent state courts from acting. The Supreme Court would thereby abandon the field and allow the states to step into the breach, an outcome it’s unlikely to welcome.
The section requires congressional authorization: This claim is subtly but importantly different from the previous one. It’s that Section 3 is not “self-executing” but rather requires congressional action to be applied by any court, which would be in keeping with prevalent historical practice.
But it’s well-established that the powerhouse equal protection and due process provisions in Section 1 of the same amendment have great force without regard to congressional action. It’s hard to see how that principle could stand if the court found that Section 3 has no such force on its own. This argument could also encourage a future Democratic Congress to disqualify Trump from holding office.
The amendment prohibits holding office, not running for office: It is uncontroversial that Section 3 imposes a qualification for holding office, much like an age, residency or citizenship requirement. But a state certainly can prevent an unqualified candidate — for example, one who will not be 35 years old at the time she would assume the presidency — from seeking an office.
The Colorado courts were out of step with state law: This invokes a widely discredited theory that first emerged in Bush vs. Gore: that the Constitution’s electors clause allows the federal courts to reverse state court rulings that significantly depart from the dictates of state law. This questionable approach would alienate the court’s progressives. Moreover, there is no plausible suggestion that the Colorado Supreme Court significantly departed from the requirements of state law.
The president is not a federal “officer” under the amendment: The Colorado trial court seized on this reading to back away from the precipice of disqualifying Trump. But it has problems as a matter of textual interpretation and sensible policy. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state exposed its weaknesses.
That sums up the Supreme Court’s unenviable hand, which doesn’t contain as much as a face card, let alone an ace. The reasoning that does the least damage to other areas of the law and is most tailored to the current case may well be that the president is not an officer. The other least implausible option, notwithstanding the tension with the first section of the 14th Amendment, would be to require congressional action to effectuate Section 3.
Neither is particularly convincing, and the other possibilities are less so. And yet if the court is to impose a uniform federal solution keeping Trump on the ballot in all 50 states, it’s clear that it will have to settle on some deeply imperfect rationale.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman
Politics
Video: ‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
new video loaded: ‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
transcript
transcript
‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, described a recent meeting he had with President Donald Trump, saying that Trump had expressed frustration with NATO allies for not helping enough with the war in Iran
-
He was disappointed yesterday, but he also had a very frank and open discussion amongst friends. I sensed his disappointment about the fact that he felt that too many allies were not with him. When it came time to provide the logistical and other support the United States needed in Iran, some allies were a bit slow, to say the least. But what I see when I look across Europe today is allies providing a massive amount of support, basing, logistics and other measures to ensure the powerful U.S. military succeeds in denying Iran a nuclear weapon. NATO is there, of course, to protect the Europeans but also to protect the United States.
By Meg Felling
April 9, 2026
Politics
Unearthed clip exposes shocking claim by Newsom’s wife about inmates at violent California prison
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is getting raked over the coals for comments she made several years ago, suggesting criminals housed in a notorious California prison, which was known for housing violent criminals and death row prisoners, got there by “accident.”
Siebel Newsom’s comments came as she was discussing a tragedy in her younger life at an event in 2016. A few days before her seventh birthday, Siebel Newsom was involved in a fatal golf cart accident that ultimately killed her sister.
“I had to be very raw when we interviewed the young men who were juvenile offenders at San Quentin. I told them about my own loss, where I lost my older sister a few days before my seventh birthday and I blame myself for her death and I share that because they ultimately were accused of committing these violent crimes and sentenced for life, and I think it shocked them that this blonde lady, who was interviewing them, had a similar story – was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time – but wasn’t punished the way they were because clearly it was an accident, but theirs was probably an accident too,” Siebel Newsom said when discussing ways to connect with others.
NEWSOM’S WIFE SLAMS TRUMP FIRINGS OF BONDI, NOEM, SPARKING PANEL DEBATE
Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom stands with wife Jennifer at a Sacramento voting center. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
“Anyways, I share that – I guess – I quite enjoy spending time with people and being real and unmasking and showing them that it’s safe to unmask themselves.”
A spokesperson for Governor Newsom’s wife clarified that the remarks in the 2016 interview with the First Partner, were referring to incarcerated individuals for her 2015 documentary “The Mask You Live In.”
The spokesperson did not provide an on-the-record statement but did point Fox News Digital to a social media post from Gov. Newsom’s press office calling out the media for being “focused on running nonstop hit pieces on California’s First Partner,” while the president is “threatening to obliterate a civilization tonight.”
On Tuesday, the same day the clip began going viral on social media, President Donald Trump issued an ominous message on his social media platform Truth Social, indicating “a whole civilization will die tonight,” amid his threat of a looming U.S. attack against Iranian bridges and power plants.
“This is the MAGA distraction machine — in full force,” concluded the social media post, which included news segments criticizing Siebel Newsom on Tuesday.
GAVIN NEWSOM’S WIFE SAYS SHE GAVE HER BOYS DOLLS TO PLAY WITH IN RESURFACED CLIP
Jennifer Siebel Newsom speaks at Planned Parenthood funding bill signing ceremony (Screenshot/Gavin Newsom’s YouTube Page)
However, Siebel Newsom’s resurfaced comments still garnered attention on Tuesday from conservative critics who called the California governor’s spouse out for virtue signaling.
In direct response to Siebel Newsom’s claims that San Quentin inmates got in their position by “accident,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., shot back sarcastically: “Yeah, like the time that guy accidentally stabbed that dude 27 times.”
“What the…” commented Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, Harmeet Dhillon, in a social media post responding to the 2016 remarks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and first partner Jennifer Siebel-Newsom embrace during a campaign event in support of Proposition 50 in San Francisco, Monday, Nov. 3, 2025. (Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“She represents everything that is wrong with California,” comedian Adam Carolla added.
“Newsom’s wife’s latest virtue signal is telling San Quentin lifers that she faced zero consequences when her sister was killed because it was an accident, then telling them their life sentences are probably for ‘accidents’ too,” wrote conservative women’s sports activist Riley Gaines. “Peak elite tone-deafness.”
Politics
Column: We’re stuck with an unchecked mad king until January
Amid all the alarming and unhinged comments of the president of the United States in recent days threatening Iran with genocide — remarks beyond even the usual cray-cray blather from Donald Trump — it was a statement from his spokesperson on Tuesday that really put the madness in the White House in perspective.
“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” Karoline Leavitt said.
She issued those words just hours before Trump’s 8 p.m. Tuesday deadline for Iran to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping or face Armageddon — that is, war crimes by the United States. The statement from the White House press secretary was as clear a description as Americans could get of governance under Trump these days: A mad king reigns, virtually unchecked.
And as a practical matter, there is nothing under the Constitution, neither impeachment nor removal under the 25th Amendment, that can be done about him. There’s only voters’ opportunity to eject the complicit Republican majorities in the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, to install a Democratic — and democratic — check on Trump for the remaining two years of his term.
By now we know that, just before Trump’s deadline to Iran warning “a whole civilization will die tonight,” he announced a fragile two-week ceasefire for negotiations. The commander in chief declared victory, natch. But so did Iran. And it had the better of the argument: Iran continued to control and monetize passage through the strait, unlike before Trump’s war began Feb. 28, and already on Wednesday it flexed that power by closing the route in retaliation for Israeli strikes. The ceasefire also lets Iran retain possession of its enriched, nearly bomb-grade uranium, and the nation won Trump’s offer of possible tariff and sanctions relief.
So much for the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he demanded in a post a month ago.
I’m writing these words on Wednesday. Who knows where things will stand by the time you’re reading this? “Only the president knows.”
Trump has fluctuated, reversed and contradicted himself repeatedly — even within a single social-media screed or chest-thumping performance for the press — since he ordered war against Iran nearly six weeks ago, without notice to Congress, let alone its authorization. Since Sunday, he’s variously called Iran’s leaders “crazy bastards” and “animals” and taken credit for “Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail.”
Presidential rule by fiat and whim would be wrong in any case under the Constitution’s checks and balances of power, and specifically of war power. But in Trump’s case, America has a president who lately has piled on the evidence that he is mentally unstable, unfit for the office.
And spare us the cheerleaders’ claims on Fox News about how he’s playing multidimensional chess. When even Alex Jones likens Trump to “crazy King Lear” and calls for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from power — echoing former Trump promoters including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, among others — you know he’s crossed a line by his unilateral war-making and profane threats (on Easter Sunday!) of genocidal apocalypse.
The evidence of Trump’s dangerous instability has been there from his political genesis. In his first term, he warned he’d unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against nuclear-armed North Korea then declared that he “fell in love” with dictator Kim Jong-un (without achieving any diminution in Kim’s arsenal). He celebrates the deaths of political enemies and prosecutes those still living. He repeatedly interrupts himself on some policy question to bloviate about his ballroom plans.
He’s ordered armed agents into American neighborhoods on immigration raids, then expressed neither responsibility nor remorse when citizens died and legal residents got deported. The national security leaders of his first term let it be known that they’d prevented him from acting on his worst impulses, but there’s no chance of that from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2021 described first-term Trump as being in mental decline and “fascist to the core.”
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Trump has gotten better in the intervening five years.
The country “can’t be a therapy session for … a troubled man like this,” Trump’s first-term attorney general, William P. Barr, told CBS in 2023 as Trump campaigned to return to office.
If only the presidency were therapy for Trump. Instead he’s like a power addict in the world’s most powerful job, mainlining its intoxicants, and no one will stop him. Only people with extraordinary egos seek the White House in the first place, but when an actual egomaniac inhabits that warping bubble of butter-uppers, there’s danger. I remain haunted by the words of retired Gen. John F. Kelly, Trump’s first-term Homeland Security secretary and then White House chief of staff, who in 2023 said of Trump’s potential reelection: “God help us.”
Having failed twice to convict and remove Trump in his first term, Democrats have shied from a third attempt, until now. Scores in Congress have called for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment to oust him. There’s some value in sending a message. But Democrats are offering supporters false hope. A Republican-led Congress and a Cabinet of clownish sycophants will not exercise the powers they have, even against a mad king.
The authors of the Constitution, having thrown off a king, debated at length how to guard against a power-crazed president. But they didn’t anticipate political parties that put tribal loyalty over the country. That partisanship has rendered the high bars to a president’s removal — a vote of two-thirds of the Senate for conviction after impeachment, or, under the 25th Amendment, action by the vice president and a Cabinet majority — all but insurmountable.
That leaves the voters, who in special and off-year elections as recently as Tuesday have shown their zeal to punish Trump’s party. We can hope that a new Congress will check him come January.
And we can pray.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
-
Atlanta, GA5 days ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
Education1 week agoVideo: We Put Dyson’s $600 Vacuum to the Test
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoVaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale
-
Georgia3 days agoGeorgia House Special Runoff Election 2026 Live Results
-
Pennsylvania3 days agoParents charged after toddler injured by wolf at Pennsylvania zoo
-
Education1 week agoVideo: YouTube’s C.E.O. on the Rise of Video and the Decline of Reading
-
Milwaukee, WI4 days agoPotawatomi Casino Hotel evacuated after fire breaks out in rooftop HVAC system
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Toy Testing with a Discerning Bodega Cat