Politics
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.”
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.
“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)
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.
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.”
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?”
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! ….
“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.
Politics
AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.
“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.
RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY
Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.
HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA
Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”
“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”
And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”
Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”
But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”
Politics
Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule
In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”
Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.
On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.
Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.
National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.
Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.
But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.
The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.
The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.
In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”
Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.
The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
- The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
- Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
- The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
- Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
- The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
- Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]
Different views on the topic
- Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
- Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
- A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
- Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios