Donald Trump cannot run for president, because he engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot, Colorado state court rules
Let us first recall that without an insurrection, the United States would remain a British colony today.
A state court ruling has disqualified former President Donald Trump from running for the presidency in 2024, raising significant questions about the essence of our democracy.
Today, I address this matter with a sense of urgency and deep reflection.
Let us first recall that without an insurrection, the United States would remain a British colony today.
Our history is a testament to the power of the free will of the people to challenge the power of the institutions, based on the most basic democratic principles and the right of the people to choose their leaders of their choice, regardless of their right or wrong doings in the past.
Just as electing Nelson Mandela was the right thing to do, regardless of his wrongdoings on the way up.
Blocking Trump from running erases the preferred choice of over eighty million American voters.
This isn't just an attack on Trump's democratic right to run; it's an assault on the democratic rights of half the nation to choose their leader.
As I penned in the Declaration of Independence, 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Disqualifying Trump is akin to silencing the voices of those who consented to his leadership.
It is a grave affront to the principles of democracy that we hold dear.
Such a move has consequences, as all actions do in the political arena.
It questions the very legitimacy of our democratic system, casting doubt on the fairness of elections.
It undermines the legitimacy of the 2024 elections victor, whether it's Biden or his opponents, and erodes the trust of half of American voters in the integrity of future election results.
Most intriguingly, it raises fundamental questions about the role of our legal system in interfering with the democratic will of the people—a will that should be a matter of choice, not legal maneuvering.
While it may be legally justifiable, it may not be politically wise.
The question remains: Is it a shrewd use of the legal system against a democratically elected candidate and his 80 million supporters, or an abuse that could yield pyrrhic victories?.
I do not have any doubts about the integrity of the people who took Trump to court and the court's integrity itself.
I am sure they acted with a strong belief that they were doing their duty to uphold the law.
However, in a democracy, the will of the people should stand above the law.
This issue is more constitutional than legal.
While legally the court may be right, constitutionally and democratically, I fear it may be wrong.
Today, I address this matter with a sense of urgency and deep reflection.
Let us first recall that without an insurrection, the United States would remain a British colony today.
Our history is a testament to the power of the free will of the people to challenge the power of the institutions, based on the most basic democratic principles and the right of the people to choose their leaders of their choice, regardless of their right or wrong doings in the past.
Just as electing Nelson Mandela was the right thing to do, regardless of his wrongdoings on the way up.
Blocking Trump from running erases the preferred choice of over eighty million American voters.
This isn't just an attack on Trump's democratic right to run; it's an assault on the democratic rights of half the nation to choose their leader.
As I penned in the Declaration of Independence, 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Disqualifying Trump is akin to silencing the voices of those who consented to his leadership.
It is a grave affront to the principles of democracy that we hold dear.
Such a move has consequences, as all actions do in the political arena.
It questions the very legitimacy of our democratic system, casting doubt on the fairness of elections.
It undermines the legitimacy of the 2024 elections victor, whether it's Biden or his opponents, and erodes the trust of half of American voters in the integrity of future election results.
Most intriguingly, it raises fundamental questions about the role of our legal system in interfering with the democratic will of the people—a will that should be a matter of choice, not legal maneuvering.
While it may be legally justifiable, it may not be politically wise.
The question remains: Is it a shrewd use of the legal system against a democratically elected candidate and his 80 million supporters, or an abuse that could yield pyrrhic victories?.
I do not have any doubts about the integrity of the people who took Trump to court and the court's integrity itself.
I am sure they acted with a strong belief that they were doing their duty to uphold the law.
However, in a democracy, the will of the people should stand above the law.
This issue is more constitutional than legal.
While legally the court may be right, constitutionally and democratically, I fear it may be wrong.
