Trump and the American Problem of the Commons
Americans missed another opportunity on Monday to reduce the threat Donald Trump presents to constitutional democracy in the United States and in other countries. The Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson unanimously overturned decisions that held Trump ineligible to run for the Presidency. Three justices acknowledged that Trump is an “oathbreaking insurrectionist.” None challenged that Trump committed treason on January 6. Nevertheless, in an unsigned per curium opinion that had some basis in policy, but little or no foundation in the constitutional text or history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the justices ruled that states had no power to determine whether persons were eligible for the presidency under Section 3.
Continue reading >>Who’s Afraid of Militant Democracy, U.S. Style
Yesterday, Professor Samuel Issacharoff asked “Can it really be that one public official in Maine can remove a national presidential candidate on her say-so?” Professor Issacharoff and I, as well as every proponent of disqualification I know of, agree on a basic point. Right-wing populist authoritarianism cannot be defeated by legal decree. Government by the people cannot be maintained by means other than government by the people. Disqualifying individual candidates who resort to violence when they lose the vote, however, does not raise the difficulties that concern Professor Issacharoff and are consistent with democratic rule.
Continue reading >>
Harvard’s Diversity Chicken Comes Home to Roost
The US Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admission is a potential blessing. Diversity was always a problematic justification for race-based admissions programs. Diversity's origins are anti-Semitic. More likely, however, the decision will be a curse. The United States Supreme Court has made the pathway for disadvantaged minorities more difficult.
Continue reading >>