Regarding the illegality of Trump running for president
When will Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts clarify, that, if Trump wins the election, he cannot legally be sworn in as president since he has not respected and does not respect the Constitution, and that he even promises, if elected, he would not uphold the Constitution? He would have to lie if speaking the Oath (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies ….”)? Maybe more important: The whole world knows that Trump, and also his loyal Republican friends and the by him misled mobs and thugs, are insurrectionists – and the 14th Amendment simply talks of “..have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” – there is no mention of convicted by Congress.
Does Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts not have an obligation to tell the Republican leadership – they need to find a candidate for president who has shown respect for the Constitution and who was not involved in or has supported the by Trump led insurrection?
Please write to Chief Justice Roberts, to Vice President Harris, and to the Democratic Party – these issues must be openly discussed NOW.
Trump is dangerous, not ‘mentally balanced’ and fit to be a candidate for the presidency. If he is not replaced as candidate, there will be a very high likelihood that, if he loses, he will heighten his malicious conspiracy lies and mobilize his mobs and thugs to commit major violence throughout the country, and if he wins and is sworn in, he will govern like a bad, vengeful dictator, following the example of people like Hitler.
It is also relevant that most people who plan to vote for Trump have been swayed by dangerous lies and on lies based conspiracy theories, not by convincing rational arguments. Are blatantly false statements that are designed to foil an election ‘free speech’? Do free speech laws protect speech that incites violence against people who work to realize free and fair elections and a peaceful transition of power (the purpose being to make it possible that Trump, who lost the election, can become president). Is it not true that there is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate. Blatantly false statements about global warming and consequent rapidly worsening weather catastrophes are a main reason many otherwise reasonable people have been supporting Republicans – the extremely serious climate crisis should be the first priority in voting. Republicans’ and industries’ lies about climate change (and consequent actions/inactions) are crimes that should be prosecuted since they are causing weather catastrophes with rapidly increasing lethality, if not in the U.S., in international courts.
Other important issues to remember:
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has not addressed the unethical-illegal actions of the Republican Senate leader, members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. A promise to respect important precedent should be an obligation not something to forget and then feeling free to vote in accordance with party loyalty. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of our secular democracy should preclude voting according to party ideology and religious dogmas. Concerning the overturning of very important precents (Chevron, abortion cases) justices are neither specialists in any scientific-technological field nor are they doctors; they must not pretend to understand scientific-technical issues based on arguments that biased attorneys offer, much less practice medicine – the illegality of practicing of medicine without a license also applies to elected members of state governments and Congress.
The legal system is de facto no longer an independent branch of our secular democracy – it is dominated by Republican ideologues who are also mostly dogmatic Catholics (who pretend to follow the original meaning of the Constitution). But they ignore most relevant facts concerning the 18th and early 19th century and the intent of the country’s founders. Several justices have been dishonest, at the confirmation hearings and in consequent arguments. Regarding arguments, Supreme Court Justices often present blatantly false arguments, for instance re. abortions and adoption: does Justice Barrett really not know that, while millions may want to adopt, billions of abortions were needed to prevent extreme overpopulation and famines?