Legal thinking

I’m not a lawyer, but I wish I had become one.

I understand decisions are made by reason, logic, and primarily by criteria, including contracts — oral written, and implied — precedent, rules, regulations, case law, state law, federal law, state Constitutions, and the granddaddy of all — America’s federal Constitution. I understand certain criteria are weightier than others.

I understand disagreements involve two sides of a story, and both sides might have merit. Consider the arbiter who heard two men argue. He listened to the first and declared, “You’re right.” He listened to the second and again declared, “You’re right.” When the confused disputants said, “We can’t both be right,” the arbiter replied,  “Yes. You’re right.”

I understand decisions have ramifications — positive, negative and neutral. I understand one man’s positive may be another’s negative. I understand ramifications are usually foreseen, but not always. I understand unintended consequences can be horrible.

I understand perspective affects observation which in turn shapes opinion and judgement. Our judgments influence us to declare actions right rather than wrong, good rather than evil, moral rather than immoral, and legal rather than illegal.

I understand legality does not necessarily correlate with justice. I understand personal views, wants, and desires must yield to law which, in turn, must yield to Constitutional mandates.

Questions about insurrectionists

Three weeks ago, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled Trump may not run for president in Colorado.

Since America is a nation of laws, not of men, that court needs a basis for its ruling. It has one — the third clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump, the court ruled, violated that clause.

But things get murky, not only for us ordinary citizens, but even for lawyers and Constitutional scholars. America is entering uncharted territory, so the situation is complicated.

Still, citizens should strive to understand, and sometimes the best understanding comes through questioning.

The 14th Amendment forbids an insurrectionist to hold office. But does any law explain this prohibition or the process to undertake? If so, which law? If not, Is the 14th Amendment, standing alone, enough to disqualify an insurrectionist from office?

What, precisely, constitutes an insurrection? Is a dictionary definition sufficient, or is there a legal definition?  If there is a distinction, how do they vary?

What entity may decide whether Trump orchestrated the Jan. 6 insurrection? Does a sole state judge have Constitutional authority? Does a state’s Supreme Court have the authority?

May each state use its own rules and interpretations to judge whether Trump created an insurrection? May each state’s court system decide whether Trump can and should be disqualified from election in that state?

What will we make of inconsistency should one state disqualify Trump from office while another doesn’t? Is such inconsistency acceptable? Is something amiss if some states label someone an insurrectionist but others do not?  What would such inconsistency reveal about America?  How would such inconsistency square with our claim we are a nation of laws and not of men?

What are we to think and do if Trump is disqualified only in “blue” states but not “red” states? What would that reveal about America?

How can all Americans witness identical facts concerning Trump’s case, identical videos, identical testimonies from eyewitnesses, identical documents, but then reach contradictory conclusions concerning Trump’s behavior and its application with the 14th Amendment?

How will Americans react if Trump is disqualified from certain state ballots but not all? How will differing reactions affect the country? Will polarization increase? How could it not? What will be the consequences of an increasing political divide?

My stance

Since this is an opinion column, I’ll present my beliefs.

First, I believe Trump organized an attempted insurrection.

Second, based on the conclusion above, I believe Trump violated the 14th Amendment. The evidence is more than clear.

Third, based on the two conclusions above, Trump should be disqualified from holding office again. Such a disqualification implies, logically and necessarily, he may not run for office.

Fourth, I do not know how these disqualifications should be enacted. This is virgin territory for America.

My prediction

I suspect the SCOTUS will provide direction through key rulings.

I believe, based on its recent behaviors and rulings, the SCOTUS will carefully examine Constitutional requirements, federal law, historical precedents, and the events of Jan. 6.

After painstaking analysis and careful examination of pertinent facts and criteria, and after reasoned debate of all relevant information, the SCOTUS will rule however it damn well wishes and had already decided, long before the case was even heard. Then it will concoct some knock-kneed rationale in a futile attempt to justify its indefensible, predetermined ruling.

Some citizens will cheer. Others will boo. But few will be deceived and no one will be able to do anything about it.

I hope I’m wrong.

— Community Columnist Ray Buursma is a resident of Holland. Contact him at writetoraybuursma@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Ray Buursma: Breaking new ground In Colorado