psionl0 seems to be saying the party that takes the US Constitution seriously should stop doing so, because taking the US Constitution seriously creates a clear distinction between that party and the other major party, and any such clear distinction will appear political to the party in thrall to an insurrectionist.
I have no idea how you made an inference like that from what you quoted. What I posted is quite plain.
As for the phrase, "the party that takes the US Constitution seriously", I think you mean "the party that takes the US Constitution seriously when it is interpreted the way they want it to be interpreted" and that is both parties.
Yes.
On the one hand, we have a party that interprets the 14th Amendment's section 3 to mean someone who has (1) held the office of US President, (2) taken an oath to support the Constitution, but (3) subsequently engaged in insurrection is therefore (4) ineligible to hold any office under the United States, unless (5) that disability is removed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress.
On the other hand, we have a party that
interprets the 14th Amendment's section 3 to mean Donald Trump "took a different oath from the one set forth in section 3, the presidency is not an 'office under the United States' ", the word "insurrection" can be interpreted in such a way as to argue Trump did not engage in insurrection, that (despite the contrary findings of two Colorado courts) "Nothing in Colorado's Election Code requires the Secretary of State to evaluate the qualifications of presidential primary candidates", that the Colorado district court "gave President Trump only 10 days to identify and disclose his rebuttal witnesses and 18 days to identify and disclose his rebuttal experts", "did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law within 48 hours of that hearing, as required by section 1-4-1204(4)", relied "heavily on the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol..., which the court admitted into evidence over President Trump's hearsay objections", relied upon the testimony of a professor "whom the district court qualified as an expert on political extremism", and held that "section 1-4-1204(4) gives
courts" authority to "hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties" and "issue findings of fact and conclusions of law." (All italics as in Trump's brief.) Furthermore, the brief from which I am quoting complained that "The district court went on to hold that President Trump had 'engaged in insurrection' within the meaning of section 3".
That brief also argues that the text of Colorado's section 1-4-1203(2)(a) means a party that is able to field "
at least one" qualified candidate is, as a consequence, allowed to place unqualified candidates on the ballot, regardless of whether the Colorado Secretary of State or Colorado's courts correctly conclude any such additional candidates are unqualified. What's more, Trump's brief argues that Colorado's requirement that candidates "must be qualified to hold office
before" their name is added to the ballot is unconstitutional because a candidate might be less than 35 years old at the time of the primary but reach the age of 35 by the time of the general election. As if that weren't enough to reject everything 1-4-1203(2)(a) says about qualifying for a primary ballot, 1-4-1203(2)(a) fails to mention the possibility that an insurrectionist candidate who is "currently disqualified under section 3...can seek congressional removal of his disability. The court also dismissed out of hand President Trump's argument that section 3 bars individuals only from holding office, and not from running for or being elected to office."
That's not to mention the fact that "President Trump is the leading candidate for the nomination for President of the United States of one of two major political parties", and (in 2020) "received more than 74 million votes nationally, and more than 1.3 million votes in Colorado alone". (Except, of course, Trump thought that fact was important enough to mention in his brief, because popularity is more important than constitutional qualifications.)
Trump and his party say "Congress—not a state court—is the proper body to resolve questions concerning a presidential candidate's eligibility." They say "section 3 is not self-executing." Even if it were, they say "Even if section 3 does not
require enforcement legislation to have effect, the lack of such legislation deprives the courts of judicially manageable standards." And they complain that "states have different standards", and words such as "engage" and "insurrection" "are unclear and subject to wildly varying standards." Trump and his party conclude that presidential eligibility is not something that can be decided by courts; that question is a "fundamentally legislative" exercise that is "properly suited for Congressional—rather than judicial—resolution."
Trump's brief goes on to say that even if courts such as the US Supreme Court had the authority to interpret what the US Constitution says about eligibility for office, section 3 of Amendment 14 does not explicitly mention the presidency. According to Trump and his party, the idea that someone who holds the office of US President holds "any office, civil or military, under the United States" is a reading that "defies common sense". Furthermore, "It is undisputed that President Trump never took such an oath as a member of Congress, as a state legislator, or as a state executive or judicial officer." "Lastly, section 3 cannot apply to President Trump unless the president qualifies as an 'officer of the United States' ", which is not so according to Trump and his party.
Now we get to what is, in my opinion, the relevant factual question. According to Trump and his party, "the events of January 6th, 2021, were not 'insurrection' as that term is used in Section 3." That was nothing more than a recent example of "political protests that have turned violent." Because what happened on January 6th was not the only example of violent protest in America's history, "January 6 was not insurrection and thus no justification for invoking section 3." Besides, "President Trump never told his supporters to enter the Capitol....To the contrary, his only explicit instructions called for protesting 'peacefully and patriotically'...."
The above is, of course, nothing more than a brief summary of how Trump and his party interpret the US Constitution.
Of course, I never said that either party should stop taking the constitution seriously. I am just pointing out that trying to prevent Trump from being elected through state courts is a poor strategy that could backfire. Republicans who might not otherwise vote if Trump is on the ballot may be encouraged to reconsider.
Yes, someone who is more concerned with political considerations than with taking the US Constitution seriously might regard the political impact as more important than the rule of law or respecting the US Constitution.
