Letters to the editor: The facts behind the Trump ballot case; inspired by column

Flawed analysis on ballot issue

Re: Thomas G. Moukawsher’s Jan. 5 guest column, “Supreme Court should ban Trump from ballot”:

Mr. Moukawsher’s column displays incomplete and erroneous analysis of the facts and law.

He omitted the first issue, whether the president is “an officer of the United States,” covered by the 14th Amendment. The Amendment specifies that it covers “the executive officer of any state” but does not refer to the president. Moreover, the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 2) describes the president’s duty to include appointment “of all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided.” Section 3 adds that he “shall commission all the officers of the United States.”

The second issue is which courts have jurisdiction to enforce the 14th Amendment. The Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2) states that the judicial power of the federal courts “extends to all cases … arising under this Constitution.”

The 14th Amendment specifies that “Congress shall have power to enforce … this article.” It doesn’t permit enforcement by states. It’s similar to the Congressional power to “establish … uniform laws on” bankruptcy (Art. I, Sec. 8.). States do not get to decide which debts are dischargeable or not.

Whenever the Constitution shares federal power with states, it says so. See the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). “Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article.”

The third issue is whether an insurrection occurred.

The fourth defense is that insurrection is a federal crime, and Trump cannot be punished without a verdict from a federal jury in Washington, D.C. (6th Amendment.)

The 20th Amendment does not apply to Trump. It’s about age, birthplace, residency time, and taking the oath.

Trump has four defenses. Not an officer, no insurrection, no jurisdiction for state courts, no jury trial. He needs to win only one of them. SCOTUS may “reach” all of them, but might state only one.

Larry DeSha, Camarillo

An inspiring and uplifting column

Re: Doug Halter’s Jan. 3 guest column, “A renewed will for California”:

I found this column uplifting, inspiring, and courageous. Yes, we are not perfect, and never will be, but admitting our faults and challenges and realizing we are the ones, yes, we can make a difference, and each do our part to make this a better California, a better America and a better world.

Not since President Ronald Reagan, have I been so encouraged. I am not a native of California but have lived here over 60 years. I vote for Doug Halter for Governor of California. We need this kind of leadership.

Phyllis Anderson, Camarillo

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letters: The facts behind the Trump ballot case; inspired by column