United States Constitution

Accused but Not Presumed Innocent:

/ Charles Henderson / Leave a comment

Can States Legally Keep Donald Trump Off 2024 Presidential Election Ballots?

by Taylor MacHenry

While the last news story published about an effort in Colorado to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in 2024 occurred in mid-September, when the Colorado judge hearing the suit said that she would try to expedite her ruling before Thanksgiving, most people today still daily receive junk email begging voters to sign their petition and donate money to whatever group that sent the email’s cause. The misleading verbiage in the email is always that Colorado, California and other states have done it.

Fact: The matter remains under Judicial Consideration with a ruling expected soon but has not yet been issued.

While the political junk email has surpassed the point of irritating, as most other election-oriented junk mail have long-ago done, the question of the legality of states keeping Mr. Trump off their Presidential Election ballots consistent with The Constitution of the United States of America remains vexing. Does the Constitution allow a State or any group to accuse a candidate of Insurrection and by that accusation without indictment or verdict keep him or her off a Congressional or Presidential election ballot?

Many people make presumptions of Constitutional protections that are in fact simply not specified. Such as separation of Church and State, or the Presumption of Innocence until found Guilty.

And this is where the Trump matter sits.

In the Bill of Rights, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Amendments directly protect a person’s rights when being investigated of a crime and the person’s rights within the legal structure of “due process.” Nowhere in these Constitutional guarantees does “Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty,” appear. However, the 9th Amendment does state that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have Other Rights that the Constitution does not spell out.

Thus, the Presumption of Innocence is the lynchpin in the case where people accuse Mr. Trump of inciting an “Insurrection” on January 6, 2021, thus branding him an “Insurrectionist.” And on the merit of the Accusation alone, groups have filed suit to keep President Trump off 2024 election ballots.

The groups cite the verbiage of law in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which states:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Coming off the heels of the Civil War, authors of the 14th Amendment had matters that brought the nation into war addressed, such as citizenship by birth and rights to hold office by people who fought on the side of the Confederate States. One must doubt that anyone intended that words voiced under protection of Free Speech, provided in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, might brand that person an Insurrectionist or Rebel against the United States of America and the Constitution.

The Colorado group that filed suit, claim that President Trump is disqualified for election to President or Senator or Representative in Congress, or of holding any other Federal Office, because of the speech he made on the Mall in Washington, DC to a massive crowd, and claimed that the election in which President Joe Biden defeated him was fraudulent and illegal because of vote tampering in multiple states. The group that filed suit in Colorado says that Mr. Trump’s words to the crowd incited the riot, which the group and others have defined as an Insurrection, that took place at the United States Capitol Building while Vice President Mike Pence presided over the Electoral College and certified the 2020 Presidential Election. The rioters held firearms and forced their way inside the building while the certification of the Presidential Election took place.

Some rioters were killed by shots fired, perhaps by police or other rioters, no one knows for sure. One police officer died, thought killed by rioters, but the investigation determined that the officer died of natural causes not caused by the riot or any person. Did this violent riot constitute an Insurrection or Rebellion?

Democrats by and large have called this event an “Insurrection” and branded President Trump its instigator, thus making him an “Insurrectionist.”

As of this date, President Trump has not been indicted nor charged with Insurrection, and the investigation into his participation has been completed with no findings of a crime. However, he has been charged with other crimes associated with the election, such as attempting to tamper with the vote count in Georgia, but Mr. Trump has not been indicted nor even charged by any State or Federal Grand Jury with committing or inciting Insurrection or Rebellion, nor with even inciting the riot that took place.

As stated earlier, many people believe that the Constitution specifies that when a person is indicted or charged with committing a crime, he or she is “Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty.” And that is not the case, although the Constitution in many areas implies such protection.

Cornell University Law School published the following opinion regarding Presumption of Innocence:

“A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime. That being said, a presumption of innocence does not guarantee that a person will remain free until their trial has concluded. In some circumstances, a person can be held in custody.

“The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.”

Long-standing Statutes and Legal Precedence established by the United States Supreme Court and lower federal and state courts in all opinions guarantees a right of a person under trial to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And the 9th Amendment to the Constitution likewise states that We the People have Other Protected Rights that may not be specifically stated in the Constitution.

Considering the vast weight of law supporting the argument that President Trump cannot be legally taken off any ballot or denied the right to hold office, these days one should not be surprised if the states of Colorado, California and several others do not list Donald Trump as a Presidential Candidate on their states’ Presidential Election ballots next year. They may keep his name off the ballot and challenge anyone to sue them for it.

Should President Trump not appear on Colorado’s Presidential Election ballot, a voter can write his name on the ballot in the blank line that is always, and by law, provided for voters to Write-In a Candidate and cast their votes for him. Law requires the Write-In Votes to be counted.

Personally, the very idea of anyone branding President Trump as an Insurrectionist because of words protected by the Free Speech clause in the 1st Amendment that he said on the Mall in Washington, DC to a crowd well-removed from the rioters that gathered at the United States Capitol Building is itself an Affront to Justice and at very least Tramples the Spirit if not the Law of The Constitution of the United States of America.

The people who brand Mr. Trump an Insurrectionist and demand that he cannot hold office as President or a Member of Congress or any other Federal Officer themselves by their very actions of suing to keep Mr. Trump’s name off any ballot are by their actions defying their own Oaths they may have taken to Support and Defend The Constitution of the United States of America Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. They violate their oaths taken exactly as they accuse Mr. Trump of doing and rendering him ineligible for holding Federal Office, as stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Such lawsuits and actions by any state, government or agency within the United States of America is an affront and a bitter insult to every person who took the Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution.

I may not care for Donald Trump as a person. I may object to his record as a businessman and developer who made billions on the losses of good, hard-working people.

Yet I must Stand in Defense of Donald Trump’s Constitutional Rights and his Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty. As such, Mr. Trump’s name must, therefore, appear on all ballots in the 2024 Election of President of the United States.

Supporting and Defending the Constitution of the United States means that we must defend and support the rights of even those with whom we may vehemently disagree. Including the Rights of Donald Trump.

Landmark Freedom of Religion Case Set Before the Supreme Court

/ Charles Henderson / Leave a comment

constitutionToday, 85 members of the United States Congress filed an Amicus Brief before the United States Supreme Court in support of religious liberty, as part of the biggest case that addresses the First Amendment’s rights affording Freedom to Worship in more than a half century.

Among those penning his name to this brief is Colorado 5th District Congressman Doug Lamborn. I applaud and support Congressman Lamborn in this case.

I pray that the Supreme Court will be guided by the original intent of the writers of the Constitution, guaranteeing all people the Freedom to Worship and the Freedom to Not Worship, as they so choose. It is a matter of Free Will. While no one should be forced or coerced to pray, likewise no one should be prohibited from praying.

Impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter will be significant. It may well open the door for expressions of faith and freedom to pray to return to school graduations, football games and other public events.

The case is the Town of Greece (New York) v. Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens. The Amicus Brief just filed, signed by the 85 members of the US Congress, can be read at the following link:

EF13H12

Ken Klukowski, J.D., director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council (FRC) filed the Amicus Brief  before the US Supreme Court for the 85 members of Congress in support of the Town of Greece, the petitioners.

“It is likely that the town of Greece will prevail before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case, and a victory for them will be a victory for all Americans of faith and for the Constitution itself,” Klukowski said in a statement to the Press. “Given that the Court has looked approvingly to legislative prayer dating to the Founding, it is likely that the Court will not only affirm prayer but significantly strengthen the religious liberty rights of Americans in public life and the public square.”

The Respondents, Galloway and Stephens, held that the town council holding prayer before they met in session violated the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” They said that holding prayer established a religion by the State. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the use of public prayer before town meetings in the Town of Greece, New York violated the First Amendment’s clause that prohibits an establishment of religion.

The Town of Greece, New York included all faiths and non-faiths, including Wiccans and atheists, in their town meetings’ opening procedures, affording all people the opportunity to express their faith, and to not participate in those expressions of faith. Wiccans were given opportunity to express faith. Atheists were also given the floor to disavow faith in God if they chose.

In my opinion, such is exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the other authors of the Constitution of the United States had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment in 1789 and presented it within the Bill of Rights before the first assembly of Congress. The Government of the United States should not require a person to have faith, nor should they require a person to not have faith. Thus they wrote:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Where the Town of Greece, New York may well prevail before the United States Supreme Court, and thereby win back for the people their freedom to pray, is that the Town of Greece did nor force nor coerce anyone to participate in any prayer or expression of religious faith. Affording the People free will to choose to exercise their religious faith or to not participate is key.

Praying before a football game, praying before a city council meeting, praying at the opening of a session of Congress does not make any kind of law establishing any religion. Making a law that respects the “establishment of religion,” is to say that the government picks a faith, like King Henry VIII did when he established the Church of England, and requires all citizens to be members of that faith.

Yet, even King Henry could not eliminate other faiths, and that led to bloody purges by his heirs–Bloody Mary re-establishing Catholic faith and Elizabeth I then killing them. Our founding fathers recognized this and wished to avoid such horrors.

Religious faith should be free will, just as God has given us, His children, Free Will. God gives us the freedom to make our own choices, even whether to believe in Him or to not believe in Him. Likewise our Constitution mirrors this logic.

Thomas Jefferson called the established churches of his time the “Anti-Christ.” And their dogmas (often judgmental, hate filled and murderous) a dung hill. Jefferson was impassioned that We the People should have the Freedom to worship as we wish, without a dogmatic dictatorship ordering us our faith. Therefore, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

But, so very important in the same sentence is “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Free exercise thereof means that We the People should and have the Right to pray and exercise our faith anyplace we wish and at anytime we wish. Therefore, Prayer at a football game, asking God to protect our players and to instill good sportsmanship, is appropriate. Prayer before a city council meeting, asking God to guide the wisdom of the elected officials, is appropriate. Prayer before the opening of a Congress is appropriate. And all are protected under the clause “…the free exercise thereof….”

The idea of a separation of Church and State is the notion expressed by Thomas Jefferson that there should be a “wall of separation between the church and the state.” He certainly did not intend that to ban faith from government, but to keep religious dogma from dictating to government, as it did in England.

In 1963, the Abington School District v. Schempp case before the United States Supreme Court held that a child could not be forced to pray or to participate in prayer when prayer was said over the intercom. This is reasonable and consistent with the Constitution. The key operative here is, Forced. Likewise, Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961 similarly held that an elected official could not be forced to affirm that he or she believed in God or had any faith. Again correct, and the key operative is also the word, Forced. This is also consistent with Jefferson’s ideal of the wall of separation. The fact that these people were being FORCED to accept or affirm Faith, or being FORCED to participate in prayer did violate their Constitutional freedom to choose to not affirm faith or to not pray. It is the exercise of Free Will. Just as forcing a person to pray denies their free will, so does prohibiting them the exercise of prayer equally denies free will.

However, threats of lawsuits by atheist groups, often hand in hand with the ACLU, intimidate school boards to deny people freedom of religion and free expressions of their faith. These anti-God zealots have today distorted the correct interpretations of religion being forced upon people to that of merely the presence of religious expression violating the ideal of the wall of separation.

When the National Anthem is played or the US flag enters a room, people stand in respect and cover their hearts. They do so freely. They are not FORCED to do it.

The same Constitutional Freedom of expression that allows us to stand or not stand in respect of the National Anthem or Flag, based on the Free-Will logic, applies to public prayer. No one is FORCED to pray, they are FREE to not pray.

And that is the key element in the Supreme Court decisions respecting prayer and the wall of separation, which is NOT part of the Constitution, but is accepted as the logic behind the First Amendment guaranteeing the People Freedom to pray or not pray, as they wish.

 ©Copyright 2013 Charles W. Henderson