If Illinois prevails in keeping Trump off of the ballot, our republic is finished

Cook County has been labeled “Crook County” for good reasons. Chicago Circuit Judge Tracie Porter decided that former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from appearing on the Republican presidential primary ballot in Illinois. This decision was based on allegations tied to his involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. The judge’s ruling, invoking the insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, has sparked a significant debate over the balance of free speech, political activism, and the boundaries of legal disqualification from public office.

Insurrection? Give me a break. Trump was not part of the demonstration and even if he were, it’s free speech and not an “insurrection.”

This ruling, while currently delayed in anticipation of an appeal, underscores a concerning trend towards the politicization of legal mechanisms and the potential for judicial overreach, to say the least; it is paramount to recognize the implications such decisions may have on the democratic process, especially when considering the role of the judiciary in electoral matters.

It is disingenuous to apply the 14th Amendment in this context and in doing so raises critical questions about the interpretation of the term “insurrection” and who gets to define such actions as such. Even rational opponents of Trump know it is bogus to weaponize the 14th Amendment simply for Trump urging his supporters to “fight like hell.” Remember, he also told them to “stay peaceful.”

Moreover, the decision by a state-level judge affecting national electoral eligibility brings forth the issue of federalism and the potential for a patchwork of state-level decisions impacting the national political landscape. If every state can independently adjudicate the eligibility of presidential candidates based on divergent interpretations of constitutional clauses, the result could be an electoral chaos undermining the uniformity and predictability essential to the U.S. electoral system. Yes, as conservatives, we advocate for states’ rights, but this is over the top. Imagine what historians will say someday about how a highly crooked and totally Democrat Chicago-area court made the decision on whether or not a Republican could be on the ballot. Ah, memories of Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley “fixing” the election for John F. Kennedy.

The Trump campaign’s intention to appeal the ruling is not only expected but necessary in the fight for electoral fairness and the protection of political speech.

The anticipated appeal, and the Supreme Court’s forthcoming involvement, is crucial. The nation’s highest court has the opportunity to clarify the bounds of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause and, in doing so, to safeguard the principles of free speech and political participation. The justices’ skepticism during oral arguments in related cases hints at the complex balance between ensuring accountability for actions against the government and protecting the democratic process from becoming a casualty in partisan battles. But they really need to give this the “smell test” to see if it’s even remotely close to being an insurrection. A homeschooled 7-year old could tell you it was not.

Jerry McGlothlin serves as the CEO of Special Guests, a publicity agency known for representing guests who are dedicating to helping advance the ways of God and the Constitutional Republic.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.