I take issue with the Tribune Editorial Board’s declaration that it was “stirred” by the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that states cannot disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential ballot for being an alleged oath-breaking insurrectionist (“In helping Trump, the liberal Supremes did America a service,” March 5). In fact, if there were ever any doubt that the court has lost its legitimacy, this decision should remove it.
The four Colorado Republican voters — yes, they were all Republicans — and two unaffiliated votes who appealed to the state of Colorado to disqualify Trump were following the Constitution, which tells us that each state’s electoral votes for president are allocated “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” In other words, each state sets its own rules for choosing a president.
But now the Supreme Court has ruled that, in effect, those voters erred. Should they have instead lodged their complaint in federal court? But then wouldn’t the federal court have rejected that appeal because candidate qualifications are up to the states? Sounds like a Catch-22 to me.
Some justices took it even further, ruling that the 14th Amendment, Section 3, can be enforced only if Congress passes a law that defines precisely what engaging in insurrection means and even what particular individuals can be disqualified for doing so.
You remember Congress, right? That’s the body that can’t even pass bills that most of their members support when Trump, who holds no official position, tells them not to. In what imaginary universe would we ever see legislation such as the court requires?
So this ruling essentially cancels Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — poof! Just like that. As three of the minority justices put it in disagreeing with how far the majority went in the court’s decision, the requirement of congressional action “attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” Isn’t that special!
On that score, it’s galling to read how Justice Amy Coney Barrett, although she agreed the court went too far in one respect, scolds those other three justices for “stridency,” writing that “the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Really? Who has raised the “national temperature” up to the boiling point, other than Trump, who refers to people who used flagpoles bearing Confederate battle flags as clubs on Capitol police on Jan. 6, 2021, as “patriots,” but labels our current president a “Marxist” and a “fascist” and his GOP challenger a “birdbrain”?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
— Rick Knight, Brookfield
Supreme Court’s misunderstanding
It is so sad to see that the decline in reading proficiency extends all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is brief. It begins: “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.”
The phrasing is unusual because the authors put what is most important in the very beginning of the sentence — that this section is talking about a prohibition on running for any state or federal office. The sentence is cluttered because it is trying to cover all bases. What is clear is that the authors are instituting a universal disqualification.
Section 3 does not limit who can arrive at this finding. It could be anyone. The question then becomes: What is the remedy for someone who is wrongly disqualified? That is addressed in the last line of Section 3: “But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove the disability.”
Apparently, the Supreme Court is not able to understand the simple and straightforward action prescribed by Section 3. Congress does not have to pass legislation. The Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” (Article VI, paragraph 2). No further legislation is necessary. Three states and the U.S. House of Representatives determined candidate Trump, who had previously taken the presidential oath, committed insurrection. The Supreme Court has no role in this matter other than to point out to candidate Trump that the disability placed upon him can be removed only by Congress. Only Congress, by a vote of two-thirds, can restore Trump to the ballot in all states. If not, he must be removed from all state ballots. It is that simple.
However, because the Supreme Court could not understand that sentence, the court has ruled that no one can stop a man, who to this day has not accepted the results of the last election, from running and doing the same thing again.
— Janice Cody, Chicago
Court must reassure us now
America is a very fortunate land.
Americans are lucky people. They have freedom from autocracies and divine rights of kings. Since the beginning of the nation, they have enjoyed these rights and blessings. The Founding Fathers had an enlightened humanistic vision to begin a constitutional republic, a new order governed by the old and simple Roman dictum: “Salus populi suprema lex.” (“The well-being of the people is supreme law.”)
The U.S. Supreme Court, by taking the ultimate appeal of absolute presidential immunity, now has the sacred honor and constitutional duty to reassure us that the United States of America is a constitutional republic “of the people, by the people, for the people,” and not for one man, who thinks he is above the law and wanna-be Louis XIV of France, who said: “L’Etat c’est moi.” (“I am the state.”)
God bless America.
— Raffaele Di Zenzo, Westchester
City’s limits on dollar stores
I’m thrilled to see the Chicago City Council limit the proliferation of chain dollar stores. The approach is responsive to residents’ concerns and acknowledges the futility of trying to address the myriad issues on a store-by-store basis.
While most local legislation, including Chicago’s, has focused on food access, there’s another major public health problem with dollar stores: They sell (and heavily market) tobacco products. In a pressured retail environment for brick-and-mortar stores, discount retailers such as Dollar General and Family Dollar are one of the only categories that are expanding and opening new stores. In tobacco control, this is a problem because the density of stores that sell tobacco is shown to hook new users and interfere with smokers’ attempts to quit. One study by university researchers even found an association between smoking among pregnant women and the expansion of dollar stores in the South. Chain stores are also aggressive promoters of tobacco products..
From a tobacco control perspective, Chicago’s new policy is likely to improve health equity, because dollar stores are likely concentrated in the areas with the highest tobacco use rates. In general, cigarette smoking is substantially higher among adults with lower income, less educational attainment and serious mental illness. By no coincidence, tobacco retail density is higher in neighborhoods with these groups — and restricting tobacco retail density is therefore a priority policy for improving health equity. A general cap on tobacco retail density — such as that imposed by New York City and other localities — could build on the dollar store ordinance to make sure that other types of new stores don’t peddle dangerous products.
At the same time, more needs to be done to improve offerings and safety at the existing stores not affected by the new ordinance. Without stronger provisions to require staple food stocking — which can be enacted at the local level — there is no guarantee that the existing stores will improve their offerings of healthy food.
Stores influence what we buy and the way we eat. As other local governments look to Chicago for lessons on their role in the retail environment, I hope they consider the full health impact of all kinds of stores in their communities, not just dollar stores.
Comprehensive approaches are urgently needed.
— Emily Nink, Milwaukee
