Editor,
Mr. Nelson: I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean by verification in terms provided by the Constitution.
As was its constitutional right, the Trump campaign litigated the results of the election based on information they provided to 61 courts during the interregnum (between kings). It lost. Article II of the Constitution, along with the Electoral College Act of 1897, provides a clear process for certification of the electoral votes cast. This constitutionally prescribed process was exactly what the insurrectionists were trying to disrupt. A Colorado judge has found — after examination of 95 pages of evidence — that Mr. Trump was an insurrectionist by incitement, also, that the incitement was not protected speech under the First Amendment. I highly recommend everyone read her clear findings. Of course, what is great about America is that one judge is not the sum total of judiciary wisdom.
Opinions from more state and federal courts, as well as appellate courts, will craft the requisite wisdom we need to legally define insurrection.
I agree with you that Mr. Trump did some good. You forgot to add that he kept us out of costly foreign wars. However, there are three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024, where a broad “conservative” (textualist, originalist) ruling could completely eliminate the administrative state. Keep an eye on: SEC v. Jarkesy, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. If the federalists in SCOTUS decide to broadly eliminate the administrative state, then the protections provided by the federal government for us simple citizens will be eliminated. No
FDA to prevent importation of tainted foods and dangerous pharmaceuticals. A stock market that is regulated like the international crypto market (see Do Kwan, Bankman-Fried, and CZ). I have faith, though, in the sensible American Way to prevail. Time will tell!
Jay North
Ridgefield
