To the Editor:
Re “Seeing Threat to Democracy, With Trump on Ballot or Not” (entrance web page, Dec. 31):
The argument by Republicans like J.D. Vance and Chris Christie and Democrats like Gavin Newsom that eradicating Donald Trump from the poll can be anti-democratic and would deprive voters of the best to decide on their president is flawed in two respects.
First, the 14th Modification — like the remainder of the Structure — was adopted via a democratic course of. It’s no extra anti-democratic to disclaim Mr. Trump a spot on the poll as a result of he engaged in rebel than it’s to disqualify a 34-year-old from working for president due to the age requirement.
Second, if the Supreme Court docket chooses to not implement the 14th Modification on the premise that voters ought to have the ability to make an unfettered choice, it should give voters a chance to evaluate all the info for themselves. If the courtroom have been to reverse the Colorado choice to maintain Mr. Trump off the poll, a obligatory corollary have to be an expedited prison trial on the Jan. 6-related indictment in order that voters might be totally knowledgeable earlier than deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Trump.
The polls recommend that the outcomes of this trial could change the votes of a major variety of Mr. Trump’s supporters and will decide the result of the election.
Randy Speck
Washington
To the Editor:
“Seeing Menace to Democracy, With Trump on Poll or Not” leaves out a vital drawback: the glacial tempo of the prison justice system. Whether or not former President Donald Trump is responsible of rebel ought to have already been determined in courtroom. However our justice system is just too sluggish, and too susceptible to Mr. Trump’s favourite authorized technique, to delay, delay, delay.
Since March 2023, Mr. Trump has been charged with 91 felonies in 4 circumstances: falsifying enterprise information, mishandling categorised paperwork, and making an attempt to overturn the 2020 election via an rebel and by attempting to strong-arm Georgia officers. However we haven’t seen Mr. Trump cleared or convicted of those prices, prices filed solely years after the actual fact.
With courtroom justice delayed, and mountains of compelling proof publicly out there, it’s no shock that challenges have been filed in 32 states to contemplate whether or not Mr. Trump is responsible of rebel and thus ineligible to run for president.
Deciding Mr. Trump’s guilt or innocence earlier than the subsequent election remains to be doable. However it should require judicial officers to behave quicker than could also be snug or typical. American democracy is at stake, making it crucial that justice not be denied via delay.
Tom Levy
Oakland, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “How Justices May Weigh Trump Case,” by Adam Liptak (information evaluation, entrance web page, Dec. 30):
In 2000, I wrote a press release ultimately signed by 673 legislation professors (and run as a full-page advert in The Instances) denouncing the Bush v. Gore justices for appearing as “political partisans, not judges of a courtroom of legislation.” Will they achieve this once more?
The Republican-appointed justices can escape partisanship by rejecting the feeble arguments in opposition to eradicating Donald Trump from the poll.
First, the 14th Modification plainly applies to the presidency. Who can take critically the notion that the modification’s authors wished to forestall insurrectionists from working for dogcatcher however not probably the most highly effective workplace within the land?
Second, Jan. 6 was clearly an rebel — a violent try and overturn an election and forestall a lawfully elected president from taking workplace.
Lastly, those that argue “let the voters resolve” ignore that it was exactly the purpose of the constitutional provision to forestall voters from deciding to place insurrectionists again into energy.
Anti-democratic? In a manner. Those that wrote Part 3 of the 14th Modification acknowledged that American democracy remained in danger from those that had as soon as tried to overthrow our authorities. When it got here to rebel, their view was: “One strike, you’re out.”
We face the exact same dangers right now. An insurrectionist desires one other shot at dictatorship. The Structure says no manner.
Mitchell Zimmerman
Palo Alto, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “In Trump Case, Voters’ Will vs. Rule of Law,” by Charlie Savage (information evaluation, Dec. 23):
Mr. Savage considers the argument that eradicating Donald Trump’s title from the poll based mostly on the 14th Modification would deprive voters of the best to choose their leaders, and he sees a conflict between voters’ rights and the precept that nobody is above the legislation.
However there isn’t a such battle right here. We should after all respect voters’ rights, if our democracy is to endure. Which is all of the extra cause to implement the 14th Modification and maintain Mr. Trump off the poll.
He was already rejected by the voters in 2020, and he refused to just accept their choice. He refused to honor his constitutional obligation to allow the peaceable switch of energy. He tried to deprive hundreds of thousands of voters of their proper to have their votes counted. One goal of Part 3 of the 14th Modification is to forestall such folks from repeating such a travesty.
Allow us to additionally dispense with the argument that we must always maintain Mr. Trump on the poll to keep away from social unrest. The approaching election — assuming a rematch between President Biden and Mr. Trump — will probably be fraught with issues, irrespective of the result.
If Mr. Trump wins, he’ll maintain his guarantees to destroy a lot of our democratic establishments; if he loses, he is not going to settle for his defeat, and we’ll see a replay of 2020, and presumably of Jan. 6, 2021.
The results of imposing the legislation is likely to be dire, however the penalties of not imposing it is likely to be worse.
Larry Hohm
Seattle
Reflections After Claudine Homosexual’s Resignation at Harvard
To the Editor:
Re “What Happened at Harvard Is Bigger Than Me,” by Claudine Homosexual, the previous president of Harvard (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 4):
I applaud Dr. Homosexual’s visitor essay. She emphasizes how her place as a Black lady ready of energy partly explains the venom with which she has been attacked. The press, together with The New York Instances, ought to be drawing larger consideration to the rampant misogyny unleashed in these assaults on main ladies in academia.
Susan Laird Mody
Plattsburgh, N.Y.
The author is emerita affiliate professor of training and gender and girls’s research at SUNY Plattsburgh.
To the Editor:
Claudine Homosexual wraps herself in Harvard’s toga of integrity. It merely received’t work, not for herself nor for Harvard. Plagiarism allegations are critical, particularly for an instructional researcher — or for a president of a number one educational establishment. The very best she will do now’s to go away gracefully, with out excuses or explanations.
Mark Castelino
Newark
The author is an affiliate professor of finance at Rutgers Enterprise Faculty.
To the Editor:
As a Harvard alumnus, I for one am sorry to see Claudine Homosexual go. Not as a result of she was an ideal president. However as a result of she demonstrated a number of qualities typically missing in public figures right now: kindness, humility and a dedication to development.
I additionally don’t perceive individuals who say she wasn’t “certified” as a result of she didn’t have a voluminous analysis report. The presidency of Harvard is just not a Nobel Prize. It’s an administrative position, and Dr. Homosexual was an achieved college administrator. We should always think about the agendas of those that recommend in any other case.
Bernie Zipprich
New York
