President Barack Obama is releasing a new 768-page memoir titled, “A Promised Land” on Nov. 17 and readers can expect insight regarding the future president’s childhood and political rise, as well as the 2008 battle for the White House that included vehement “birther” movement attacks by then-reality star Donald J. Trump.
The memoir will dive into Obama’s historic first four years in office with hundreds of pages dedicated to the fights and characters that colored his tenure in the White House, according to CNN. Among his recounts: the racial inequality that plagued the nation and brought rise to Trumpism.
“It was as if my very presence in the White House had triggered a deep-seated panic, a sense that the natural order had been disrupted,” Obama wrote. “Which is exactly what Donald Trump understood when he started peddling assertions that I had not been born in the United States and was thus an illegitimate president. For millions of Americans spooked by a Black man in the White House, he promised an elixir for their racial anxiety.”
In addition to Trump, Obama’s memoir also captures the timeframe surrounding the capture and kill of Osama bin Laden.
In the memoir, Obama refers to his “failure” to pass immigration reform as being “a bitter pill to swallow” and acknowledging that the economy “stank” as he headed into the 2010 midterms, where Republicans reclaimed the House of Representatives on the back of the Tea Party movement.
“As far as I was concerned, the election didn’t prove our agenda had been wrong,” Obama writes of 2010. “It just proved that… I’d failed to rally the nation, as FDR had once done, behind what I knew to be right. Which to me was just as damning.”
This is Obama’s third memoir — the first was “Dream from My Father” in 1995 and his second was “The Audacity of Hope” in 2006. Michelle Obama released her own memoir, “Becoming,” in 2018, selling millions of copies.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Does the 14th Amendment Bar Trump From Being President?
States across the nation are determining whether or not former President Donald Trump can appear on ballots in upcoming primary elections—and if Trump is even eligible to serve. Most of these arguments hinge on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But with some states—like Maine and Colorado—moving to strike Trump from the ballot, while others—including California, Minnesota and Michigan—deciding to keep Trump in the primaries, is there a clear answer as to whether or not the 14th Amendment actually applies? Let’s take a look at the arguments, for and against.
What is the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment lays out the rules for being an elected official in the federal government, and is also the home of the equal protection clause. While the equal protection clause—which sets up due process—is important, most of the focus in this particular fight is on Section 3.
Section 3 reads as follows:
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.
Section 3 was passed shortly after the Civil War, and ratified in 1868. It was intended to keep former Confederates out of Congress and the electoral college. In 1872, Congress invoked the last clause of the section to give immunity to most former Confederates, except for those high up in the Confederacy—for example, General Robert E. Lee or President Jefferson Davis.
Prior to Trump, Section 3 has been invoked only once after the Civil War. Victor Berger, a Socialist Party of America member from Wisconsin was barred from his elected seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920. Berger had been convicted in 1919 of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for speaking against the U.S.’ entry into World War I. The Supreme Court ruled in 1921 that Section 3 did not apply to Berger, and he served three more terms in the House, from 1923 to 1929.
Why The 14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump
Both Maine and Colorado have barred Trump from their primary ballots, citing the 14th Amendment. In Maine’s ruling Thursday evening, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said that Trump “engaged in insurrection” on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the Capitol Building in order to stop the confirmation of the 2020 election results in Congress.
“I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” Bellows wrote, according to the AP. “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”
On December 19, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Trump was ineligible to appear on the primary ballot due to the 14th Amendment, according to the AP. The court ruled that Trump indeed engaged in an insurrection, and thus, was not able to be president.
Other politicians and pundits have weighed in. Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a former professor of constitutional law, said the Constitution “could not be any clearer,” according to The Hill.
“This is a chance for these [Supreme Court] justices to show that they really mean it when they talk about textualism, when they talk about originalism. The plain text of the Constitution could not be any clearer,” Raskin said. “If Donald Trump is not disqualified from holding office again after what he did on January 6 in the weeks leading up to it, then who is disqualified? Why would they read an entire provision out of the constitution?”
Another constitutional law professor, Mark A. Graber of the University of Maryland, agrees. Graber puts particular emphasis on the part of Section 3 about a person who had previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution who engages in insurrection.
“These oaths bind officeholders to follow all the rules in the Constitution. The only legitimate government officers are those who hold their offices under the constitutional rules. Lawmakers must follow the Constitution’s rules for making laws. Officeholders can only recognize laws that were made by following the rules – and they must recognize all such laws as legitimate,” Graber wrote in an essay for The Conversation.
Why It Doesn’t Apply to Trump
On the other hand, most of the court rulings in favor of Trump ask questions of jurisdiction and standing. In Florida, a federal district judge ruled that the lawyer and voters who sued to remove Trump didn’t have standing, according to Forbes. In Michigan and Minnesota both, Trump was allowed to remain on the ballot because Trump had qualified for the primary election, but the courts said the cases could be brought again should Trump enter the general election.
In California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber declined to honor a request from Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis to “explore every legal option” to boot Trump from the ballot citing the 14th Amendment, according to the New York Times. However, California state law does not legally give the secretary of state authority to disqualify candidates in the presidential race, the Times reports. This sets California apart from most other states, where secretaries of state indeed have that power.
As with the argument in favor of dumping Trump, politicians have come out to say that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply in this case. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said that Section 3 only applies to the former Confederacy, and has no modern application.
“The 14th Amendment referred to, basically, people who had risen in rebellion and fought a war for four years. There’s no point at which it references anybody today,” Gingrich said, according to The Hill.
Gingrich also said that Trump had not been charged with insurrection, “because you can’t. Because an insurrection is a unique and classifiable thing.”
Legal scholar Kurt Lash wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that posits that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, as the presidency is not, as the Constitution requires, a “‘civil’ office ‘under the United States.'”
“If the framers meant the catchall provision to include presidents and postmasters, they were remarkably negligent. According to longstanding congressional precedent and legal authority, the phrase ‘civil office under the United States’ did not include the office of president of the United States. As Joseph Story explained in his influential ‘Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,’ the congressional precedent known as Blount’s case established that the offices of president, senator and representative were not civil offices under the government of the United States; they were the government of the United States. The phrase ‘civil office under the United States’ referred to appointed offices,” he continued.
Of course, we’ll have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide before we’ll have an official answer. While both chambers of Congress could give Trump an exemption, this seems unlikely as the Republican control of the House is by a razor-thin margin, and the Democrats control the Senate.
But either way, until then, Trump’s political fate lies in limbo.
Trump’s Primary Opponents Say They’d Help Him If Elected, Even Though He’s Bashed Them
While former President Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the Republican primary, Trump’s primary opponents say they’re going to help him if elected—even as he tears into them.
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley promised Thursday in New Hampshire that if she were to be elected, she’d “pardon Trump if he was found guilty,” according to Business Insider.
“A leader needs to think about what’s in the best interest of the country,” Haley said. “What’s in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail, that continues to divide our country.”
The same day, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that he’d fire special counsel Jack Smith on his first day as President, according to The Hill. DeSantis then accused Smith, who has brought two indictments against Trump, and the Biden administration of having “weaponized the legal system to go after their political enemies.”
“And that starts with day one, firing somebody like Jack Smith. That goes to dealing with people who are violating constitutional rights at the state and local government area,” DeSantis said.
Though Haley and DeSantis promised to help Trump, in his usual fashion, he’s repeatedly bashed his primary opponents. In February, shortly after Haley announced her candidacy, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the “greatest thing” she did was to accept the U.N. ambassadorship so Henry McMaster could take her place as governor of South Carolina, according to Forbes.
“That was a big reason why I appointed Nikki to the position—it was a favor to the people I love in South Carolina,” Trump wrote.
This week, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., squashed rumors that Haley would be Trump’s vice presidential nominee, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“I wouldn’t have her on. I would go to great lengths to make sure that that doesn’t happen,” he said during a Newsmax interview, adding that she was “a puppet of the establishment.”
On Truth Social, Trump gave Haley one of his famous nicknames: “Birdbrain.” In a post Monday, Trump slammed her for being endorsed by Americans For Prosperity—which Trump called Americans For Chinese Prosperity—a conservative political advocacy group founded by the right-wing Koch brothers.
“Americans For Chinese Prosperity (Action?) is a Globalist CON JOB that is big on giving our Country away to China and other countries throughout the World. They Endorsed ‘Birdbrain’ because that has always been where her sympathies lie. She is a Globalist RINO, much like ‘Rob’ DeSanctimonious, but not a smart one, and I got to see that up close and personal. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump wrote.
And, as that post shows, Trump is not a fan of “DeSanctimonious”, either. Though in 2018, Trump endorsed DeSantis for governor, and DeSantis supported him during the Mueller probe, their allyship has cooled. Since then, Trump said DeSantis has has “got no personality,” and called him a “Trump imposter.”
While DeSantis has occasionally hit back at Trump, even telling reporters that if Trump “drained the swamp like he promised… [he] wouldn’t be in the mess that he’s in right now,” this isn’t the first time he’s defended Trump in recent memory. Earlier this month, he said Trump was not a “threat to democracy,” and should have gone further and, for example, fired Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Trump Says Michigan Supreme Court ‘Strongly and Rightfully’ Rejected Appeal to Boot Him From Ballot
Former President Donald Trump praised the Michigan Supreme Court for denying an appeal Wednesday that would boot him off the Republican primary ballot.
“The Michigan Supreme Court has strongly and rightfully denied the Desperate Democrat attempt to take the leading Candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, me, off the ballot in the Great State of Michigan. This pathetic gambit to rig the Election has failed all across the Country, including in States that have historically leaned heavily toward the Democrats,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.
He then took the opportunity to bash Colorado, so far, the only state to rule Trump ineligible to appear on the primary ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to hear an appeal of this ruling, according to Slate. In addition, the Colorado justices have received death threats, and the state GOP says that it will move to a caucus system if the court’s decision keeping him off the ballot stands.
“This pathetic gambit to rig the Election has failed all across the Country, including in States that have historically leaned heavily toward the Democrats. Colorado is the only State to have fallen prey to the scheme. That 4-3 Colorado Supreme Court decision, which they themselves stayed, thus keeping me on the ballot as we go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, is being ridiculed and mocked all over the World,” Trump continued.
“We have to prevent the 2024 Election from being Rigged and Stolen like they stole 2020 – just look at the complete mess we have as a result with Crooked Joe Biden violently destroying everything in his sight, from our once-great Economy to our once-fair Justice System. We have to save our Country from decline and the Radical Left. Make America Great Again!”
The Michigan Supreme Court ruling may not be the slam-dunk win Trump appears to make it out to be. The case before the court called on Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to make sure all candidates are eligible to serve. Plaintiffs said Trump was ineligible under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, specifically the Insurrection Clause.
The court’s ruling, however, didn’t engage with the question as to whether or not the events of January 6, 2021 counted as an insurrection, that Trump was responsible, nor that Trump was barred by the clause. Instead, the court upheld a ruling from the state’s Court of Appeals that it was not up to Benson to determine a candidate’s eligibility, according to The Detroit News.
Justice Elizabeth Welch, in her dissent, did say the ruling lets “appellants to renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for president of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate.”
The Michigan Supreme Court ruling comes a week after recordings leaked of Trump urging Republican members of the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County, Michigan, to not certify the 2020 election. The recordings, obtained by The Detroit News, have Trump offering to provide lawyers if the two board members declined to sign the certification.
“We’ve got to fight for our country,” Trump told the board members. “We can’t let these people take our country away from us.”
- News3 days ago
‘Handmaid’s Tale’: Biden Campaign Blasts Trump Christian Nationalism Plans
- News2 days ago
MAGA Is a ‘Russian Intel Op’: Experts Respond to Allegation GOP Using Kremlin Propaganda
- News1 day ago
Smirnov Scandal: Experts Call for Investigations, Warn GOP of Possible Conspiracy Charges
- News2 days ago
Kremlin Infiltration of Congress Alleged by Ex-Trump Prosecutor: Republicans ‘Duped or in on It’
- News3 days ago
‘BS’: Top Dem Senator Goes on Offense Against Republicans
- News3 days ago
Stalked by Nazis: How Extremists Tried to Stop Me From Reporting on Their Violence
- News2 days ago
Kremlin Using GOP in Plot to ‘Tear Down’ Biden is ‘Scandal of Historic Proportions’: Miller
- News1 day ago
Experts Ask if Trump Disclosed Classified Intel After Nuclear Weapons Talk at Town Hall