I have presented my case many times, saying that many judges have become activist and in doing so have violated long-standing legal doctrine on the interpretation of contracts and laws.
“The Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it. We give effect to the purpose indicated, by a fair interpretation of the language used, and unless the context suggests otherwise words are to be given their natural, obvious and ordinary meaning.”
. . . .
An example of this misconstruing of the law — of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 —
can be seen in the controversial Trump court battles.
“No person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States [who] 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.”
This CNN opinion by Dean Obeidallah quotes Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace:
“[Wallace] ruled last week that former President Donald Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ on January 6, 2021, as defined by Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment. She didn’t disqualify Trump from the state’s ballot, however, finding that the ‘insurrectionist ban’ in the 14th Amendment does not apply to US presidents.”
Wallace added,
“At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, an insurrection was ‘understood to refer to any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law.’ The ‘events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of ‘insurrection.’” [However,] ‘for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three [of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution] did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.’”
. . . .
To clarify, her decision is unreasonable and lacking in legal support. She interjects her opinion, my view, that she didn’t think the drafters intended to include the President although the wording of this 14th Amendment, Section 3 speaks to “no person.” That’s plain and simple. If, as many courts have held when attempting to assert a missing clause into the law, “if the legislature wanted the clause it would have added the clause,” rejecting the lame defense that it was simply an oversight.