The Silent Majority

Since January 2021, I've received many messages from people asking something like the following: "Section Three says that officials who engage in insurrection against the Constitution are barred from office. You're on expert on Section Three. How can Trump run again?" There are many answers to this question. Reading the Constitution is not the same as enforcing the Constitution, for instance.  But the question is a good one and still stands.

Much of the recent commentary on Section Three focuses on how Trump voters might view his exclusion. That's an important concern. But not enough attention is being given to how the silent majority that twice voted against Trump will view his third campaign in light of constitutional language that seems to bar that campaign. We're not talking about some clever argument that the Constitution means something that is not in the text. There is an express textual provision being invoked here.

At a minimum, I think that the majority is owed an explanation by the Supreme Court about whether these words apply to Trump and, if not, why not. Those opinions (and the inevitable dissents) are not going to solve all of our problems. But our problems will be much worse if we get no such explanation.