by Robert Romano
Nearly a month after former President Donald Trump was convicted by a New York jury on May 30, Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that On June 20, that his state was suing New York for “a direct attack on our democratic process through an unconstitutional violation of law against President Trump.”
That’s good – better delayed than never – because Bailey is the first Republican attorney general to actually announce such a lawsuit, just ahead of Trump’s scheduled July 11 sentencing, which could result in prison time for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Trump just won the presidential primaries in 49 of 50 states with a record result of 76.4% of the popular vote in this primary, the most in newfangled primary history by a non-incumbent presidential candidate, and even more than Al Gore’s previous record was 75.8 percent of the vote in 2000 for the Democratic nomination.
There is certainly a case to be made even at this delayed hour, which is that the City of New York and the State of New York appear to have no authority to enforce alleged violations of federal election law under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution – particularly in a case that affects other states and the right of their citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice in the 2024 election.
There is no doubt that Missouri and other states, if they join in the suit, will have original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in the event of a “controversy between two or more states…”
It all comes down to whether one state, New York, will be able to determine how the 2024 election will be decided, based largely on Trump’s potential inability to campaign if he is imprisoned. Never before in U.S. history has a major party candidate been sent to prison in a presidential election, let alone a former president.
Here we have Democratic prosecutors, judges and juries looking to potentially imprison an opposition party leader in an election year in an unprecedented way that threatens our civil society and creates a constitutional crisis not seen since the Richard Nixon case.
In Nixon’s case, after resigning from the presidency in August 1974, (*11*)then-President Gerald Ford immediately pardoned him in September 1974 for any crimes that may have been committed, warning of the vicious cycle that would result if Nixon were prosecuted after leaving office, calling it “an American tragedy in which we all played a part.” It can go on and on, or someone will have to write the end of it. I came to the conclusion that only I could do it, and if I could do it, I had to.”
Ford argued that one way or another the former president could not obtain a fair trial, stating that “a former president of the United States, rather than enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would have acted cruelly and excessively punished either by upholding the presumption of his innocence, or by quickly establishing his guilt in order to repay his legal debt to society.”
With hindsight and based on the immediate case of Trump, we see that Ford was correct, especially in his assessment that it is essentially impossible for a former president – and in this case, I would argue, any party appointee – to receive a fair trial, especially in a jurisdiction dominated by the opposing political party.
In a letter to all state attorneys general dated May 31 this yearAmerican president of confined government Rick Manning also noted that in addition to the unprecedented election interference caused by Trump’s accusations, there were certainly violations of Trump’s constitutional rights, including “unconstitutional orders of silence regarding his First Amendment rights, but also denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of his Sixth Amendment right to face clear charges.”
Manning added: “Because they also impact voters’ rights to hear and see both candidates in the general election, state attorneys general have an obligation to maintain their powers in the Electoral College.”
Manning argued that with the July 11 verdict looming, states have very little time to act and that normalizing these types of political proceedings could have dire consequences: “Failure by states and the Supreme Court to act would encourage political persecution of the president and other candidates.” for public office and their perpetuation through endless repression and show trials, effectively destroying faith in the impartiality of the justice system, the rule of law, the Constitution and civil society on which the expansive majority of Americans depend. If both political parties can’t agree not to prosecute political opponents, we don’t have a country.”
Manning is right, and it is up to states that have a vested interest in preserving their own election laws to immediately file a challenge to the Supreme Court. With such a tiny window of time, it’s not even clear that such action would be effective, but inaction also ensures a negative outcome, including potentially putting Trump in jail on July 11 before the Republican National Convention scheduled for July 15-18 There appears to be little to be gained , waiting one more minute: states should file suit now – before it’s too delayed.
– – –
