Local City Council Race

I live in an Italian rich neighborhood that decades back was represented in government by at least one Republican. A political office nearby still has the conservative candidate in the city council primary in its window. 

Kristy Marmorato, the Republican X-ray technician running against New York City Council Member Marjorie Velázquez in the Bronx, has been endorsed by several prominent individuals with close ties to former President Donald Trump.

So, it is not too surprising that the city council race is one of the most competitive. It is also not surprising that the Republican candidate has Trump connections. Having someone who is Proud Boy-friendly, still, is not really a good endorsement to have for this area. It still is at best moderate Republican as a whole, even if it did go for a clearly unqualified guy running for mayor vs. a former cop who is far from liberal. 

The main thing the Republicans might have going for them is that voters are not too knowledgeable about the details. I do not claim to know much about either candidate. I was annoyed the incumbent opposed a local site for a halfway house but did not keep track of the Bruckner Blvd thing. 

There are a handful of Republicans in the City Council, including the woman who decided to take a gun to a political rally. The Bronx district attorney (a state race) election does not seem like it is close. I checked and a summary of the two ballot measures -- as referenced recently -- noted that there was apparently no opposition to them either.  

So, it's notable if there is a competitive race here. By the way, a local dollar store recently opened near me, across from the post office. It is now closed with a sign referencing safety to consumers and staff. A Facebook discussion said there was a robbery though the councilwoman's office has not heard about it. A bit of direct involvement in the acts of the day. 

===

Prof. Eric Segall is against applying the 14A, sec. 3 measure to Trump. His overall reason is prudential, which is an appropriate aspect of constitutional analysis. I question his reasoning (see also this overheated discussion, which tosses in a misleading analysis of what is covered) there. 

My basic argument is that -- to the degree we can reasonably predict -- if the Supreme Court actually upheld a claim (far from likely; more likely it never would be decided or would be punted), the Republican Party would pick someone else. The public, watching Trump be criminally tried (a top figure in the conspiracy, Sidney Powell, pled guilty in Georgia), would find this a reasonable approach. Some will grumble, but most will accept it.

(See, e.g., Bush v. Gore. )

There would not be some violent overthrow of peace and safety. If this occurred in late 2024, yes, I can see that being problematic. But, I don't think that will happen. I surely don't want to imagine a situation where Trump actually legitimately won the relevant popular votes. And, 14A, sec. 3 battles to me are going to be the least of our concerns then. 

But, fine,  putting aside that his tone is rather assured (this is a guy begging people to support Michael Bloomberg in 2020) at times. I am much less supportive of him and others trying to toss in a bunch of bogus arguments to stack the argument about how "difficult" the question is. 

The arguments are repeatedly lame. The title alone. What "chaos"? There would be an extended, peaceful, process, with lots of bottlenecks that make this whole thing largely academic. The provision applies to presidents. Not a serious argument. And, it is not limited to the Civil War. The Constitution is for today. The language doesn't suggest that. And so on.

The need for federal enabling legislation argument is more serious though it's still weak. It is at best a prudential thing. It does not really work as applied to state offices, which the provision covers, even there. The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce the provision, just as it has the power to clarify what "privileges" or "immunities" are and so on.

Who enforces the provision and who is a serious question with strong political question vibes. For instance, the president has strong foreign policy authority, which needs congressional involvement (such as funding). There are constitutional duties there. The argument here is more than that. Segall wants the provision not to be applied at all. So, in effect, nullify it. 

The final question covered is the application of "insurrection" to Trump. Again, it is not just about him. Still, this is a complicated factual question. I covered this before and think the answer is "yes." 

It is not just about criminal provisions directly about "insurrection." It is about the constitutional reach of the provision. Consider. Is the argument that if a state denies someone an office, except for a few people convicted for sedition or the like, they acted unconstitutionally?  

Michael Dorf noted on social media he disagreed with Eric Segall and would respond. He has not of this writing though said in the past that he supported the arguments of the other side overall.