To the Editor:
Re “The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong,” by David French (column, Jan. 6):
Many constitutional scholars, including Prof. Laurence Tribe and Judge J. Michael Luttig, have argued convincingly that the literal meaning of the text of the 14th Amendment clearly disqualifies Donald Trump from being elected again as president. No objective observer can doubt that Mr. Trump gave “aid or comfort” to the insurrectionists.
Despite this I was ambivalent about the wisdom of the courts’ applying the 14th Amendment to prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president again. It would be less credible to be denied the presidency via the 14th Amendment versus losing it in a fair election. There would also be greater likelihood of a violent backlash and even the possibility of an attempted coup.
Mr. French has convinced me that allowing Mr. Trump to hold the 14th Amendment hostage to this fear is not wise. We only need to observe his increasingly erratic behavior and listen to his words to comprehend the many dangers of another Trump presidency. An attempted coup would surely fail, whereas if elected he could possibly hold on to power indefinitely.
I believe that it is unlikely for him to win the 2024 presidential election. It also seemed unlikely in 2016, but he won. He is clearly an existential threat to our freedom and democracy.
In my opinion, we should not have to take a chance. I only hope the Supreme Court justices heed Mr. French’s advice and summon the courage to follow the Constitution by invoking the 14th Amendment.
Mark Davidow
San Francisco
To the Editor:
David French’s legal analysis is flawed. The 14th Amendment doesn’t prohibit a person from running for office; it prohibits certain persons from holding office. The Supreme Court of the United States should reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado on that ground.
With this out of the way, it can readily be seen that this entire controversy is not constitutionally ripe for decision: If Donald Trump loses the 2024 presidential election, the issue never arises and does not need to be decided. Only if Mr. Trump wins the 2024 election does the issue become ripe for judicial decision.
At that point, and that point alone, the Supreme Court would need to decide whether the 14th Amendment bars Mr. Trump from holding office.
Mark Wallace
Orange, Calif.
The writer is a retired federal bankruptcy judge.
To the Editor:
Re “If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He?,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, Jan. 7):
If, as Donald Trump claims, the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 were patriots on a mission, and those patriots who have been caught, tried, sentenced and sent to prison are considered hostages, what then does that make the Capitol Police?
Following Mr. Trump’s logic, the Capitol Police become the insurrectionists, preventing patriots, who are fighting like hell, to achieve the mission assigned to them by Mr. Trump: to prevent the peaceful transition of presidential power.
With a salute to George Orwell, in Trump world 2 + 2 = 5.
George E. Davidson
Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
Re “The Election No One Seems to Want Is Coming” (The Conversation, Jan. 9):
Bret Stephens and Gail Collins seem to have overlooked a key provision of the 14th Amendment. I expect that the court will support the exclusion of Donald Trump from the ballot and leave the political decision to Congress. Congress can restore Mr. Trump’s right to be on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of each house.
The Supreme Court thereby follows the law, and the political decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people.
A neater solution than that would be hard to imagine. And it is right there in the Constitution.
Seth Bodner
Summit, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Which Toady Would Trump Pick as His No. 2?,” by Michelle Cottle (Opinion, Jan. 10):
Donald Trump is unlikely to select his vice president from among his prominent toadies, preferring to elevate an obscurity. Mr. Trump is the show, but in a role that requires a sidekick, a Charlie McCarthy (the famous dummy of the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen) will do.
All the choices described here, including Elise Stefanik, Kari Lake and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, have displayed ambition, some talent, a taste for independence and some followers, all potential sources of friction. More likely is an unqualified nonentity.
Brian Kelly
Rockville Centre, N.Y.
Sharing Joy and Sorrow
To the Editor:
“‘Shared Sorrow Is Half Sorrow,’” by David French (column, Jan. 8), about his wife’s breast cancer diagnosis, brought tears to my eyes.
By the time you reach your 70s, the occurrence of severe illness and death becomes a frequent, if not daily, reality.
My husband and I live in a continuing care retirement community in Southern California. One of the reasons we moved there was to have the opportunity to interact with 600 other independent seniors.
As Mr. French wrote so eloquently, being able to share both joy and sorrow with others is an important aspect of life. Knowing you’re not alone makes the difficult times a little easier to bear.
My thoughts are with Mr. French and his wife, Nancy, as they navigate this difficult journey together. I’m glad they have family and friends with whom to share their sorrow.
Patricia Gagen
Rancho Mission Viejo, Calif.
Reversing Drug Overdoses
To the Editor:
Re “Overdose Antidote Gets Red Light at Some Nightclubs” (news article, Dec. 31):
When I worked in some of New York City’s largest clubs in the early 2000s, I saw the importance of keeping Narcan on hand. At venues where we didn’t have it, people who overdosed were often sneaked out back doors and left by dumpsters until a private ambulance service arrived.
At more proactive places that stocked Narcan and wanted employees to be trained on how to use it, overdoses were reversed inside even before paramedics arrived. It was the responsible thing to do.
Today, I am a harm reduction worker at an organization that distributes free Narcan and provides training on how to recognize and reverse an overdose to thousands of New Yorkers.
As the Times article noted, more than 3,000 people died of drug overdoses in the city in 2022, and 7 percent were in public indoor spaces. Many of those deaths were preventable.
The people I train want to carry their Narcan proudly, including at nightclubs.
Through the work of community-based organizations like mine, public awareness campaigns and the Food and Drug Administration’s approval to sell Narcan over the counter, access to Narcan is growing. But it is clear that stigma and misunderstanding surrounding harm reduction tools persist.
The city’s integration of Narcan in nightlife venues must be accompanied by public-private efforts to educate everyone that the medication saves lives. Every New Yorker is on the front lines of the overdose crisis. Let us embrace our collective responsibility and prioritize the well-being of our community.
Ashley Lynch
New York
The writer is an outreach coordinator at Alliance for Positive Change, LES Harm Reduction Center.