It is instructive for all Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled unanimously in President Trump’s favor, concerning what should have been an obvious legal fact in constitutional law.  The Court asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (an “insurrection” disqualification, originally aimed at post–Civil War Confederate candidates who might otherwise have had differing views on whether, or from whom, there was an “insurrection”) is not within the purview of the states and is, rather, a potential congressional judgment.  The more conservative justices also noted that such a potential latitude of Congress is still subject to judicial review, which not surprisingly provoked the liberal justices to complain separately as to what unilateral federal remedy would remain to disqualify a candidate (meaning, how could the DNC otherwise still illegally block a candidate).

But there is more.  While the justices did not venture into an opinion as to what merits may exist vis-à-vis presidential culpability in a January 6 insurrection claim, it is nonetheless a Supreme Court opinion stemming from an appeal over just that assertion.  Since President Trump cannot be proven culpable under standards of actual evidence (the left’s fallacy of assertion is not evidence of proof, which is why leftists have been obsessed with “intent”), nor can an insurrection itself be defined and proven (versus mere trespass), the entire fraudulent January 6 DNC program is effectively dead.

Contrary to mainstream media assertions, the Supreme Court did not just make a simple technical ruling: it was obligated to contemplate the entirety of the appellate case, while pushing the issue of Article 3 evidence, effectively beyond state partisan electoral tactics, and into broader congressional territory, while preserving judicial review as a further, albeit imperfect safeguard. 

That won’t stop the DNC (which is the actual plaintiff) from continuing to wage lawfare against Trump, of course, or anyone else — or from trying to stack the Supreme Court by any means possible, or to eradicate the electoral college through back-door legislation, for example.  But much more fascinating is why such legal abuses continue to be the DNC’s primary tool for advancing its agenda.  Why use the legal system?  Why doesn’t the DNC simply field a competent, more moderate, candidate? 

Because a capable, competent candidate undermines their radical agenda, which is so extreme that only a fully controlled proxy president could remain necessarily ignorant of the left’s fundamental violations of constitutional law, including, most centrally, acting explicitly against the national security interests of the United States.  (Financially sponsored illegal border invasion is one example; China and Iran appeasement, if not agency, is another.)  The DNC (without much GOP resistance) is not merely a “lawfare” organization — it is an extra-constitutional, extra-legal syndicate, with the specific intent to comprehensively undermine American institutional integrity.

That makes the actual, relevant constitutional law violation not “insurrection” under the elastic 14th Amendment, but rather core Article III treason...and not by Trump.  Interestingly, “treason” is the only crime actually defined in the U.S. Constitution, and one that the current political left fears, while desperately seeking to distract the American public by systematically vilifying the former president.

The recent SCOTUS ruling is a victory for law and a loss for a radicalized political organization determined to act outside it and above it.  Unfortunately, that organization has also worked to infiltrate sensitive American institutions, including media; higher education (and our nation’s law schools, which never said a public word about the technical and substantive flaw in the DNC’s Section 3 assertion); the Judiciary; intelligence; all regulatory agencies, and even the military, which continues to exist without an actual functioning, identifiable civilian commander-in-chief.

Matthew G. Andersson is the author of the upcoming book Legally Blind.  A corporation founder and former CEO, he has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the 2001 Pulitzer Prize report by the Chicago Tribune.  He received the Silver Anvil Award from the Public Relations Society of America and has testified before the U.S. Senate.  He attended the University of Chicago and the University of Texas at Austin, where he studied with White House national security adviser W.W. Rostow at the LBJ School of Public Affairs.

Image via Picryl.