Is upholding Constitution the end of democracy?

A couple of recent letters have argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision amounts to the end of democracy and a violation of due process. Maybe I missed something, but we’ve long had limitations on who can run for President. So you know who else you couldn’t vote for? Elon Musk, for one. Vladimir Putin, too, is ineligible. Any U.S. citizen with less than 14 years of time within the U.S. is also ineligible. Your prodigal grandson? Ineligible unless over 35. Under some of the logic being advanced, Jefferson Davis should have been allowed to run for U.S. President in 1884, say, because otherwise this denied a lot of southerners the chance to vote for him. Does that make sense? Are these rules really impinging on democracy? As for due process, there was indeed a trial that preceded the Supreme Court ruling. As there was no possibility of Trump being imprisoned, there was no requirement for a jury trial. Bench trials are quite common and routinely result in people losing money or offices, but not their freedom.

It is disputed whether the terms of the 14th Amendment are clearly met, and we are clearly facing a novel situation; many legal commentators find the logic of the Colorado Supreme Court sound, and most arguments for keeping Trump on the ballot argue from a political point of view rather than a legal one. But is implementing the Constitution the end of democracy? Seems a bit overblown … especially should a conservative U.S. Supreme Court uphold it. Let’s wait and see.

— Craig Jones, Boulder