E.U. Citizens on the Union’s Enlargement

Having recently been presented with an E.U. citizen denying the E.U. has citizens even as he admitted that he could vote for a candidate to represent him in the European Parliament, I had my faith in human rationality restored the following day in reading of a poll of E.U. citizens on whether additional states should be added to the Union; ideology, even of the tribal sort, need not distort rationality beyond recognition. Even in the reporting of such a poll, however, the Euroskeptic, or states’ rights, ideology left its imprint. Even such an auxiliary presence is a sign of the headwind that has been facing the E.U. since its founding.

Euronews reported on 28 October, 2025 that 56% of E.U. citizens approved of adding new states. “Young Europeans in particular support enlargement. 67% of 15-24 year olds are in favour, ahead of 25-39 year olds at 63%.”[1] If the young adults maintain their optimism in the decades to come, we could expect the power of the Euroskeptic, states’ rights (i.e., anti-federalist) ideology to lessen over time. This in turn could allow the E.U. to accumulate enough additional enumerated powers, or exclusive and even shared competencies, so the benefits of united action could be realized more fully, especially in the domains of foreign policy and defense. As of 2025, it has been as if state officials had tied one arm behind the E.U.’s back even regarding existing federal competencies. The poll indicates that this could change.

The poll can also be taken as an argument for a more vigorous education prior to university and trade school, for the support for enlargement “comes to a large extent from young people and educated people.”[2] To be sure, an educated person could argue that because of the unwillingness of enough state governments to delegate additionally competencies (or even just strength those that the E.U. already had), the veto mechanism enjoyed by each state should be more restricted before additional states are annexed to the Union. It is possible, for example, to up the double majorities from 55% to 60% on major pieces of federal legislation, in place of keeping the veto-mechanism in place. Even at 27 states, unanimity is unrealistic; it could therefore be unrealistic to expect unanimous agreement with there being even more states in the Union.

The force behind retaining the veto-mechanism in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. is none other than the Euroskeptic, or states’ rights ideology that is just fine with allowing even small states to block proposed legislation even if it is in the interest of the Union as a whole. In the twentieth century, that ideology manifests as strident nationalism, which of course gave rise to war on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, old ideologies die hard even in the face of the fact of political development, such as that of several states forming a federal union of states. Such a development, especially after several decades, inherent relativizes otherwise unmitigated pro-state-oriented ideology.

That ideology is to some extend built into the poll, according to which “the most supportive Member States are Sweden (79%), Denmark (75%) and Lithuania (74%). Conversely, Austria (45%), the Czech Republic (43%) and France (43%) are the least supportive” of enlargement.[3] Although admittedly much daylight exists between 79% and 43%, and pro-E.U. advertising could be directed by the Commission to run in local media in the least supportive states on the basis of this way of dividing up the results, reporting by state is itself a reinforcement of the state-centric, Euroskeptic ideology that has held the federal legislative and executive branches back even from being able to fully exercise its enumerated powers, or competencies.

On May 1, 2025 at Yale, I met the E.U.’s ambassador to the U.S. after her talk. I pointed out that the media in the E.U. labeling the Union as a mere bloc as if the E.U. were only active in one power-domain and were temporary, was subtly undermining the E.U. itself and fortifying the Euroskeptics. To my surprise, she agreed with me, but my feedback had zero impact.  She told me that just admitting even that the E.U. has a federal structure would enrage powerful Euroskeptic officials in some states, such as Hungary. As a result, however, more uneducated Europeans could be expected to conflate the “bloc” with international organizations such as NATO and the UN, and the poll supports this point. Why expand something as weak as a bloc?

On October 24, 2025, an Oxford professor of political economy spoke at Harvard’s Center for European Studies. Whereas Yale’s Center acknowledges and so includes talks on the E.U. being intergovernmental relations only, Harvard’s political economists have been stuck in the political economy paradigm of Europe prior to the founding of the E.U. in the early 1990s. So, the professor from Oxford presented a European poll in which both the E.U. itself and the related impact of European cultural integration from the states being in a federal system were ignored. Instead, he (or the discussant) insisted that Denmark and Sweden are so different with respect to how the poor view public policy that is oriented to reducing economic inequality, even though both northern states are Scandinavian and have relatively low economic inequality, whereas every rural American is a libertarian against constraints on rising economic inequality. In other words, the interstate cultural differences are magnified when it comes to the E.U., while such interstate (mostly non-linguistic-based) differences in the U.S. are virtually ignored as if one cultural attitude spans across a continent. The European states’ rights, or nationalistic, ideology can be so exaggerated that cognition is twisted even in the minds of scholars! Unfortunately, the E.U. itself has been paying the price for this ideological denial; it is not just an artifact of ideology under the subterfuge of scholarship. Ironically, as long as the E.U. continues to pay the price from being reckoned by enough uneducated European citizens as merely a bloc (or even as nonexistent), enlargement by the accession of additional states without basic reform of the federal system would be likely to compound paralysis rather than increase the Union’s strength.

---

1. Gregoire Lory, “56% of Citizens Support EU Enlargement, New Eurobarometer Poll Shows,” Euronews.com. 28 October, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

The Colorado Supreme Court Bars Insurrectionist Trump: Who Should Ultimately Decide?

On December 19, 2023, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that Don Trump, a former U.S. president, had engaged in insurrectionist activity as a matter of fact, and furthermore, as a matter of law, the U.S. Constitution bars him from holding any office, including the presidency. With an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a certainty, realized even by the Colorado justices, and some notable (and very visible) Republicans arguing that the American people should have the final say on whether Trump will be president again beginning in 2025, the question of who should have the final say—the judiciary or the people—was pressing, and indeed, very important. I contend that the determination of fact should have been made by a jury in a criminal proceeding, and that even absent that, the ultimate decision should still be made prior to, and thus not during, the election, for the question is whether Trump can be listed as a candidate for the office. Ultimately, the tension lies between the value of a politics-free judiciary and democratic (majority) rule.

Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then ‘engaged in insurrection’ against it from holding office.”[1] The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision of a trial judge with the simple logic that the section doesn’t explicitly mention the U.S. Presidency because it is so obviously an office. That it is so because, as the majority of Colorado’s high court’s justices wrote, the presidency serves “we the people” seems more like rhetoric than logic; the majority opinion could have left it at the rather obvious point that the presidency itself is not mentioned in section 3 because that section refers to all offices, federal and state, as being subject to the prohibition. Indeed, in political discourse, “the office of the president” is often mentioned, so the point hardly seems necessary to be made, but for the strange reasoning of the trail judge who had sought explicit mention of the presidency as if it were not included in “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.”[2] That both appointed and elected offices are included is also indisputable on the face of it, and that the section expressly names senator and representative in Congress does mean that the presidency too must be named, for the distinction here is between the legislative and the two other branches (a justice is also an office). In fine, the presidency of the United States is indeed a governmental office.

Colorado’s high court was on shakier ground, and this is noted in the dissent in the 4-3 opinion, in accepting the district judge’s determination of fact that President Trump had “engaged in an insurrection.”[3] Insurrectionist activity was at the time a federal crime in the U.S., and yet Donald Trump had not even been charged with the crime, much less convicted by a jury. Rather, a district judge had made the finding of fact, such that not even any criminal sentencing could be done. At Yale more than a month before Colorado’s high-court ruling, I asked James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, whether someone would first have to be charged and convicted of insurrectionist activity. “No,” he said flatly, without feeling the need to elaborate.[4] I thought I had asked a stupid question until I read in Colorado’s decision that the dissent makes the same point. Presumably someone should be found guilty of the crime before being barred from holding any public office because of said crime. Therefore, I submit that Colorado’s majority opinion erred in accepting the district judge’s determination of fact in lieu of any criminal prosecution and conviction as a sufficient basis apply the 14^th Amendment to Donald Trump.

Given the weaknesses in the judicial rulings of both the lower and higher court in Colorado, it is a good thing that the U.S. system of government is federal because the U.S. Supreme Court could make corrections. By implication, perhaps a plurality of state supreme courts should be able to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Checks and balances should apply to the judiciary too. Relatedly, the lack of check and balance concerning some of the unethical gifts taken by Justice Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court from a Republican activist could diminish the legitimacy of the U.S. court in being the final decider on the questions of Donald Trump being an insurrectionist and, furthermore, being barred from holding any office. 

After the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was made public, some of the Republican candidates for president publicly asserted that the American people should decide through the presidential election whether Trump should be president. A number of serious problems attend to this proposal.

Firstly, it is highly unrealistic, to say the least, that every voter would vote on the basis of the question of whether the U.S. Constitution forbids Trump from holding office. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it could not be inferred that the American people had decided that Trump was barred and thus could not hold any office.

Secondly, such a position incurs the worries noted by James Madison in his Notes on the constitutional convention that excess democracy, such as by having a de facto democratic judiciary (i.e., decided by votes of the people rather than rulings by justices), brings with it insufficient check on the passions of the people. A judiciary is one such check, and judicial review renders that branch a check also on the two other branches of government. In short, leaving the final word in interpreting the constitution to “we the people” leaves us without the ability to protect us from ourselves. For example, the rights of the minority would have no protection against the tyranny of the majority—democracy of course being by majority rule. Not the least of considerations, politics would also inevitably be involved.

Even in the U.S. Supreme Court, politics have likely been more of a force than the public realizes. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, whose funeral took place just days from Colorado’s high-court ruling, had written the majority opinion for Bush v. Gore (2000) even before oral arguments were heard. She had been active in the Republican Party when she was an Arizona legislator, and her majority opinion sided with Bush. Objections to her partisanship imply a belief that the judiciary should be neutral politically.

Handing over the court’s functions to “we the people” would only add politics to constitutional interpretation. Voters in favor of Trump personally, or his policies, would likely find that he did not engage in an insurrection, and thus that the Constitution does not bar him from holding any office. President Biden’s supporters would be inclined to view Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020 as fomenting an insurrection. Who then should decide? This is the rationale for having a judiciary, especially where criminality is to be decided. Just as politics should not be criminalized, so too criminal proceedings should not be politicized.

I asked James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, why the federal prosecutor had not included insurrection among the criminal charges against Donald Trump. “It’s messy,” the judge replied. He meant that it is difficult to get a conviction. If so, then the fact that the district judge in Colorado so easily found that Trump had indeed been engaged in insurrectionist activity by urging his supporters to disrupt the counting of the electors’ votes for president warrants strict scrutiny. In other words, if the charge is “messy,” then shouldn’t a jury hear the case and be made to deliberate? Then, of a jury were to convict the former president, then appellate courts, including ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, would be oriented exclusively to deciding the questions of law concerning section 3 of the 14^th Amendment.

Separating the criminal proceedings from the work of the U.S. Supreme Court would buffer the impact of politics inside that court unless its justices would disregard a jury verdict. Such a rationale would have to be strong in its reasoning, least it appear to be part of a political effort to decide the 2024 presidential election by judicial fiat, as in 2000. Such an effort would effectively prioritize a decision by the electorate. Absent such judicial corruption, deciding whether section 3 of the 14^th Amendment applies to Don Trump by an election incorrectly treats the United States as a direct democracy rather than a republic in which democracy is a part of the system of the system of government. Especially when democracy itself is in dispute, a judiciary free from politics is so very valuable. Boasberg’s dismissiveness of my two questions at Yale in early November, 2023 left me wondering about the neutrality of the federal judiciary. At the very least, what he took for granted is hardly settled law.

---

1. Nicholas Riccardi, “The Constitution’s Insurrection Clause Threatens Trump’s Campaign. Here Is How That Is Playing Out,” APNews.com, December 20, 2023.
2. The U.S. Constitution, Section  of the 14^th Amendment.
3. Kinsey Crowley, “What Is the 14^th Amendment? Why Colorado Disqualified Trump and Removed Him from Ballot,” USA Today, December 20, 2023.
4. Not even the report of the judge’s talk in The Yale Daily News includes any mention of the judge’s answer to my question. Presumably the student-reporter did not think the reply could be controversial.