If you have read more than a couple of my columns during the past six years or so, you have seen me mention that, for the last 25 years, I’ve performed a one-man show as Alexander Hamilton around the country (cough…hamiltonlives.com… cough). After the show, when chatting with audience members, I am often asked why I think this type of show works and has continued to work for a long time.

I’ve decided there are two main reasons. The first is the Founders themselves were very interesting folks, and when thought of as regular people, rather than stiff marble-like statues of an idea, they become even more interesting (did you know Washington was a terrible swearer? History!).

The second reason I posit is that, fundamentally, none of the major issues debated at that long ago constitutional convention in 1787 have truly been settled.

We still argue about issues involving big states vs. small states, and issues of gender, race, age and religion. At the core of these discussions is the realization that what really gets us going are not the rights that are either less vital due to the passage of time (e.g., the Third Amendment) or are relatively straightforward (e.g., the amendments that first banned the brewing of alcohol, and then the one that made it OK to brew again), but where rights are in conflict, we argue.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

You can start an argument in a phonebooth (for the kids out there, “phonebooths” used to be everywhere, and were structures with a pay phone inside – for the kids out there, a pay phone required coins to operate) by closing the door and just yelling “the Second Amendment is flawed!” You have a right to guns, but that is not an absolute right (no nukes!), and the battle is over where to draw the various lines needed on weapons.

Few issues from the Founding are more argued today than the beloved First Amendment, especially when it relates to speech and the press. An example of rights in conflict is neatly illustrated by a recent Colorado Politics story that provided an update on the ongoing legal case to ban a certain former president from Colorado’s ballot, due to his involvement in a recent insurrection you may have heard about. As you likely have read in CoPo and other places, the 14th Amendment, passed in the years following the Civil War, bans anyone from elective office who was an active, well, insurrectionist.

Here in Colorado, a distinguished group of lawyers from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued under the 14th, arguing that former president’s actions (many of which are laid out in more than 90 charges he was indicted over) do, in fact, constitute insurrection and therefore he can’t be on the state ballot.

Not surprisingly, that former POTUS disagrees, and here in Colorado, Scott Gessler, a former one-term state Secretary of State and fellow University of Michigan grad (go Blue!) is representing his interests. You may recall Gessler from his various legal challenges, wherein he appears to have been actively involved in efforts to suppress the vote here in Colorado, and he was ultimately found guilty of spending a bit of state money on political issues. Oh, and Gessler is the guy who, after being elected Secretary of State, decided the $68,000 per annum was not enough to live on, and asked permission to moonlight at his old law firm, an organization with frequent business before the very same Secretary of State’s office. He ultimately was convinced (shamed?) to muddle by on just the salary previously mentioned.

Anyway, Gessler is in court on behalf of the former president, arguing unsuccessfully so far against a court order, requested by CREW, to ban those involved in the case from making threats or trying to intimidate people. Gessler argues such an order isn’t needed, as such actions are already against the law.

But not surprisingly, the Court ruled for CREW, and has issued a limited gag order in the case. As District Judge Sarah B. Wallace noted, “I 100% understand everybody’s concerns for the parties, the lawyers, and frankly myself and my staff based on what we’ve seen in other cases.” She is, of course, referring to outrageous efforts that seem intended to taint and intimidate the witness and jury pools in the former president’s various felony cases. Recall, please, on his own social media website he went after another set of prosecutors, posting the childish, “If you come after me, I’m coming after you!” Subtle, eh?

And for those of you who argue he has free speech rights, you are correct, up to a point. I’m pretty sure direct threats are not covered. And if you don’t think “coming after you” is a threat, please ask yourself if you would feel the same way if, say, oh, I dunno, Hillary Clinton said the same thing?

I’m not a lawyer, but I taught the Constitution for 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and I believe I have a wee bit of insight here. I suspect the 14th Amendment cases will all fail, either in the local courts or on appeal. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have always been reluctant to insert legal opinions into partisan politics. Now, this far-right SCOTUS has surprised us before with its willingness to overturn decades of precedent and to be radically active, so I guess it is possible it might inject itself into the campaign, but I doubt it.

Frankly, I don’t think it will be very long before that former president violates the gag order here, and quite likely the other one likely due out of the special prosecutor’s case. He can’t help himself. He honestly believes he is above the law, and that he should be allowed to scare people, especially on the right, into supporting him. Recall, in a recent interview, he stated he could have those hundreds of highly classified documents unsecured in his home’s bathroom because he said so. The law disagrees, and that will be yet another of the felony cases he faces. He is not above the law.

Were I a betting man, I’d take odds on how quickly and how often that certain former president won’t be able to help himself, and we will see him striking out against those he believes are persecuting him. He will lash out in anger and outrage.

But he will be wrong to do so.

Stay tuned…

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.