In a bid to thwart President-elect Donald Trump from assuming office, liberal attorneys are advocating for Congress to utilize a seldom-invoked clause of the 14th Amendment to render him ineligible for the presidency.
As articulated in an op-ed featured in The Hill, legal experts Evan Davis and David Schulte contend that Trump’s purported participation in the January 6th Capitol incident, along with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, amounts to an “insurrection” against the Constitution, thereby disqualifying him from public office. Davis previously served as editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review, while Schulte held the same position at the Yale Law Journal.
“Disqualification is predicated on insurrection against the Constitution rather than the government itself. The evidence of Donald Trump’s involvement in such insurrection is substantial,” they asserted in their op-ed. “This issue has been adjudicated in three distinct venues, two of which involved full contestation with active participation from Trump’s legal team.”
The authors reference Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that any individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has provided aid or comfort to its adversaries, is barred from holding federal or state office. They argue that Trump’s conduct fulfills this criterion and that Congress possesses the authority to prevent him from taking office.
The second contested proceeding involved a five-day judicial due process hearing in Colorado, during which the court determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, that President Trump participated in insurrection as defined in Section Three. This finding was subsequently upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. Upon further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled that states do not possess the authority to disqualify candidates for federal office, indicating that federal legislation is necessary to enforce Section 3. Notably, the court did not address the determination that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Additionally, there exists a bipartisan investigation conducted by the House Select Committee regarding the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. A significant portion of the witnesses whose testimonies were presented during its nine public hearings were Republicans, including individuals from the Trump administration.
Davis and Schulte concluded by stating that to lodge an objection under the Count Act, a petition must be signed by 20 percent of the members from each House. Should the objection receive majority support in both houses, the votes in question would not be counted, thereby reducing the total number of votes necessary for election by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes cast for Trump were disregarded, Kamala Harris would assume the presidency.
Nevertheless, this extreme action faces strong opposition from conservatives, who contend that it represents a clear effort to undermine the democratic process and negate the will of the American electorate.
“The media has Morning Insurrection,” wrote former Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Many individuals turned to social media to voice their indignation, with numerous accusations directed at The Hill for allegedly supporting insurrection and trying to obstruct the inauguration of a president who secured both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Robby Starbuck tweeted, “It appears that @thehill is supporting insurrection. Attempting to obstruct the inauguration of a President who has secured both the popular vote and the electoral college is a bold move. I am curious to see the outcome of such actions.”
0 Comments