In a last-ditch effort to block President-elect Donald Trump from assuming office, liberal lawyers are calling on Congress to invoke a rarely used clause of the 14th Amendment to disqualify him from the presidency. In an op-ed published in The Hill, attorneys Evan Davis and David Schulte contend that Trump’s alleged role in the January 6th Capitol breach and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results amount to an “insurrection” against the Constitution, rendering him ineligible to hold 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 based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming,” they wrote in their op-ed. “The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”
The authors reference Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who has given aid or comfort to its enemies, from holding federal or state office. They argue that Trump’s actions meet these criteria and assert that Congress has the authority to prevent him from assuming office, though he was never charged with that crime and the Supreme Court ruled that because Congress didn’t convict him of it, states couldn’t remove him from their presidential ballots for that reason.
“The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court ‘found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three,’” they claimed. “The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.”
“Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration,” the insane op-ed continued.
Davis and Schulte concluded, “To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.”
They use the word “insurrection” only when talking about Republicans https://t.co/lq9k4wlRXu
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 26, 2024
However, the drastic measure is being met with fierce resistance from Republicans and even some Democrats who argue that it is a blatant attempt to undermine the democratic process and overturn the will of the American people. “The media has Morning Insurrection,” wrote former Congressman Matt Gaetz on the X platform. Robby Starbuck added: “Sounds like @thehill is endorsing insurrection. Yes, try blocking the inauguration of a President who won the popular vote and the electoral college. Let’s see how that goes for y’all.”
Noted the DC Draino account: “Trump won the popular vote, every swing state, and the electoral college The Hill is now plotting an insurrection to stop him Disbar the authors of this article and send the FBI into their offices That’s how it works right?” At least one Democrat, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), sounded off with a disapproving post: “If you only believe in democracy when it produces the results you like, then you do not truly believe in democracy.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.