Opinion columnists on The Hill called on Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment’s disqualification Block President-elect Donald Trump when he takes office next month.
In a pillar Published Thursday, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte argued that the 14th Amendment allows Congress to object to the electoral votes, viewing Trump as, in their words, “an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”
TRUMP RETURN: WASHINGTON prepares for a second term
Article 3 of the 14th Amendment Former officials who “participated in the insurrection” or “gave aid or comfort to the enemies” are barred from holding public office again. The restriction can be lifted by a two-thirds vote in each House of Representatives.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump looks on at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
Citing this disqualification, Davis, a former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and Schulte, a former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, claimed that Trump was ineligible for president. The pair called on Congress to take action when they meet in a joint session next week to formally count the electoral votes.
“The disqualification is based on an insurrection against the Constitution and not against the government. The evidence that Donald Trump participated in such an insurrection is overwhelming,” they argued. “The matter was decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”
The authors cited Trump’s second impeachment trial, the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and the Colorado Supreme Court Verdict to exclude the former and future president from appearing on the state’s ballot in 2024 as reasons for his ineligibility.
“On January 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for ‘incitement of insurrection’…Incitement of insurrection includes ‘engaging in insurrection’ against the Constitution ‘or providing aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,’ the reasons for which Disqualification listed in Section 3,” they claimed.
“The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump committed an insurrection against the Constitution.”
The U.S. state of Colorado’s decision to bar Trump from the vote based on the 14th Amendment disqualification, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, found that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump committed insurrection.” “How these terms are used in Section “Three,” Davis and Schulte wrote.
President-elect Trump at AmericaFest in Arizona. (Rick Scooter)
However, the decision was appealed The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favorand concluded that “states have no authority under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, particularly the presidency.”
Still, Davis and Schulte complained that “the court did not address the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection” and insisted that the Supreme Court’s decision in that case does not prevent Congress from voting in its election Reject the meeting on January 6th.
“The counting of Electoral College votes is a matter assigned by the Constitution exclusively to Congress. Under current law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a say in the matter, since rejecting the vote on constitutionally established grounds is an unverifiable political question,” they claimed.
The columnists called on Congress to do so reject the vote using the Electoral Count Act, which allows an appeal only if “a state’s electors have not been lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors has not been cast ‘regularly.'”
“A vote for a constitutionally disqualified candidate clearly corresponds to the normal use of the words ‘not regular,'” they claimed. “Disqualification for participation in an insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship by birth, and 14 years of residency in the United States.”
An objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The US Capitol dome is visible from a perch in Washington, DC (Fox News Digital)
“If the objection is confirmed by a majority vote in each house, the vote will not be counted and the number of votes required for the election will be reduced by the number of disqualified votes. “If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president,” they wrote.
“It is clear that Republicans in Congress are unlikely to do anything that could elect Harris president,” they concluded. “But Democrats must take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person who is constitutionally barred from holding office unless and until that disability is removed. Your oath to support and defend the Constitution demands nothing less.”
The column sparked fast and furious backlash online. Critics accused the authors of “supporting the insurrection.”
“Oh, look. The Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people. A threat to democracy,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X.
“You’re sick,” Eric Trump responded.
“Sounds like @thehill supports the uprising. Yes, try to block the inauguration of a president who won the popular vote and the Electoral College. Let’s see how this goes for all of you,” said anti-woke activist Robby Starbuck.
“This article constitutes a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 election,” wrote Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project.
Political comedian Tim Young commented: “@thehill In fantasy land, Democrats on The Hill think they can stop Trump from taking office.”
Kevin and Keith Hodge, known as the Hodgetwins, responded: “This is a real uprising against the will of the people.”
“That sounds a lot like an insurrection,” agreed journalist Ian Miles Cheong.
“Arrest warrants have been served against people who said far less than this about Biden in 2021,” the conservative commentator said John Cardillo posted.
“This is the kind of nonsense Democrats must reject. Trump won in a fair democratic process,” the former presidential candidate said John Delaney wrote. “Democrats should either work with him when it is in the best interest of the nation or its voters or stand firm when it is not. Americans don’t want pure obstructionists.”
