Opinion columnists for The Hill called on Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment disqualification Obstruction of President-elect Donald Trump He will take office next month.
in column Published Thursday, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte argued that the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to object to electoral votes because they view Trump as, in their words, “an oath-breaking rebel.”
Trump's return: Washington is preparing for a second term
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment It prevents former officeholders who have “participated in rebellion” or “aid or comforted enemies” from holding public office again. This restriction can be removed by a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
US President-elect Donald Trump looks on during Turning Point USA's AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024, in Phoenix, Arizona. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
Citing this exclusion, Davis, the former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and Schulte, the former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, have claimed that Trump is not qualified to be president. The two leaders called on Congress to take action when they meet in a joint session to officially count the electoral votes next week.
“Disqualification is based on rebellion against the Constitution, not against the government. The evidence of Donald Trump's involvement in such rebellion is overwhelming,” they said. “The matter was decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s lawyers.”
The authors cited Trump's second impeachment trial, the investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack conducted by Congress and the House of Representatives Colorado Supreme Court to rule To prevent the former and incoming president from appearing at the state’s ballot boxes in 2024 as grounds 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 giving aid and comfort to enemies thereof,” grounds for disqualification specified in Sec. 3,” they claimed.
“The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution.”
The Colorado ruling to remove Trump from the ballot on the grounds of 14th Amendment disqualification, which was overturned by the US Supreme Court, concluded that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in an insurrection as those terms are used in the oath.” “Three,” Davis and Schulte wrote.
President-elect Trump at AmericaFest in Arizona. (Rick Scotters)
But the decision was appealed The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump“States do not have the authority under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency,” he concluded.
However, Davis and Schulte complained that “the Court did not address the finding that Trump participated in the insurrection,” insisting that the Supreme Court's decision in the case does not prevent Congress from rejecting the electoral votes when it meets on January 6.
The Electoral College vote moves Trump one step closer to officially becoming president
“The counting of the Electoral College votes is a matter that the Constitution uniquely assigns to Congress. Under settled law, this fact disqualifies the Supreme Court from having a say in the matter, because rejecting a vote for constitutionally defined reasons is an unreviewable political matter,” they claimed.
Columnists urged Congress to do so Refusal to vote Using the ballot counting law, which allows objection only if “the electors of the state have not been lawfully certified or if one or more electors' votes are not regularly cast.”
“Voting for a candidate disqualified under the Constitution is clearly consistent with the ordinary use of the words ‘not regularly given,’” they claimed. “Disqualification due to participation in the insurrection is no different from disqualification on the basis of other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth, and 14 years of residence in US.”
Objection under the Count's Law requires a petition signed by 20 percent of each chamber's members.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The dome of the US Capitol can be seen from high up in Washington, DC (Fox News Digital)
“If the objection is supported by a majority of votes in each chamber, the votes are not counted and the number of votes required for election is reduced by the number of ineligible votes. If not all votes are counted for Trump, Kamala Harris will be elected President,” they wrote.
“The unlikelihood that Republicans in Congress are likely to do anything that might elect Harris as president is clear,” they concluded. “But Democrats need to take a stand against the Electoral College votes of someone who is constitutionally disqualified from holding office unless that disability is removed. Nothing less than that is what their oath to support and defend the Constitution requires.”
The article received a swift and violent backlash online, with critics accusing the authors of “endorsing rebellion.”
“Oh, look. Democrats want to steal the election and overturn the will of the American people. A threat to democracy,” Trump campaign spokesman Stephen Cheung wrote on X.
“You are sick,” Eric Trump replied.
“Thehill appears to support the rebellion. Yes, they tried to obstruct the inauguration of a president who won the popular vote and the Electoral College. “Let's see how it goes for y'all,” anti-woke activist Robbie Starbuck said.
Will Chamberlain, senior adviser to the Article III Project, said this article constitutes a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 election.
“@thehill In fantasy land, Democrats on The Hill think they can stop Trump from taking office,” political comedian Tim Young commented.
“This is a true rebellion against the will of the people,” Kevin and Keith Hodge, known as the Hodgetwins, responded.
“This sounds very rebellious,” agreed journalist Ian Miles Cheung.
“Arrest warrants have been filed for people who said much less about Biden in 2021,” a conservative commentator said. Posted by John Cardillo.
“This is the kind of nonsense that Democrats should reject Trump winning in a fair democratic process,” the former presidential candidate said. Written by John Delaney. “Democrats must either work with him when it is in the best interests of the nation or their voters, or stand firm when it is not. Americans do not want pure obstructionists.”
