An op-ed by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte published in The Hill has stirred significant controversy.
The columnists suggest using the 14th Amendment to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency based on past allegations of insurrection, Fox News reported.
Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion columnists for The Hill, called upon Congress to employ the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to bar Donald Trump from office. Their argument hinges on Trump's alleged role in activities deemed insurrectionary, notably his impeachment following the January 6 Capitol event and related legal repercussions.
The 14th Amendment specifies that anyone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible for office, a provision overrideable only by a two-thirds congressional vote. This historical context laid the groundwork for their controversial proposal.
According to the columnists, the unique constitutional role of Congress in counting Electoral College votes authorizes it to exclude votes for candidates disqualified under constitutional grounds. They argue that a vote for Trump, deemed disqualified, should not be counted, thereby potentially altering the outcome of the presidential race.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that states cannot apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to federal offices, which theoretically protects Trump from being barred at the state level. However, Davis and Schulte emphasize Congress's authority in this domain.
This position has led to a wave of backlash from Trump's camp and conservative commentators, who decry the proposal as a subversion of democratic principles and a direct threat to the sanctity of election results. Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump's campaign, denounced the suggestion as an illicit attempt to "steal the election."
Furthermore, political figures and influencers like Robby Starbuck, Will Chamberlain, and Tim Young have criticized The Hill's publication, labeling it as supportive of insurrection or outrightly challenging the inauguration of a duly elected president.
Comments from Eric Trump, such as "You people are sick," and other conservative voices echo a sentiment that the article promotes a real insurrection against the will of people.
Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte deepen their argument by detailing the constitutional and legal basis for their claims, invoking Trump's impeachments and the ongoing scrutiny surrounding his actions during crucial nation-wide events.
They provided an extensive rationale for their argument, stating:
Counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question. 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. This renders a candidate like Trump ineligible unless Congress chooses to remove this disqualification.
Their proposal outlines a legal pathway whereby, if Congressional approval is accorded, Trump's Electoral College votes could be nullified, theoretically allowing for an alternate election outcome. Critics argue such actions would destabilize the peaceful transfer of power and undermine electoral confidence.
Davis and Schulte believe that adherence to constitutional mandates is crucial, especially when confronting cases they view as clear violations of its stipulations. They assert that Democrats in Congress must stand against accepting electoral votes for any individual constitutionally barred from serving, advocating this stance as essential to defending democratic integrity.
Conversely, the opposition views the column as an unsettling precedent that could lead to further political and societal division. Former presidential candidate John Delaney urged Democrats to either collaborate with Trump when beneficial for the nation or oppose him constructively rather than engaging in what he termed "pure obstructionism."
As America grapples with these intense disagreements, the effectiveness of constitutional mechanisms in safeguarding democracy remains a focal debate, reflecting the country's ongoing struggle with complex political and legal challenges. This elucidates the broader implications of leveraging constitutional provisions in contemporary political conflicts and underscores the profound divisions within American political discourse.
