An opinion piece published in The Hill sparks controversy by suggesting an unprecedented congressional move to prevent President-elect Trump from assuming office.
According to Fox News, columnists Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte authored an op-ed urging Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to block Trump from taking office in January.
The columnists, both distinguished legal scholars with Davis being a former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and Schulte formerly heading the Yale Law Journal, based their argument on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. This constitutional provision bars individuals who have "engaged in insurrection" or provided "aid or comfort to the enemies" from holding public office, although this restriction can be lifted through a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
The authors cited three significant events to support their position: Trump's second impeachment trial, the January 6 Capitol attack investigation by Congress, and the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling to remove Trump from the state's 2024 ballots. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court later overturning the Colorado decision, Davis and Schulte maintained that Congress retains the authority to reject electoral votes.
Their proposed strategy involves using the Electoral Count Act, which permits objections to electoral votes under specific circumstances. The columnists argue that votes cast for a constitutionally disqualified candidate would be considered "not regularly given" under the act's provisions.
Davis and Schulte outlined the potential consequences of their proposed action, explaining that if all Trump votes were disqualified, Vice President Kamala Harris would become president. They acknowledged the improbability of Republican support for such an outcome but insisted Democrats must oppose electoral votes for anyone constitutionally disqualified from office.
The opinion piece triggered immediate and strong criticism across social media platforms, with various political figures and commentators condemning the proposal.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung characterized the suggestion as an attempt to "steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people." Eric Trump expressed his disapproval directly, calling the individuals involved "sick."
Former presidential candidate John Delaney offered a more measured critique:
This is the kind of nonsense Democrats must reject Trump won in a fair democratic process. Democrats should be either working with him when it is in the best interest of the nation or their constituents or standing firm when it's not. Americans don't want pure obstructionists.
The controversy surrounding the op-ed highlights the ongoing tension between constitutional interpretation and electoral processes. The authors' proposal would require significant congressional support, including signatures from 20 percent of members in each house and majority votes in both chambers to sustain any objection to electoral votes.
The discussion has reignited debates about the scope of congressional authority in electoral matters, particularly concerning constitutional disqualification provisions. Legal experts continue to debate the implications of such unprecedented actions on democratic institutions and electoral integrity.
Two prominent legal scholars from The Hill proposed using the 14th Amendment to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office through congressional action. Their argument, based on constitutional grounds and previous legal proceedings, suggests rejecting electoral votes through the Electoral Count Act.
The proposal generated significant backlash from various political figures and commentators who view it as an attempt to subvert democratic processes while raising questions about the boundaries between constitutional authority and electoral sovereignty.
