Opponents of former President Donald Trump, including some within his own party, are advocating for a debated legal concept to prevent him from appearing on the 2024 election ballot in crucial U.S. states as reported by The Epoch Times on Saturday September 2, 2023.
This concept relies on the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War, to argue that he should be disqualified from running for office even without any convictions on the numerous contentious charges he faces in four separate criminal cases.
The argument behind this theory is that anyone involved in a “rebellion” or “insurrection” against the United States should be ineligible for public office, and Trump’s adversaries contend that the 14th Amendment’s “disqualification” clause came into effect on January 6, 2021.
On that day, while still in office, President Trump encouraged people to protest the certification of the 2020 election results, which declared Joe Biden as the winner.
The largely peaceful protest at the U.S. Capitol eventually turned violent, and critics of Trump hold him responsible for the events that transpired.
Nevertheless, legal experts hold differing opinions on whether the events of January 6 can be accurately characterized as an attempt to overthrow the government, and there is ongoing debate regarding the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause.
Furthermore, there is no consensus on whether the disqualification provision is still in effect.
Despite these legal uncertainties, efforts to prevent President Trump from running for office based on this theory persist, even though similar attempts targeting other Republican officials, including members of Congress, have not been successful.
There is a debate regarding the status of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its potential implications for former President Trump’s eligibility to run for office again.
Hans von Spakovsky argues that this section is no longer in effect due to two amnesty acts passed by Congress in 1872 and 1898, which he believes permanently removed the insurrection disqualification from the 14th Amendment.
However, legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen disagree, asserting that Section 3 remains in force.
Additionally, some argue that state officials lack the authority to determine whether an individual meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and only Congress holds that authority.
There is also the contention that former President Trump has never been convicted of insurrection or rebellion in any court or by Congress.
Efforts to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment have gained attention recently, with various lawsuits and legal actions.
However, it’s unclear how successful these efforts will be, as they may require a conviction and subsequent appeal.
Despite the ongoing debate, some believe that attempting to disqualify Trump in this manner could be divisive and potentially harm the country.
Furthermore, even if the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment were in effect, it’s noted that there is no established federal process for enforcing it.
Various legal actions have been taken in different states to prevent Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, with differing outcomes in different jurisdictions. Some argue that the 14th Amendment is not a viable solution and advocate for defeating Trump through the electoral process.
Simultaneously, some of President Trump’s supporters are advocating for a tit-for-tat response.
They argue that President Biden’s alleged involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings should disqualify him from seeking reelection, although the president has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
by: _lewi