Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
The Hill has published an opinion piece advocating a contentious plan to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency next month and instead declare Kamala Harris as president.
Authored by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte—former editors-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and Yale Law Journal—the article argues that Congress holds the power to block Trump’s inauguration based on claims he engaged in “insurrection,” citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The authors explain:
“The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
‘No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’
This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now https://t.co/UtYzh1pFMi
— The Hill (@thehill) December 26, 2024
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”
The piece outlines legal arguments and historical precedents, suggesting Congress could reject Electoral College votes cast for Trump, paving the way for Harris to assume the presidency. The authors argue:
“To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. 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. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.”
Acknowledging the improbability of this scenario, Davis and Schulte maintain that Democrats must “take a stand” to uphold constitutional principles, even if it means nullifying the 2024 election, in which Trump claimed a decisive victory.
They add:
“The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
This proposal, dismissed by many as far-fetched, has sparked heated debate over its implications and the motives behind it. Critics argue that it underscores a disregard for electoral integrity, while others see it as a legal exercise in upholding constitutional accountability.
