It looks like they are really going to go through with this. Democrats and anti-Trumpers have been floating the idea that they can use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for president again.
Ever since the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building, the intelligentsia has been trying to sell everyone on this idea. Now, it appears it is being taken at least somewhat seriously. But a closer look shows that this particular gambit will be about as effective as a cocktail umbrella in a hailstorm.
Several secretaries of state are already preparing for legal challenges to keep Trump off the ballot during the 2024 election:
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said Tuesday that his office is figuring out how to handle potential complaints over whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from appearing on the 2024 ballot.
The issue centers on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson raised the theory at last week’s GOP presidential debate that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, might disqualify him on those grounds — a theory that has gained traction among some legal scholars, though others discount the possibility.
Now, the people running state elections are trying to figure out what to do if people bring legal challenges against Trump.
…
New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is dealing with the same question as he watches a potential challenge to Trump brewing in his state. There, a Republican former Trump ally is considering bringing a 14th Amendment challenge against him.
An attorney in Florida is also preparing to mount a legal challenge to keep Trump off the ballot.
To sum up the left’s scheme in a nutshell, they plan to argue that the former president should not be allowed to seek office again because he supposedly incited the J6 riot. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, prohibits people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government from holding public office. It is a section that was originally meant to apply to members of the Confederacy.
Several anti-Trump legal scholars have contended that Trump’s actions in supposedly inciting the riot disqualify him from holding any public office. This is likely the idea that the lawsuits will be predicated on.
However, others, like author Dan McLaughlin, have argued that Trump’s actions do not meet the standard of “engaging in insurrection” as outlined in the amendment. The former president’s words, which some might have found inflammatory, do not rise to the level of incitement. Indeed, even the Justice Department, which has indicted Trump twice, has not made this argument.
At the end of the day, there is no evidence that Trump was trying to incite a riot on that day. In fact, he specifically told his followers to “peacefully” protest at the Capitol, which makes it difficult to argue that he was trying to launch a rebellion against the federal government to stay in power.
If and when these leftist attorneys launch their legal attacks, it will be clear what their actual motivation is: Keeping the Orange Man What Is Bad™ from occupying the White House once again. This has nothing to do with the Constitution or the rule of law. This is about power, nothing more, nothing less. This tactic is not going to work simply because its premise is fatally flawed: Trump did not incite a rebellion and is completely eligible to run for office.
