Legal scholars propose blocking Trump’s 2024 Presidency, citing the 14th Amendment and January 6 riots, sparking intense debate over constitutional interpretation.
At a Glance
- Two legal scholars argue Democrats should block Trump from taking office due to alleged involvement in January 6 insurrection
- Trump won the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris
- Scholars cite 14th Amendment as grounds for disqualification, but Democratic leaders reject efforts to block certification
- Congress set to meet on January 6, 2025, to certify election results with no apparent intention to block Trump
- Proposal sparks backlash from Trump supporters, accusing Democrats of undermining democracy
Legal Scholars’ Controversial Proposal
In a surprising turn of events following the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, two legal scholars have ignited a fierce debate over the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House.
And they want to commit their own insurrection.
Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte have proposed that Democrats should take action to prevent Trump from assuming office, citing the 14th Amendment as grounds for disqualification due to his alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
The scholars argue that Trump’s actions during the Capitol riot render him ineligible for the Presidency under the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. This interpretation has sparked intense discussions about the limits of constitutional power and the role of Congress in certifying election results.
Democratic Leadership’s Response
Despite the provocative nature of the scholars’ proposal, Democratic leaders have consistently rejected efforts to block Trump’s certification – amazingly. This stance aligns with their commitment to upholding constitutional processes and distinguishing themselves from what they view as “election deniers.” The party leadership’s position reflects a delicate balance between political concerns and adherence to democratic principles.
“Despite this actionable libel and all the disinformation, America is having a free and fair election and Congress will certify the winner,” Representative Jamie Raskin said.
Legal and Political Implications
The scholars’ argument hinges on the Electoral Count Act, which they claim provides grounds for objecting to electoral votes cast for candidates disqualified by the Constitution. However, this interpretation faces significant challenges, both legal and political. The Supreme Court’s decision on Colorado’s primary ballot does not explicitly prevent Congress from acting, but it does complicate the legal landscape.
“I think members of Congress are becoming more aware of the issue by the hour, and they’re duty-bound to consider it as guardians of the Constitution. How they’ll react remains to be seen, both Democrats and Republicans. They’ve all taken the same oath of office,” Schulte said.
The proposal has unsurprisingly sparked strong reactions from Trump supporters, including Eric Trump and Steven Cheung, who accuse Democrats of attempting to undermine democracy.
Which is quite clearly what they’re trying to do. Trump wanted 2020 fixed because of electoral fraud – Democrats want 2024 “fixed” because they don’t like the results.
