Breaking News
Can the 14th Amendment Stop Trump on January 6th?
January 6, 2025: A Potential Constitutional Crisis Over Electoral Certification
Introduction:
As January 6, 2025, approaches—the day Congress is set to certify the electoral votes for the next presidential term—a storm of legal and political challenges looms on the horizon. At the center of this brewing controversy is the possibility that objections to the certification of electoral votes could lead to a constitutional crisis. If enough electoral votes are blocked or disqualified (specifically, 43 or more), the candidate (Trump) could fall short of the 270 needed for certification, throwing the process into chaos. This scenario, while unprecedented in modern history, is not entirely implausible given the current political climate and the lingering fallout from the 2020 election.
The Certification Process:
Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress convenes on January 6 to count and certify the electoral votes submitted by each state. The process is typically ceremonial, but it can become contentious if members of Congress object to the validity of certain votes. For an objection to be considered, it must be submitted in writing by at least one senator and one representative. If both chambers vote to sustain the objection, the contested electoral votes can be excluded from the final count.
The Role of the 14th Amendment, Section 3:
One of the key arguments likely to surface during the certification process is the 14th Amendment, Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause. This provision bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. Critics of Donald Trump argue that his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot disqualify him from serving as president again. If Congress accepts this argument, it could refuse to certify electoral votes cast for Trump, potentially depriving him of the 270 needed for certification.
The Math Behind the Crisis:
To prevent a candidate from reaching the 270-electoral-vote threshold, objections would need to block or disqualify at least 43 of Trump’s electoral votes. This would require a coordinated effort by members of Congress, as well as a willingness to challenge the results in multiple states. While this scenario is unlikely, it is not impossible, especially in a deeply divided Congress where partisan tensions run high.
Historical Precedents:
The certification process has been challenged before, though never to the extent of altering the outcome. In 2005, objections were raised to Ohio’s electoral votes during the certification of George W. Bush’s reelection, but they were quickly dismissed. In 2021, objections to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory led to a violent attack on the Capitol, highlighting the potential for chaos when the process is politicized.
The Constitutional Crisis:
If enough electoral votes are blocked or disqualified, the result could be a constitutional crisis. Without a candidate reaching the 270-vote threshold, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives under the 12th Amendment. In this scenario, each state delegation would cast one vote, with the candidate receiving a majority of state votes declared the winner. Given the current composition of state delegations, this process could favor the Republican candidate, but it would undoubtedly be seen as illegitimate by many, further deepening the nation’s political divisions.
The Role of Social Media and Public Opinion:
Social media influencers and activists have already begun to lay the groundwork for potential objections. TikTok influencer @we.wont.go_back, for example, has been vocal about using the 14th Amendment to challenge Trump’s eligibility. While their arguments are not legally binding, they reflect a broader movement to hold Trump accountable for his actions on January 6, 2021. Public opinion will play a significant role in shaping the response to any objections, with both sides likely to mobilize a their bases in support of their positions.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYvRfjmV
Legal and Political Challenges:
Enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause would face significant legal hurdles. Trump has not been formally charged or convicted of insurrection, and the clause’s applicability to the presidency is debated. Additionally, any attempt to block electoral votes would likely be met with fierce resistance from Trump’s supporters, potentially leading to legal battles that could reach the Supreme Court.
The Broader Implications:
A constitutional crisis over the certification of electoral votes would have far-reaching consequences for American democracy. It would undermine public trust in the electoral process, deepen partisan divisions, and set a dangerous precedent for future elections. The fallout from such a crisis could take years to resolve, with lasting effects on the nation’s political and social fabric.
Conclusion:
As January 6, 2025, approaches, the possibility of objections to the certification of electoral votes looms large. While the scenario of blocking enough votes to prevent a candidate from reaching 270 is unlikely, it is not impossible. If it occurs, the result could be a constitutional crisis of unprecedented scale, testing the resilience of American democracy and the rule of law. Whether or not this scenario comes to pass, it serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of our electoral system and the need for vigilance in protecting it.
Overview and Background
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, a constitutional debate is brewing over whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run for office again. At the center of this controversy is the 14th Amendment, Section 3, often referred to as the Disqualification Clause. This provision, enacted after the Civil War, bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. With Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot under scrutiny, legal scholars, politicians, and social media influencers are debating whether this clause could prevent him from reclaiming the presidency in 2025.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3: A Primer
The Disqualification Clause states:
“No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, under the United States… 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 clause was designed to prevent former Confederates from holding office after the Civil War. However, its language is broad enough to apply to any individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion, regardless of the era. The key questions in Trump’s case are:
- Did his actions on January 6, 2021, constitute “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”?
- Does the clause apply to the presidency?
- Who has the authority to enforce this provision?
The Case Against Trump:
Critics argue that Trump’s actions leading up to and on January 6 meet the criteria for disqualification under the 14th Amendment. They point to his speech at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol, as well as his repeated claims of a “stolen election,” which they say incited the violent attack on Congress. The House Select Committee investigating January 6 concluded that Trump was “central” to the events of that day, and some legal experts believe this could trigger the Disqualification Clause.
TikTok Influencer @we.wont.go_back and Grassroots Advocacy:
On social media, influencers like TikTok’s @we.wont.go_back have been vocal about using the 14th Amendment to challenge Trump’s eligibility. In a series of videos, the influencer argues that while the path to disqualification is difficult, it is not impossible. They emphasize that state officials, such as secretaries of state, could refuse to place Trump on the ballot, citing the 14th Amendment. This strategy would likely lead to legal battles, but @we.wont.go_back and others believe it’s a necessary step to uphold the Constitution.
The influencer also highlights historical precedents, such as the case of Victor L. Berger, a socialist congressman who was barred from office under the 14th Amendment after opposing U.S. involvement in World War I. While Berger’s case was later overturned, it demonstrates that the clause has been invoked in the past.
Legal and Political Challenges:
Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against Trump would face significant hurdles. First, there is no clear mechanism for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection. While the House Select Committee’s findings could be used as evidence, Trump has not been formally charged or convicted of insurrection. Second, the clause’s applicability to the presidency is debated. Some scholars argue that the presidency is an “office under the United States,” while others contend that the clause was intended for lower offices.
Third, the enforcement of the clause would likely require action by Congress or state officials. For example, a state secretary of state could refuse to certify Trump’s candidacy, prompting a legal challenge that could reach the Supreme Court. Alternatively, Congress could pass a resolution declaring Trump ineligible under the 14th Amendment, though this would require bipartisan support, which is unlikely in the current political climate.
Congressional Action and Historical Context:
Congress has the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment through legislation, but it has rarely done so. In 1872, Congress passed the Amnesty Act, which removed the disqualification for most former Confederates. More recently, there have been calls for Congress to pass a new law clarifying the enforcement of the Disqualification Clause, but no such legislation has been introduced.
The Supreme Court’s Role:
Ultimately, the question of Trump’s eligibility may land in the hands of the Supreme Court. The Court’s conservative majority could interpret the 14th Amendment narrowly, requiring a formal conviction of insurrection before disqualification. Alternatively, they could adopt a broader interpretation, allowing states or Congress to enforce the clause based on evidence of insurrection.
Public Opinion and Political Implications:
The debate over the 14th Amendment has become deeply politicized. Trump’s supporters view any attempt to disqualify him as a partisan attack, while his critics see it as a necessary step to protect democracy. The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching consequences for the 2024 election and beyond, shaping the future of American politics and the rule of law.
Thoughts (and prayers):
The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause presents a constitutional and political dilemma that could define the 2024 election. While the path to disqualifying Trump is fraught with legal and logistical challenges, it is not impossible. As influencers like @we.wont.go_back and legal scholars continue to advocate for its enforcement, the nation watches closely, aware that the stakes could not be higher. Whether or not Trump is ultimately barred from running, this debate underscores the enduring relevance of the Constitution and the ongoing struggle to balance democracy, accountability, and the rule of law.
