Editor’s note: Tristan Snell is the author of the new book, “Defeating Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump According to Successful People.” He is an attorney and legal commentator who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN, and served as an assistant attorney general for the state of New York, where he led the investigation and civil litigation against Trump University. The views expressed here are the author’s own.read more opinion On CNN.
CNN
—
The Supreme Court is considering the question Thursday of whether former President Donald Trump was stripped of the presidency for inciting an insurrection in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provisions of the Constitution are clear. Officials who have taken the oath of office will be disqualified if they “participate in an insurrection” in violation of the constitution, or if they “give aid or comfort to enemies of the constitution.”
Provided by: Tristan Snell
Tristan Snell
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on this basis that Trump was ineligible. The ruling included both the attack on the Capitol itself on January 6, 2021, which disrupted the certification of presidential electoral votes, and the former president’s overall plan to overturn the 2020 election. .
The case, which is now before the Supreme Court following Trump’s appeal, could decide whether Trump appears on the ballot in up to 35 states where his eligibility is being challenged. .
There are two factual questions at the heart of this case. Was January 6th an insurrection, and was Trump “involved” in it?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court does not have to look far for answers to these questions. They just need to look across the street at the Capitol. There, a majority of both houses of Congress already recognized that January 6th was an insurrection, and that President Trump not only participated in it, but “incited it.”
This may come as a shock. when, Some may ask, Has Congress ever taken such a vote?
These votes came from Trump’s second impeachment in January and February 2021, when majorities in both houses of Congress supported articles of impeachment against him for “incitement of insurrection.”
This was a finding of fact by a majority of elected officials after a fully public trial in which Mr. Trump was able to mount a defense, and in answering factual questions before the Supreme Court. Although it is not conclusive, it should be considered persuasive. Indeed, for right-wing justices who like to arrogantly argue that courts should not make policy decisions and instead defer to the legislature, such clear public statements from Congress regarding President Trump’s involvement in the insurrection are One would think that the statement would be persuasive. precedent.
To be clear, the Fourteenth Amendment does not actually require: Anyone Voting to disqualify insurrectionists, whether in the Legislature or in juries. It certainly does not require a conviction, as some are trying to argue (and such abysmal treatment of the plain language of the Constitution’s provisions is the exact opposite of what conservatives usually preach. ).
Legally, rebels are disqualified the moment they start a rebellion. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a well-known standard in criminal law, but it should not be applied in cases of disqualification from public office because holding public office is a privilege, not a right. In fact, a Colorado court found that Mr. Trump was involved in the insurrection, and that alone was legally sufficient to disqualify Mr. Trump in Colorado.
But if you’re looking for additional fact-based judgment about whether Trump engaged in the riot, especially one that applies nationally, Congress has already provided one, and the Supreme Court need look no further.
Congress’s vote on Mr. Trump should satisfy those who say “we should let voters decide,” rather than apply the Constitution to remove Mr. Trump from the ballot.voters already decided. Our elected officials convened, heard both sides, and resolved that January 6th was a riot and that Donald Trump not only participated in it, but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 out of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 57 out of 100 senators.
These majorities already represent the will of the American people. Certainly not enough for impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but more than enough for disqualification, where a supermajority is not provided and a simple majority is sufficient.
The Constitution also provides a way to reinstate Trump’s eligibility to win if voters change their minds in the future. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment allows disqualified officials to be rehabilitated by a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the House of Representatives.
Without such an effort by Congress, allowing Mr. Trump to win re-election would make a mockery of both democracy and the Constitution. If he is not legally eligible, he should not be on the 2024 ballot, otherwise the Constitution is meaningless. We cannot cherry-pick which provisions of the Constitution we want to enforce at any given moment, nor can we ignore provisions of the Constitution simply because they would have difficult or inconvenient consequences.
Therein lies the greatest danger. Don’t be fooled by claims that “we’ll let the voters decide.”that sound Although democratic, the suspension and circumvention of the Constitution’s clear provisions could be the beginning of the end for our democracy and the rule of law. If you ignore any part of the Constitution, no part of it is sacred.
Does “letting voters decide” Trump’s eligibility mean, as Trump wants, “let voters decide” whether journalists should be imprisoned? Should we “let voters decide” to disenfranchise other voters who disagree? A democracy without a constitution and the rule of law cannot remain a democracy for long.Instead, you must apply all Law as written, including the 14th Amendment.
Get our free weekly newsletter
We already have a clear decision by President Trump and Congress regarding January 6th, and we must not ignore it. Trump cannot continue to hold on to more and more votes until he finds votes he can win, or until he finds votes he can successfully overturn.
The Supreme Court may be wary of disqualifying President Trump based solely on its own rulings as a group of unelected judges. But you don’t have to. They can base their judgments on decisions already taken by Parliament, thereby giving their decisions legal and political legitimacy. The Constitution is clear, the votes of Congress are clear, and therefore Trump’s disqualification is completely justified. If some people disagree, they can ask Congress to reinstate Trump, as provided by the Constitution.
Congress can undo what Congress has done. That’s the beauty of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court should fully embrace it.