Supreme Court Considers Whether Trump Should be Disqualified from Office for Insurrection
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from holding office due to his involvement in the insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021. This question arises from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that any official who engages in insurrection against the Constitution or provides aid or comfort to its enemies is disqualified.
The Colorado Supreme Court has already ruled that Trump is ineligible based on this provision, taking into account both the attack on the Capitol and Trump’s overall scheme to overturn the 2020 election. Now, the case has reached the Supreme Court following Trump’s appeal, and its decision could determine whether Trump’s name appears on the ballot in up to 35 states where his eligibility is being challenged.
At the heart of this case are two factual questions: whether January 6 constituted an insurrection and whether Trump was involved in it. Fortunately, the Supreme Court does not need to look far for answers. They can simply turn their gaze towards the Capitol building, where both chambers of Congress have already determined that January 6 was indeed an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but also incited it.
These findings were made during Trump’s second impeachment trial in early 2021, where majorities in both the House and Senate voted in favor of an article of impeachment charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection.” This was a fact-based determination made by elected representatives after a full public trial, where Trump had the opportunity to present a defense. One would think that this clear pronouncement from Congress would be a compelling precedent for the Supreme Court, especially for those justices who often argue that courts should defer to legislatures rather than make policy judgments.
The 14th Amendment does not require anyone, whether a legislature or a jury, to vote in order to disqualify an insurrectionist. Nor does it demand a conviction, as some have argued. Legally, engaging in insurrection alone is sufficient grounds for disqualification. Holding public office is a privilege, not a right, and therefore, the “innocent until proven guilty” standard that applies in criminal law should not apply here. The courts in Colorado already found Trump to have engaged in insurrection, and that was enough to rule him ineligible in that state.
However, if additional fact-based evidence is sought to determine whether Trump engaged in insurrection on a national level, Congress has already provided it. The congressional votes during Trump’s impeachment trial should satisfy those who argue that the voters should decide whether Trump is eligible for office. Our elected representatives deliberated, heard arguments from both sides, and ultimately voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump was not only involved but incited it. A majority of representatives and senators reached this conclusion, representing the will of the American people.
While this majority may not have been enough for impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, it should be sufficient for disqualification, as no supermajority is stipulated in this case. If the voters change their minds in the future, the Constitution provides a way to restore Trump’s eligibility through a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.
Allowing Trump to run again without such an effort by Congress would undermine democracy and render the Constitution meaningless. We cannot selectively enforce provisions of the Constitution or ignore them simply because they yield difficult outcomes. Disregarding a clear constitutional provision like Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would set a dangerous precedent and erode our democracy and the rule of law.
The argument that we should “let the voters decide” may sound democratic, but it disregards the importance of upholding the Constitution and applying all laws as written. Democracy without a constitution and the rule of law is not sustainable. We must not be swayed by this argument and instead rely on the determinations already made by Congress. Holding more votes until Trump finds one he can win or successfully overturn would only undermine the legitimacy of our institutions.
The Supreme Court may be hesitant to disqualify Trump based solely on their own ruling as unelected judges. However, they do not need to do so. They can ground their decision in the determination already made by Congress, giving it both legal and political legitimacy. The Constitution is clear, Congress has spoken, and Trump’s disqualification is justified. If there are those who disagree, they can work towards reinstating Trump through the process outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for our democracy and the future of our nation. It is crucial that they consider the facts, the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives, and the clear provisions of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment provides a framework for holding insurrectionists accountable and safeguarding our democratic principles. The Supreme Court must embrace this framework fully.
