House Speaker Mike Johnson Criticizes Democrats’ Attempt to Remove Trump from 2024 Ballot
In a recent development following the Supreme Court’s decision to exclude former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, strongly criticized the Democrats’ plans to force Trump off the ballot. The Supreme Court’s ruling stated that while states have the authority to disqualify individuals from holding state office, they do not possess the power to enforce Section 3, particularly concerning federal offices such as the presidency. The responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates lies with Congress, according to the Court.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, reportedly revealed that he is already working on federal legislation that would compel Trump’s removal from the ballot. However, Speaker Johnson’s spokesperson dismissed these efforts, urging his Democrat colleagues to “get a grip.” The spokesperson emphasized that in America, it is the American people who decide the next president, not the courts or Congress.
Raskin mentioned a bill he introduced in 2022 with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida, which would grant the Justice Department the authority to sue in order to prevent candidates from appearing on the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Raskin indicated that this bill would be revised in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and would be coupled with a resolution declaring January 6th an “insurrection” and branding those involved as “engaged in insurrection.”
It is important to note that while Trump faces several federal charges related to the 2020 election, he has not been accused of insurrection. In its unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court concluded that states do not possess enforcement authority under Section 3. However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed their dissent, arguing that the majority went too far when it claimed that Congress has exclusive enforcement authority.
“The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” the dissenting justices stated. They also criticized the majority for delving into Section 3 matters unrelated to the case before them and for preemptively preventing future attempts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision.
While Rep. Raskin’s office has yet to respond to requests for comment, this ongoing debate highlights the political tensions surrounding Trump’s potential candidacy in the upcoming 2024 election. As the legal and political battles continue, it remains to be seen how this issue will shape the future political landscape in America.
