A shady provision in the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of a raging controversy over the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to run in the 2024 elections There are a lot of Trump supporters saying it will prevent his name from appearing on ballots the following year.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, and its Section 3 effectively disqualifies those who participated to engage in “insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S.
It was created to stop ex- Confederate leaders from a position in Congress and gained the most use during the decade following the war, according to James Gardner, Professor in the University at Buffalo School of Law who is a specialist in the law of elections and constitutionality.
It’s seldom been talked about -and even referred to since.
“Until the last few years, no one would think there was a chance of rebellion or rebellion towards in the United States of the kinds the amendment would address,” Gardner tells NPR. “Now is definitely the most significant context to the extent that the provision has relevance from in the year 1870.”
It’s due to Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss, as well as the incidents that took place on the 6th of Jan. 6 in which Trump supporters protested at into the U.S. Capitol to try to block Congress from declaring the results.
Liberal groups have attempted unsuccessfully to use the amendment to prevent famous Republican lawmakers in Congress from seeking reelection based on their participation in the Jan. 6.
While activists have stated that they planned to in the future be a target for Trump should he seek the presidency once more and have set the legal framework for that, keeping Trump from the ballot is an extremely long shot.
This is even though that House panel that was investigating an attack on January. 6 attack blamed Trump as the “central reason,” and a grand jury indictment for four federal charges connected to efforts to invalidate the elections in 2020.
The investigation of the special counsel is among the numerous criminal cases involving the current presidential candidate Trump who has continued to lead the Republican primary.
In recent months, a broader array of scholars in the field of law and voter rights groups have been arguing for the right of this clause to be interpreted to exclude him from voting.
“I believe there’s a some agreement among lawyers that this is something worth considering,” Gardner says. “The most difficult questions is how this could take place.”
Since the presidential election takes place across the country, yet it is that it is not centralized, state officials could determine for themselves the possibility that Trump will be on their ballot according to the state laws.
The election officials in various states which include Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia already stated that Trump’s name will appear on the ballot, unless the court decides otherwise.
Gardner -who personally wants to be able to see Trump eliminated from the ballot throughout the nation — says that the issue could be settled with the U.S. Supreme Court in time for the election.
“I think the scenario which is the most tense is when the state courts of New York and California throw him out, while those in the state court system of Alabama and Georgia continue to hold him,” he explains. “So you’d then have an issue between perfectly authorized justice systems. … This issue needs to be ruled out in the Supreme Court for everybody.”
The public is divided on what is better to avoid or address the issue, Gardner says. Gardner believes that any decision made will have a major impact on this country. U.S. as a civic society, particularly when viewed in relation to the slowing of democracy that is taking place in the United States as well as elsewhere in the globe.
This is what you need to learn about the expression that describes how it has been used in the past and why it’s so controversial and what’s in store for the future.
What does the clause mean?
3. in the 14th Amendment reads:
“No person is a Representative or Senator in Congress or an elector of the President or Vice-President, nor be in any position, whether civilian or military, in the United States, or under any State that has previously taken an oath as an elected member of Congress or in the capacity of an official from the United States, or as a member of a State legislature and as an executive, judicial or legislative officer of a State and to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have taken part in rebellion or insurrection against the Constitution or offered aid or assistance to those who oppose the Constitution of the United States.”
The language of the clause allows it to be open to a variety of definitional issues, such as the definition of “insurrection,” what defines engagement “aid or comfort” as well as what really is an “office.”
On the other hand, Gardner argues Jan. 6 was a clear demonstration of violence towards America. U.S., citing the loss of lives and the damage to property.
The extent of Trump’s involvement in the election is an issue that is viewed by many as more ambiguous He cites to the examples of Trump’s inspiring talkbeforehand as well as the January. 6 committee’s admission that Trump was planning to travel on a trip to the Capitol for himself.
Trump hasn’t been convicted or charged of insurrection. This, according to some legal experts believe makes it less likely to use the statute to deny Trump from being disqualified. Others, such as Gardner claim that there is no need for conviction to be a condition.
Gardner says that Trump’s trial for election interference in March 2024 is a legal trial that addresses a variety of issuesthat is whether he acted in violation of specific criminal statutes, and not whether the law was violated by the Constitution.
“It could be that, in these trials, evidence will be presented that would be pertinent to the constitutional debate,” he explains. “But they’re not linked.”
How long has it been in use before?
The clause has not been cited against any presidential candidate. It was subject to what Gardner describes as “the largest exercise” in the immediate period after the Civil War.
“What transpired was Southern states, when they were admitted to the Union started to attempt to bring former Confederate leaders into Congress,” he says. “And it was followed by a lengthy period during which Congress refused to sit these individuals.”
Then, a century and half of a year later to 2022, the year that a county official from New Mexico was removed from his post due to his involvement in the month of Jan. 6.
A judge has ruled the Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who is a Trump fan, was barred from holding office in public -due to his violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — following the fact that he was found guilty of stepping into restricted areas of the U.S. Capitol.
A liberal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sued residents on their behalf, argued that Griffin’s case was the only case that was successful to be filed under Section 3 in the years since 1869. (Congress also barred one House member following World War I, before his conviction was rescinded and he was allowed to sit following his reelection.)
Another group of liberals, Free Speech For People was attempting to ban additional Trump allies, such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina.
Greene was able to remain on the Georgia ballot and later got reelected following a ruling by a state administrative judge that claimed that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that she participated in the protests. Although Cawthorn was unable to win his primary due to a series of scandals the appeals court decided in the case that people who participate who participated in an uprising against the U.S. can be exempted from being elected to office.
Who’s talking about it?
The idea of using this clause to block Trump from running for president began to gain momentum in August, but not solely in the liberal circles.
Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig, an influential conservative, as well as the liberal scholar of constitutional law Laurence Tribe made their case in the joint opinion piece published by The Atlantic. Two law professors from the conservative side who were studying the issue for a year supported the idea in an interview in the New York Times interview (another scholar who was quoted positively has changed his mind).
Voters’ rights groups in two states have filed lawsuits within a matter of weeks.
CREW has filed a petition to block Trump from the electoral process on the ballot in Colorado and alleges that the president violated his oath in office by “recruiting and inciting the violent mob to attack the Capitol” (Trump denounced the people who were leading the protestas “deranged … slime balls”). Free Speech For People filed an separate, identical lawsuit within Minnesota shortly after the Minnesota lawsuit.
A federal judge has denied a appeal from a tax lawyer in Florida who claimed he had no legal standing.
A Trump’s more openly critics of his primary opponents Former Arkansas Governor. Asa Hutchinson stated during August that the actions of Trump during the presidential election on Jan. 6 could have violated the Constitutional amendment. She added “I’m not even sure if Trump is qualified to be a candidate under the Constitution.” Constitution.”
Trump himself has declared his opposition to it. Trump tweeted on his social media that the amendment had “no legal foundation or any standing” in connection with the current election. He also said to Dan Bongino, a conservative radio host, to say that “this is similar to the banana republic.”
“What they’re doing is it’s known as election interference” he explained. “Now we have the 14th Amendment is just a continuation of the previous one. It’s nonsense.”
Are there arguments and for and
The principal argument in favor of using the clause to block Trump from running for reelection, according to legal scholar Gardner states that it is “a consequence of the application of the language of the Constitution to his conduct.”
He explains that there are two major arguments against it. One is a series of legal arguments as well as factual questions that provide a reason for why his conduct could not be protected. Another is a list of worries about what banning Trump could mean for the cause of civil peace.
“Trump supporters now have an extensive record of personally inflicting a savage attack on those in the political process who perform actions they don’t want them do. And this will be a choice that is sure be a source of controversy even for sensible people,” Gardner says. “So yes, this is high danger. You’d have to be quite a confident person to make the decision that the law demands you to remove Trump and then to go ahead and complete the process.”
Kim Wehle, a constitutional law professor from the University of Baltimore who raised the 14th Amendment question in a Politico article in the past, admits this could trigger “tremendous civil discord.”
However the fact is, as she said on the Morning Edition in September, there’s an “textual clause within the Constitution” that needs to be considered in the present, especially given the stakes in case Trump is elected.
“That is, in my opinion, the demise of American democracy with regard to the stated intentions of what he’s going to take on the Federal government. the support of loyalists, who have made it explicit that they are not going to follow the electoral procedure within the Constitution with the same fidelity and way federal officials have so far,” Wehle added.
David Frum, a former speechwriter for the president George W. Bush who is now a writer on behalf of The Atlantic, argues that applying 14th Amendments 14th Amendment would just perpetuate the current problems, such as making it more difficult for state secretaries to protect elections, or to get the public to accept the results.
“It’s an unwise project and distracts people from the actual job they need to complete that is to ensure that you’re registered to take your family as well as your neighbors out to vote in order to protect the country from a threat to democracy that’s not capable of being stopped with magical or words.” Frum told Morning Edition.
Gardner states that it boils to this: Do we let the issue go because the possible consequences could be so polarizing and disruptive for our democracy or do we take on it as a matter of applying the law to all, not just the president?
His response: “I wouldn’t want to be secretary of state now, making any decisions or decisions any more than I’d like to serve as a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
What could happen next?
Secretaries of State are beginning to face questions and pressure from voters, causing some to publicly declare that they will keep Trump’s name off the ballot, unless a court declares otherwise.
For instance, in New Hampshire, for example there was a group of GOP lawmakers addressed Secretary of State David Scanlan, also a Republican and a Republican, challenging his 14th Amendment argument and asking Scanlan to ensure that Trump is on the electoral ballot.
“Now it’s time for the people of Granite State to ensure that their residents get a fair and fair primary election, by fighting against the misinterpretation and politicalization of the Constitution,” they wrote in their Sept. 12-letter. Letter.
The next the next day Scanlan the state of which is only months from its usual early Presidential primary hosted an public press conference to deny claims that he is in possession of the authority to remove Trump’s names off the electoral ballot. Making this decision on a state-by -state basis could cause “chaos and dismay, anger and discontent,” he said, noting that the appropriate place to resolve the issue would be the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gardner as well as many others hopes that the dispute will be resolved through the courts.
He claims that the “procedurally more solid method” to achieve this is for the election administrator to announce that Trump is unqualified which could lead to an immediate lawsuit, or from Trump his campaign, or supporters in the specific state.
He also says it’s difficult to determine what it will be decided by the Supreme Court might rule, even with its supermajority of conservatives.
There’s precedent for taking action quickly in a election-related dispute, such as it did in Bush the Gore case in 2000. Gore in 2000 however its reputation was tarnished because it was viewed as interfering in the final outcome. In addition, he says, it may not be able to interfere in any way, as they did a number of instances concerning election procedure prior to 2020.
Copyright 2023 Copyright NPR. For more information, visit https://www.npr.org. 9(MDEwMjQ0ODM1MDEzNDk4MTEzNjU3NTRhYg004))
