Two far-left lawyers appear to be pressuring Congress to launch an insurrection or rebellion against President-elect Donald Trump.
Evan Davis and David Schulte write for The Hill that President Trump himself has unconstitutionally committed such insurrection or insurrection in 2020, even though the courts have not convicted him of such charges. He claims that he caused it. Therefore, Congress does not need to verify the Nov. 5 electoral vote that returns him to the White House.
This outlandish plan would do exactly what lawyers falsely accuse President Trump of doing in 2020: refuse to accept the election. And they're adding a proposal to the back of the Constitution's fig leaf to put the defeated candidate in the White House.
plan
“The Constitution provides that an insurrectionist who breaks the oath is not eligible to serve as president,” the two Pettifoggers began.
This is the plain language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. “No person shall hold any office in the United States or under any State, whether civil or military, who has previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and who has committed rebellion or insurrection against the Constitution. or gave aid or comfort to his enemies.'' This bar can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house.
Disqualification is based on rebellion against the Constitution, not the government. The evidence that Donald Trump was involved in such an insurrection is overwhelming. The issue was decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump's lawyers.
In fact, the evidence is not “overwhelming” and there are good reasons for that. But either way, his lawyers argue that Trump is guilty of insurrection for three reasons.
First, during the U.S. Senate trial of Trump's second impeachment by the House of Representatives, seven renegade Republicans will vote to convict Trump of “incitement of insurrection” even if the Senate fails to remove him from office. I voted. They therefore argue that Trump “committed an unconstitutional 'insurrection',” which means Congress can refuse to certify Trump's victory.
Second, Trump “engaged in insurrection” because the Colorado Supreme Court said so, citing “clear and convincing evidence” to disqualify Trump from the state's presidential vote. However, the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled that states do not have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal law is needed to enforce Article III. The ruling did not address the finding that President Trump was involved in the insurrection.
Finally, the lawyers point to the shady and corrupt House select committee that investigated the so-called riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
More than half of the witnesses who testified during the nine hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion from this evidence is that Trump committed an unconstitutional insurrection. In particular, President Trump illegally asked Vice President Mike Pence to throw away his Electoral College votes to political opponent Joe Biden, something he did not have the authority to do. As the riot was underway, Mr. Trump used Mr. Pence's rejection of his demands to further incite the crowd, prompting chants of “Hang Mike Pence!”
In fact, Trump never encouraged anyone to shout “Hang Mike Pence!” The House Oversight Committee found in a special committee investigation on January 6 that “there is no evidence that President Trump consented to rioters chanting 'hang Mike Pence!'”
January 6th Committee
The committee's report also found, as The New American reported last week:
Evidence uncovered by the subcommittee revealed that former Rep. Liz Cheney secretly communicated with Hutchinson without her attorney's knowledge and tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson. This confidential communication with the witness is inappropriate and may violate 18 USC 1512. Such conduct is not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause because it is outside the legitimate functioning of the legislative process.
The report reproduced Cheney's text messages with key witness Hutchinson at the committee's Jan. 6 meeting. The report alleges that Cheney received perjury from Hutchinson. It alleges that Mr. Hutchinson repeatedly lied to the committee about important events of the day.
The oversight committee found that “President Trump had no information indicating violence on the morning of January 6.''
The January 6th Committee's claims are therefore dubious at best and tainted at the very least.
It's also unclear whether Trump's urging of Pence to reject the electoral votes was “illegal.” As former Justice Department attorney John Yoo explained in 2022, the rules of the Electoral Count Act for settling electoral votes are unclear and confusing, and actually “underplay the role of the vice president.” “I'm doing it.”
ignore scotus
Davis and Schulte also argue that Congress can ignore the SCOTUS majority's “proposal to pass new federal law implementing the enforcement powers specified in the 14th Amendment.” There is.
“Counting Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution,” they continue. “Under well-established law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of its right to have a say on the issue, because refusing to vote on grounds enshrined in the Constitution is a political question that is not open to review. That’s why.”
They concluded that Congress could reject electoral votes because “one or more electoral votes were not 'regularly' awarded.”
Voting for constitutionally disqualified candidates clearly follows the normal use of the term “out of regularity.” Disqualification for participating in an insurrection is no different than disqualification based on other constitutional requirements, such as age, citizenship at birth, or 14 years of residence in the United States.
A challenge under the counting law requires a petition signed by 20 percent of members in each chamber. If a majority of each chamber supports the opposition, the votes are not counted and the number of votes needed to win is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump are not counted, Kamala Harris will be elected president.
Two Democrats argue:
Unless this obstacle is removed, we must object to the Electoral College voting for persons disqualified by the Constitution from holding public office. Their oath to support and defend the Constitution requires the same.
There is a problem with this plan. President Trump is not “constitutionally disqualified” because he “did not commit an insurrection or insurrection” on January 6, 2021.
And in fact, the two lawyers spoke out against President Trump and his supporters protesting at the Capitol in pressuring Congress not to certify President Joe Biden's dubious victory on January 6, 2021. is arguing exactly the same thing that Congress has argued: “Nothing more is required” of members' oaths of “support” and to protect the Constitution. ”
