Could the 14th Amendment be Trump's undoing?
How a post-Civil War amendment against insurrectionists could disqualify Trump
A Florida tax attorney, Lawrence Caplan, is challenging former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House again, arguing that Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment bars him from holding public office. The amendment, adopted after the Civil War, disqualifies anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or given "aid or comfort" to anyone who did. Caplan argues that's exactly what Trump did when he stirred up the mob of his supporters that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, The Hill reported.
And he's not alone. Two prominent conservative legal scholars — law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas, both members of the conservative Federalist Society — wrote in a recent University of Pennsylvania Law Review article that the Disqualification Clause definitely applies to Trump and many others who participated in or encouraged the storming of the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the certification of Trump's 2020 election loss.
Democrats have long argued that Trump and some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Rep. Madison Cawthorn, should be barred from holding office over their actions on Jan. 6. Trump's campaign shrugged off the new lawsuit, saying it had "no basis in fact or law" and would be promptly dismissed. But now that conservative legal experts are making the same argument as some Democrats, could the 14th Amendment derail Trump's attempt to return to the White House in the 2024 election?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What the commentators said
Trump undeniably "meets the standard" of the 14th Amendment, said Donald K. Sherman at The Hill. "All three branches of the government have identified the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection," and federal judges, House and Senate majorities, and the bipartisan House Jan. 6 committee have identified "Trump as its central cause." As Baude and Paulsen, the conservative scholars, note, Trump doesn't have to be convicted of treason or any other crime to be barred from seeking office. State and federal election officials can make the call on their own. A New Mexico county commissioner has already been booted from public life for recruiting Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Trump is next.
Sorry, but the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump or any of the Jan. 6 rioters, said Alan Dershowitz in the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter. The "text and history" of the 14th Amendment make it clear the "disability provision was intended to apply to those who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War." It was never supposed to empower "one party to disqualify the leading candidate of the other party in any future elections." Determining who had sided with the Confederacy was easy, but there's "no formal mechanism" for disqualifying somebody now. We would be left with some states striking Trump from the ballot and others leaving him on, which would trigger "a constitutional crisis" and open the door for Republican states to disqualify candidates who supported rebellious riots over, say, the killing of George Floyd.
Baude and Paulsen rightly point out that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment "did not lapse with the passing of the generation of Confederate rebels, whose treasonous designs for the country inspired the provision," said former federal appellate judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard constitutional law professor emeritus Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic. The "post-Civil War Framers presciently foresaw" that it would never outlive the purpose it was intended to serve. "To the contrary, this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution." Any official who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution is "obligated to enforce" the disqualification clause. This part of the Constitution is worth defending like any other.
What next?
Secretaries of state can simply refuse to print Trump's name on their ballots, and they're indicating that they have heard the arguments for applying the 14th Amendment "loud and clear," said Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) has indicated she will discuss the question with her counterparts in Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. "But she smartly recognized that whatever she and other secretaries decide, the issue will undoubtedly travel to the Supreme Court for a final determination." There's a risk that "the hyperpartisan Supreme Court will ride to Trump's rescue," ignoring the amendment's text to keep Trump on the ballot. Primary voters can prevent that ugly scenario by nominating someone else.
"If GOP primary voters put Trump on the 2024 presidential ballot, the American majority is going to have to beat him at the polls," said David Frum in The Atlantic. "The good news is that a consistent majority" of U.S. voters is resolutely anti-Trump. The bad news is that the anti-Trump majority is narrow and "disfavored by the Electoral College." But it's time to stop wishing for the 14th Amendment to become an "anti-Trump magic wand." That's "an unfeasible, unhelpful fantasy. Let it go."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Harold Maass is a contributing editor at The Week. He has been writing for The Week since the 2001 debut of the U.S. print edition and served as editor of TheWeek.com when it launched in 2008. Harold started his career as a newspaper reporter in South Florida and Haiti. He has previously worked for a variety of news outlets, including The Miami Herald, ABC News and Fox News, and for several years wrote a daily roundup of financial news for The Week and Yahoo Finance.
-
What Donald Trump owes the Christian Right
The Explainer Conservative Christians played an important role in Trump’s re-election, and he has promised them great political influence
By The Week UK Published
-
Russia's shadow war in Europe
Talking Point Steering clear of open conflict, Moscow is slowly ratcheting up the pressure on Nato rivals to see what it can get away with.
By The Week UK Published
-
Sudoku medium: December 8, 2024
The Week's daily medium sudoku puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
An abject apology to Dear Leader
Opinion My red-pilled new perspective on Donald J. Trump
By William Falk Published
-
'This needs to be a bigger deal'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
'Paraguay has found itself in a key position'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Where did Democratic voters go?
Voter turnout dropped sharply for Democrats in 2024
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Team of bitter rivals
Opinion Will internal tensions tear apart Trump's unlikely alliance?
By Theunis Bates Published
-
How the transgender community is bracing for Trump
The Explainer After a campaign full of bigotry and promises to roll back hard-earned rights, genderqueer people are grappling with an incoming administration prepared to make good on overtly transphobic rhetoric
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump victorious: 'a political comeback for the ages'
In Depth The president-elect will be able to wield a 'powerful mandate'
By The Week UK Published
-
Where does Elon Musk go from here?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION After gambling big on Donald Trump's reelection bid, the world's wealthiest man is poised to become even more powerful — and controversial — than ever
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published