Banning Trump from re-election is a constitutional pipe dream
Democrats will need more than the 14th Amendment to keep Trump out of office


Could former President Donald Trump be barred from returning to the White House?
To most Democrats and a few Republicans, disqualification seems like simple justice — and an answer to their political prayers. Unfortunately, the opportunity seems to have passed. The Constitution gives Congress the power to ban an impeached president from "any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States" as a penalty for impeachment. But in January, the Senate refused for a second time to convict Trump of charges that the House of Representatives laid against him.
But some legislators and scholars think there's a way around that failure. According to The Hill, there's growing interest in the possibility of using the 14th Amendment to accomplish what impeachment could not. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment states that "no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military" if they've "previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
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.
The problem is that there's currently no legal judgment that Trump participated in "insurrection or rebellion." The new theory is that a Senate trial is not necessary to make that determination, which could perhaps be imposed by Congressional resolution or bill to empower a special judicial body.
The appeal of this strategy is obvious. Trump's enduring and overwhelming popularity among Republican voters makes him the favorite for the 2024 nomination if he chooses to run. It's far too early to forecast his prospects in the general election. But negative partisanship is probably sufficient to give him a good chance of victory.
But a 14th Amendment gambit would almost certainly fail. In the first place, it's constitutionally dubious. Articles I and II make it clear that the impeachment process is Congress' main tool for holding presidents accountable for conduct inconsistent with their office. If the Framers had wanted to empower simple majorities or special tribunals to exclude former presidents from returning to the arena, they presumably would have said so. In the weeks before Jan. 6, lawyers who supported the president tried to derive vast, hitherto unknown powers from the ambiguities of the Constitution. Now, some of his opponents are trying to do the same thing.
Second, it's unlikely that there would be much public support for the move. A majority of Americans blame Trump for the Jan. 6 debacle. But that doesn't mean they want to see it at the top of the national agenda. Voters have short memories and tend to dislike what they see as partisan squabbling. Efforts to disqualify Trump would strike many as excessive or unfair.
Third, the bar could be lifted by a future Congress. Granted, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority to do so — a high standard at any time and particularly in the current polarized environment. Even so, "Free Donald Trump" would become a rallying cry for years to come.
Most important, though, the quest for a legal solution has crippled opposition to Trump from the start. The problem with Trump has never been specific criminal acts. It's his temperamental and psychological unfitness from an office of public trust. Frustrating as it is, the only way to escape that unfitness is by presenting voters with a candidate and agenda they prefer. Biden managed to do that in 2020, although far more narrowly than most analysts expected. In 2024, he or his successors will almost certainly have to try again.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Samuel Goldman is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, where he is executive director of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Institute for Religious Freedom and director of the Politics & Values Program. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard and was a postdoctoral fellow in Religion, Ethics, & Politics at Princeton University. His books include God's Country: Christian Zionism in America (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018) and After Nationalism (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021). In addition to academic research, Goldman's writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.
-
Selfies ban in art galleries: a sign of the times?
Talking Point Priceless art has been damaged by visitors desperate to take a snap with star attractions, leading some galleries and museums to start fighting back
-
Quiz of The Week: 21 – 27 June
Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?
-
The Week Unwrapped: How do you turn plastics into paracetamol?
Podcast Plus, what is the Wagner Group doing now? And why is it so hard to find a job after university?
-
Trump plans Iran talks, insists nuke threat gone
Speed Read 'The war is done' and 'we destroyed the nuclear,' said President Trump
-
Trump embraces NATO after budget vow, charm offensive
Speed Read The president reversed course on his longstanding skepticism of the trans-Atlantic military alliance
-
Bibi's back: what will Netanyahu do next?
Today's Big Question Riding high after a series of military victories, Israel's PM could push for peace in Gaza – or secure his own position with snap election
-
Trump judge pick told DOJ to defy courts, lawyer says
Speed Read Emil Bove, a top Justice Department official nominated by Trump for a lifetime seat, stands accused of encouraging government lawyers to mislead the courts and defy judicial orders
-
The ambiguous legal state of ectopic pregnancy care
The Explainer Rep. Kat Cammack's accusations of 'fearmongering' are the latest example of how mixed messages are complicating the debate around abortion
-
ICE: Targeting essential workers
Feature After a brief pause, the Trump administration resumes its mass deportation plan
-
'No Kings': A turning point for the resistance?
Feature Millions of Americans nationwide took to the streets to protest against the Trump administration
-
Trump: Making the military into a 'partisan militia'?
Feature Donald Trump held a military parade just days after sending troops to stop protests in Los Angeles