The state of emergency that Donald Trump has created in his country with his four indictments on a total of 91 charges is so great that even the legal debates are making headlines in the newspapers. The debate, which is growing more intense by the day, is this time around whether the Fourteenth Amendment hides the answer to those who question the former president’s involvement in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – calling a rally and giving a speech Consider the size of the crowds marching on Congress to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden should be enough to deter him from running in next year’s election, where he is the Republican favorite.
The basic text does not prohibit a person under investigation for a federal crime from becoming president; still strive for it. Even if you end up in jail. However, the above amendment makes a reservation in its third paragraph, the so-called “disqualification clause”, which reads: “No one may be […] president […] if, having previously taken an oath in support of the Constitution of the United States, he has taken part in any insurrection or rebellion against it, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The text also states that Congress may override this veto, if it achieves a two-thirds majority.
The most far-reaching effects of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, were to grant citizenship to any person “born or naturalized in the United States,” including those who had been enslaved, and to guarantee the equality of all citizens before the law. The third phase was intended to prevent the reemergence of the Confederate rebels defeated in the Civil War (1861-1865). In the years following peace, the era of reconstruction, it was used in a few cases and then fell into obscurity for more than a century.
Organised crime
When Trump’s allegations emerged in April, experts interviewed by this newspaper described this alternative as a distant option that was unlikely to be applicable. Everything appears to have changed with the fourth allegation, namely the role of the former president and 18 of his associates in “organized crime” to pressure Georgia election officials and change the outcome of the 2020 election.
But especially after the publication before his publication of a 126-page academic article on the legal review of the University of Pennsylvania. It is entitled “The Extension and Strength of the Third Section” and is signed by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two renowned conservative academics who argue that the disqualification clause is anything but a 19th-century anachronism and that it is not There were doubts about Trump’s actions, particularly the address to the mob and the pressure on his Vice President Mike Pence to interrupt the transfer of power, fit his description.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
A large group of lawyers and columnists from major media outlets now agreed with them. “The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent attack on the Capitol place him squarely within the purview of the Disqualification Clause and therefore disqualify him from the presidency,” Laurence Tribe and Michael Luttig wrote in the Atlantic magazine.
This week, a Washington organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), which has extensive experience promoting Trump, decided to go a step further and demand the validity of the section. Third, she filed a lawsuit in Colorado to ask the secretary of state not to put Trump’s name on the ballot. “There is overwhelming evidence that the clause can be activated in this case,” said CREW Vice President Donald Sherman, one of the attorneys signing the lawsuit, in a call Friday. “The concept is easy to understand, but the litigation will not be. We hope the judge agrees with us and that we can convince the appellate authorities, including the Supreme Court.” That, too, won’t be easy: The Supreme Court has a conservative supermajority of six judges, three of whom were appointed by Trump .
The plaintiffs hope the matter will be resolved before the primary election so that voters “are not misled into voting for an ineligible person,” Sherman said. When asked why they filed the lawsuit in the heavily Democratic state of Colorado, the lawyer attributed it to the fact that they were “a group of courageous complainants, four Republicans and two independents, including Norma Anderson, who was the leader of the party, had.” Conservative majority in the State Senate. He also recalled that it was not necessary for Trump to be found guilty in the four trials he is pursuing in order to press the Fourteenth’s nuclear button.
Cuoy Griffin, leader of the Cowboys for Trump, in a picture from 2021. Morgan Lee (AP)
Similar disqualification proceedings have recently been initiated in New Hampshire, the site of the first primaries, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. CREW at least has the precedent of succeeding in using the clause last year to prevent a man named Cuoy Griffin, founder of the group Cowboys for Trump, from holding public office in New Mexico. “The court understood that ever since [Griffin] “He was recruiting people to attack the Capitol, he couldn’t show up even if he wasn’t committing any acts of violence, nor could he enter the building,” Sherman clarified, proudly adding, “It was the first time since Reconstruction.” which he was ahead of. “In a Judgment the Third Section”.
Aside from the lawyer’s belief in his crusade, knowing the American justice system, it is inescapable to think that perhaps he has engaged in one of those useless endeavors that breed melancholy. The former president is suing in his four pending cases (in addition to Georgia, he has to answer in New York for the alleged payment of illegal money to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in order to buy her silence; in Miami for the secret papers that contain the same delay strategy could muddy the demands of Colorado or New Hampshire was also carried out by the White House and in Washington on January 6th.
And then there are those who believe the justice theory that has gained prominence among anti-Trump Democrats and Republicans is simply a mistake. The angriest attacker is George Washington University professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, who considers it “the most dangerous theory in decades” and an “urban legend” reflecting the “desire of some to stay alive.” Elvis’s equal. “It’s a story,” Turley opines, “that good liberals read to their kids at night so they can sleep soundly, knowing full well that Trump can’t run again.” Better not look under the bed. It’s that scary for “However some may seem, Trump can take office if elected — even if convicted. In fact, even in the unlikely scenario that he ends up in prison, he can serve as president.”
Others, like Russell Riley, co-director of the Miller Center for Oral History of Presidents at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, fall somewhere in the middle. Riley said in an email last Friday that he believes “there are compelling reasons for its application.” [la sección tercera]particularly in light of the sentences imposed on participants, including the Proud Boys, on January 6th [a cuyo cabecilla, Enrique Tarrio lo condenaron esta semana a 22 años de prisión, la pena más alta hasta ahora]“. But he is still “undecided” about whether this makes sense. “Especially because many Republicans seem completely convinced that resorting to the 14th Amendment would be tantamount to unlawfully using the Constitution as a weapon to disable an opponent. If some states decided not to put Trump on the ballot, his supporters would surely use the same trick to undermine the Democratic candidates’ options. This is a recipe for escalating political tensions that would harm our democracy in the long run. Therefore, the wisest option may be to not activate this mechanism.”
This scenario would clear the way for Trump to return to the White House, which, based on current evidence, could also pose a threat to American democracy. However, Riley would rather trust voters’ understanding than disqualify the candidate. “It’s the healthiest option, but perhaps also the riskiest.”
Follow all international information on Facebook and Twitteror in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits