The 14th Amendment Case to Bar Trump From the Ballot Is Politics At Its Worst | Opinion

Six Colorado voters backed by a D.C. nonprofit have filed a lawsuit to block former President Donald Trump from the ballot. Citing the 14th Amendment, which bans insurrectionists from holding public office, the lawsuit joins a growing chorus of Democrats arguing that Trump's alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021 incidents qualifies as an "insurrection or rebellion."

It's nonsense—ugly politicking of the sort that's become the norm these days, as partisans seek to use the legal system to undermine our elections. The text, historical context and legal ramifications of the 14th Amendment all reveal this gambit for what it truly is: the work of desperate Democrats seeking to erect a political obstacle to Trump's presidential campaign in 2024.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone who "engages in insurrection or rebellion" from holding any office. While some believe Trump's role on Jan. 6 fits this description, they are wrong. The specific wording of the amendment is a direct reference to the insurrection and rebellion of the Confederate states during the Civil War, and it was intended to bar those who were actively involved in the Confederate cause from holding office—not to serve as a broad provision applicable to future candidates based on subjective interpretation.

Indeed, the fact that there is no defined criteria for determining whether someone is disqualified from seeking office under the 14th Amendment is proof that it was intended to be limited in scope. After all, if it were meant as a universal rule, there would be clear guidelines for identifying and adjudicating such cases.

Then there's the question of who has the standing. The disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly provide a mechanism for determining eligibility, which raises the question of who would have the authority to make such a decision. Without a clear process, individual states or partisan entities could potentially disqualify a candidate based on their interpretation, leading to inconsistent applications of the law.

Moreover, an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that disqualifies candidates based on claims of insurrection or rebellion sets a dangerous precedent. This sweeping interpretation could be exploited by both political parties to target unfavorable candidates, leading to further erosion of trust and intensifying political rifts.

Think about it: If the 14th Amendment is used to bar Trump, what's to stop Republicans from using the 14th Amendment to disqualify anyone who endorsed or condoned riots following events like George Floyd's killing? This would inject an unprecedented level of subjectivity into the electoral process and potentially suppress legitimate political dialogue.

And don't forget that in President Trump's case, he has not even been charged with a rebellion or insurrection.

Then there's the impact it would have on former President Trump's due process rights. Although some argue Trump's disqualification is warranted even without a criminal conviction, it is crucial to uphold individuals' fundamental rights, including those of presidential candidates. Disqualifying a candidate without a conviction would undermine the principle of presumed innocence and deprive voters of their right to select their preferred candidate.

Historical precedents and legal interpretations further reinforce the argument against using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump. Amnesty acts passed by Congress in 1872 and 1898 effectively nullified the impact of the Disqualifications Clause for citizens who would have otherwise been disqualified under Section 3, reiterating the case that the disqualification provision specifically targeted the Confederate cause.

Moreover, courts have ruled that the Disqualifications Clause is not self-executing, meaning that Congress must enact specific legislation to establish the process for disqualifying individuals under Section 3. To date, no such legislation exists, further underlining the limited scope and intent of the amendment.

Critics often interpret the 14th Amendment selectively and politically when questioning Trump's eligibility. Some who argue for a narrow interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause within the amendment, limiting its application to previously enslaved individuals and their descendants, concurrently advocate for a broad and expansive reading of the disqualification provision. This inconsistency raises questions about the motivations behind selectively applying different clauses of the same amendment.

In a democratic society, preserving the integrity of the electoral process and respecting the will of the electorate is paramount. The Constitution outlines explicit qualifications for presidential eligibility, and beyond these criteria, the decision should ultimately lie with the voters. They have the right to evaluate a candidate's alleged involvement in activities they may disagree with. Unless a clear amendment is ratified to further limit these qualifications, the power to decide the presidency should remain with the electorate.

The idea that the 14th Amendment disqualifies President Trump from running for office is fundamentally flawed and based on political bias more than fact. The language, historical context, and legal interpretations all indicate a restricted scope for disqualification that doesn't apply to Trump's situation.

Disqualifying a candidate based on allegations of insurrection or rebellion without a clear process and criteria would set a dangerous precedent and undermine due process and equal protection principles. Upholding the integrity of the electoral process and respecting voters' right to choose their preferred candidate is essential.

Ryan Fournier is a Senior Advisor for xStrategies and the founder of Students for Trump.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.