“It Will Be a Constitutional Crisis if Trump Is Not Disqualified”: Fierce Legal Showdown Over the 14th Amendment and Democracy

Gabriel RomanNov 21, 2023

Minute Read

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has become a focal point in determining the eligibility of former President Donald Trump for future political office. At the heart of this controversy are interpretations of Section 3 of the Amendment, with arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. The implications of this debate could profoundly impact the American political landscape.

Legal Perspectives on the 14th Amendment and Trump’s Eligibility

Retired Federal Judge Michael Luttig and retired Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe expressed their views in The Atlantic. They claim the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 could disqualify Trump from holding office again. They argue that his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, events constitute rebellion against the Constitution.

The Distinction Between Insurrection Against the U.S. and Its Constitution

Luttig clarified the crucial distinction in his interpretation. He claimed Section 3 targets those who engage in rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. Constitution, not just against the United States or its authority. This interpretation is central to ongoing constitutional debates in states like Colorado and Minnesota, focusing on whether it applies to Trump’s actions.

Anticipation and Impact of Colorado’s Imminent Ruling

The legal community and political analysts are keenly awaiting a critical decision from Colorado’s courts regarding former President Trump’s eligibility for future office. This is expected before Thanksgiving. This ruling, pivotal in its own right, may also set a significant legal precedent for other states wrestling with similar constitutional interpretations.

Colorado Judge’s Indications Toward Trump’s Eligibility

In the unfolding legal drama in Colorado, subtle cues from the presiding judge have hinted at a possible inclination to rule against Trump’s eligibility. This development injects additional complexity into the ongoing national debate over the application of the 14th Amendment. These are shaping expectations and analyses of how this pivotal case may unfold.

Jena Griswold Labels January 6 as an Insurrection

Editorial credit: Thomas Hengge/Shutterstock.

Jena Griswold is Colorado’s Democrat Secretary of State. She has categorically termed the events of January 6, 2021, as an “insurrection.” This characterization is pivotal, as it aligns with the arguments advocating for Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Griswold’s stance reflects an interpretation that has significant implications for the ongoing debate.

Dershowitz Questions the Determination of Insurrection

Editorial credit: a katz / Shutterstock.

Alan Dershowitz is a prominent legal figure who previously defended Trump. He challenges the idea that anyone but the president can declare an act as insurrection. He stresses the Constitutional lack of clear procedural guidelines for such a determination, pointing out the risk of subjective and partisan interpretations.

Dershowitz’s Warning of a Constitutional Crisis

Dershowitz has voiced concerns that disqualifying Trump could cause a constitutional crisis. He highlights the potential deep-seated political and legal implications of such a move, indicating that it might be the objective of some of Trump’s adversaries. Dershowitz’s warning demonstrates the seriousness of the decision and its potential impact on the American constitutional framework.

Chief Justice Hudson on the 14th Amendment’s Complexity

In Minnesota, the debate over Trump’s candidacy has prompted Chief Justice Natalie Hudson to express her concerns about the intricate nature of applying the 14th Amendment’s provisions. Her deliberative questions during court sessions show the complexities of adjudicating a candidate’s eligibility. There are clearly many legal challenges at play.

Barry Anderson on the Politicization of the Amendment

Associate Justice Barry Anderson of Minnesota’s Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the inherently political nature of the 14th Amendment debate. He questions the appropriateness of state courts in resolving what is traditionally seen as a federal or political matter. He highlighted the delicate balancing act in such polarized scenarios.

Luttig on the Supreme Court’s Decisive Role

Retired Federal Judge Michael Luttig argues that the final interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 lies with the U.S. Supreme Court. He believes that the Constitution’s framework anticipates such a scenario. To him, the Supreme Court is crucial in resolving these pivotal constitutional questions.

Luttig on Trump’s Violation of the Executive Vesting Clause

Luttig further argues that Trump’s attempts to remain in power and overturn the 2020 election results violate the Constitution’s Executive Vesting Clause. He argues that this action undermines any claims of absolute immunity for the former president. This stance adds depth to the legal arguments against Trump’s eligibility.

Supreme Court’s Reluctance to Intervene

Despite the profound constitutional questions raised, Luttig acknowledges the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may be reluctant to intervene. They may see this case as too politically charged. This hesitancy could become particularly pronounced if Trump successfully counters the challenges to his candidacy.

The Intricacies of American Constitutional Law

The ongoing legal debates regarding Trump’s potential disqualification under the 14th Amendment show the intricacies and complexities of American constitutional law. These discussions are not just about legal interpretations. They also involve historical precedents, legal doctrines, and the delicate balance between political power and judicial authority.

The Threshold for Disqualification

Critics have voiced their concerns about the case, emphasizing, “The problem right now is that Trump is only ACCUSED of participating in a rebellion or insurrection, not CONVICTED of the same.” This underlines the potential risks of undermining democratic principles by removing candidates from ballots merely on allegations. The debate centers on the crucial distinction between accusation and conviction in the democratic process.

Upholding the Constitution

Arguments for Trump’s disqualification pivot on the Constitution, with supporters, “It will be a Constitutional Crisis if Trump is not disqualified. With the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the Constitution must be followed.” This perspective stresses the importance of obeying constitutional mandates, especially in the presence of substantial evidence.

Accusations of Partisan Legal Manipulation

The legal battle surrounding Trump’s eligibility has sparked intense partisan debates. Critics accuse Democrats of manipulating legal frameworks for political gains, arguing, “More like a Democrap crisis, they have tried everything else to stop another election.” This view criticizes the portrayal of Trump’s actions as treason, suggesting a partisan bias in the legal proceedings.

The Imperative of Legal Principles for Democracy

Editorial credit: Meir Chaimowitz/Shutterstock.

Supporters for applying the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump stress the rule of law’s centrality to democracy. They argue, “Failure to remove Trump via the 14 Amendment will be a failure of the rule of law itself. Lock Trump Up. Make America Safe for Democracy Again.” To some, Trump’s disqualification is critical to preserving democratic norms.

Varied Responses to the Disqualification Prospect

The potential disqualification of Trump under the 14th Amendment has elicited a spectrum of reactions. Some celebrate the prospect as a triumph for democracy, stating, “A constitutional victory! A victory for American democracy! If he is disqualified.” Others raise concerns about the precedent it sets, arguing, “He can’t be disqualified. He hasn’t been charged with Insurrection or Rebellion under the law.”