A recently filed lawsuit in New Hampshire claims that according to the wording of the Constitution’s 14th amendment, former President Donald Trump should be legally disqualified from appearing on a ballot for public office. The argument is that because he “provided aid or comfort to insurrectionists,” that makes him a national traitor (indeed). And while the lawsuit was filed by John Anthony Castro, who the New York Times referred to, perhaps generously, as an “extreme-longshot Republican presidential candidate,” the theory behind the claim seems to be gaining traction, making the lawsuit itself perhaps not such a longshot after all.
The argument that Trump be disqualified from public office comes from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that people who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution (which Trump did when he became President) and then later “…engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” which he arguably did in support of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, must be disqualified from holding a public office. So, if Trump could be proven to have aided insurrectionists, would this argument be rock solid? Maybe.
Last month, two prominent law professors working with the ultra-conservative Federalist Society published a paper arguing that the constitutional ban is the legal outcome in this case, bolstering the argument’s popularity. Now it looks like more people—including prominent lawmakers—are getting on board with the idea.
“In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose at a particular moment,” Senator Tim Kaine said on ABC’s This Week over the weekend. “And that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as laid out in the Constitution. So I think there’s a powerful argument to be made. My sense is it’s probably going to get resolved in the courts. But, you know, I think what we have to focus on in our side is, is we just got to win in 2024.”
However, even if a Trump ban is constitutional, is it likely to work? Maybe, actually. Reporting from the New York Times lists the many things that would have to happen for the ban to hold, like a Secretary of State removing Trump’s name from the ballot, then appeals up to the Supreme Court, which is, as we know, stacked for the conservatives.
Trump is lashing out
From Trump’s side, the lawsuit questioning the legality of his presidential run is just one of a giant pile of legal problems he is facing, including a stack of state and federal indictments a mile high. Trump and his team seem to be trying to control his growing public image as a criminal by deflecting criminality onto his competition, the current president. He has noticeably shifted his favorite attack nickname for the President from “Sleepy Joe” in 2020 to “Crooked Joe” for the 2024 election.
On Tuesday, Trump posted to his social media that, “These Indictments and lawsuits are all part of my political opponents [sic] campaign plan. It is Election Interference, and they are going to use the DOJ/FBI to help them, which is illegal. Crooked Joe pushed this litigation hard to get it done. This is a new low in Presidential Politics.”
Does it seem a bit hypocritical that Trump is decrying Biden’s executive operations for their legality and calling him “Crooked Joe? Undoubtedly yes. Is it still going to work with his base that thinks he’s an angel from heaven who can do no wrong? Again, yes. But that’s not going to matter if enough secretaries of state etc. can be convinced of the argument that his involvement in their beloved insurrection legally disqualifies him from appearing on the ballot as a presidential candidate.
The Trump team can’t seem to get their attack arguments straight. Is it “Sleepy Joe,” who is unable to focus long enough to “walk to a helicopter,” or “Crooked Joe,” who is ruthlessly focusing his underground power in the justice system to attack his enemies illegally?
(featured image: Fulton County Sheriff’s Office)
