The Hill slammed for editorial urging Congress to stop Trump from taking office: ‘You’re sick’

Opinion columnists at The Hill have called on Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment’s disqualification to prevent President-elect Donald Trump from taking office next month.

In a column published Thursday, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte argued that the 14th Amendment allows Congress to object to electoral votes since they consider Trump, in their words, “an oath-violating insurrectionist.”

TRUMP RETURN: WASHINGTON PREPARES FOR SECOND TERM

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits former officials who “engaged in insurrection” or who “gave aid or comfort to enemies” from holding public office again. The restriction can be lifted by a two-thirds vote in each House.

Citing this disqualification, Davis, former editor of the Columbia Law Review, and Schulte, former editor of the Yale Law Journal, asserted that Trump was ineligible to be president. Both men called on Congress to take action when they meet in a joint session to officially count the electoral votes next week.

“The disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not against the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engagement in such insurrection is overwhelming,” they argued. “The case was decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s lawyers.”

The authors cited Trump’s second impeachment trial, the investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Congress, and the Colorado Supreme Court decision to disqualify the former and new president from appearing on the state’s ballot in 2024 to justify their ineligibility.

“On January 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection”…incitement of insurrection includes “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or d “giving aid and comfort to one’s enemies”, the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3″, they asserted.

“The inescapable conclusion from this evidence is that Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution.”

The state of Colorado’s decision to exclude Trump from the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, concluded that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump has engaged in an insurrection, as those terms are used in Article Three,” Davis and Schulte wrote.

But the decision was appealed and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump, concluding that “the states have no authority under the Constitution to enforce Article 3 with respect to federal offices, particularly the presidency.

Nonetheless, Davis and Schulte lamented that “the court did not address the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection,” insisting that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case does not preclude Congress to reject the electoral votes when they meet on January 6.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE TAKES TRUMP ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS OFFICIALLY BECOME PRESIDENT

“The counting of the Electoral College votes is a matter exclusively entrusted to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of its say in the matter, because the rejection of the vote for constitutionally specified grounds is a non-reviewable political question,” they asserted.

Columnists urged Congress to reject the electoral vote using the Electoral Count Act, which allows an objection only if “the electors of a state were not legally certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not ‘regularly given’.

“A vote for a constitutionally disqualified candidate is clearly consistent with the normal use of the words ‘not regularly given,'” they said. “Disqualification for participation in an insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, birthright citizenship, and 14 years of residence in the United States.”

An objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each house.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“If the objection is sustained by a majority vote in each chamber, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of votes disqualified. If all votes for Trump were not counted , Kamala Harris would be elected president,” they wrote.

“It is unlikely that congressional Republicans will do anything that would elect Harris as president is a no-brainer,” they concluded. “But Democrats must take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person constitutionally disqualified from holding office, unless and until that disqualification is removed. Their oath to support and defend the Constitution demand nothing less.”

The column sparked swift and fierce reactions online, with critics accusing the authors of “supporting the insurrection.”

“Oh look. Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people. Threat to democracy,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X.

“You are sick,” replied Eric Trump.

“Looks like @thehill supports the insurrection. Yes, try blocking the inauguration of a president who won the popular vote and the electoral college. Let’s see how this goes for y’all,” said anti-woke activist Robby Starbuck.

This article constitutes a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 election,” said Will Chamberlain, lead attorney for the Article III Project.

Political comedian Tim Young added: “@thehill In fantasy land, The Hill Democrats think they can stop Trump from taking office.”

Kevin and Keith Hodge, known as the Hodgetwins, responded: “This is a real insurrection against the will of the people. »

“It seems very insurrectionary,” admitted journalist Ian Miles Cheong.

“Arrest warrants have been issued for people who have said far less than that about Biden in 2021,” said conservative commentator John Cardillo.

“This is the kind of nonsense Democrats must reject if Trump was won in a fair democratic process,” wrote former presidential candidate John Delaney. “Democrats should either work with him when it is in the best interest of the nation or their constituents, or stand firm when it is not. Americans do not want outright obstructionists.”