Proposed plan to stop Donald Trump from taking office sparks MAGA fury

What’s new

Two legal experts have suggested that Democrats should block President-elect Donald Trump from taking office, even as party leaders reject such efforts and MAGA Republicans denounce the very idea.

News week contacted the Trump transition team by email Thursday evening for comment.

Why it matters

In a historic political comeback, Donald Trump secured the presidency in the 2024 US elections, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. This victory comes nearly four years after the January 6, 2021 riots at the Capitol, during which a mob of his supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The insurrection led to widespread condemnation and legal challenges against Trump, including impeachment for incitement of insurrection, although he was acquitted by the Senate. Despite these controversies, Trump’s 2024 campaign focused on economic issues, persuading voters of his ability to improve their financial well-being, which played a significant role in his electoral success. 

What you need to know

Who are Evan Davis and David Schulte?

Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, two experts with extensive legal experience, wrote an opinion piece for The Hill in which they claimed that Democrats would have the right to block Trump’s certification by citing “an oath-violating insurrection” that makes Trump “ineligible for president.”

Davis is a Columbia Law School-educated attorney who previously served as president of the New York City Bar Association and editor-in-chief of the Colombian Law Review. Schulte works as an investment banker in Chicago, but he worked under Justice Potter Stewart and was educated at Yale Law School.

Schulte is an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama, even renting his Martha’s Vineyard home to the Obama family in 2013, and is friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to Chicago Magazine.

January 6 cited as cause for blocking certification

The argument made by the two men relies on the 14th Amendment, which says that “No person shall hold office, whether civil or military, in the United States or in any state who, upon taking an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, must have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or given aid or comfort to its enemies.

The authors called the evidence of Trump’s involvement in the insurrection “overwhelming” and, therefore, disqualifying.

Davis said News week: “I think Democrats will consider this because there should be some reluctance to set aside the Constitution and because they voted to impeach and convict for inciting insurrection. We wrote the article for call attention to the Constitution either by rejecting electoral votes or by a 2/3 vote to remove disability.”

Schulte said News week: “I think that members of Congress are becoming more and more aware of the issue by the hour, and they have a duty to consider it as guardians of the Constitution. It remains to be seen how they will react, Democrats and Republicans alike . They all took the same oath of office.

“We wrote this article to give voice to the constitutional question and describe the relationships between the events, the official forums that addressed these questions, and the constitutional law and the electoral count law.

“Congress will do what it does, and it has the authority under Article 3 to free Trump from the handicap of disqualification on the grounds of insurrection. The politics are intense although the law is clear. Trump should -it be certified, unless the disability is relieved the administration will work under a cloud of illegitimacy.

The authors noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Colorado’s plan to keep Trump off the primary ballot, which the court rejected, would likely be the main defense that critics of their plan would use.

The Colorado Supreme Court had determined that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection, as those terms are used” in the 14th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court determined that states did not have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal office.

The authors argued that the relationship between the decision and Trump’s certification “lacks merit,” primarily because the power to certify Electoral College votes “is vested solely in Congress by the Constitution.” Additionally, they note that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “did not address the finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.”

“Rejecting the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a non-reviewable political issue,” Davis and Schulte wrote in their editorial.

The electoral count law they also cited includes sections on “Grounds for Objections” and “Consideration of Objections and Questions.” Specifically, they reference a 2022 amendment to the law that “provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes over the validity of Electoral College votes.”

“The law specifies two grounds for objecting to an electoral vote: if a state’s electors were not legally certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not ‘regularly given,'” the authors write. authors.

“A vote for a constitutionally disqualified candidate is clearly consistent with the normal use of the words ‘not regularly given,'” they continued. “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.”

The January 6, 2021 attempt to block the certification of President Joe Biden left an indelible mark on the national psyche: Trump’s opponents say that just as he pushed to block his rival’s certification, Democrats should seek to block him. block, citing the added aspect that Trump is a convicted felon.

Democrats have spent a year saying they would not block Trump’s certification, and some legal experts have already laid out in March 2024 some of the strategies suggested by Davis and Schulte.

Call wrote about a similar discussion at that time, which followed the Supreme Court’s ruling on Colorado’s primary ballot, citing legal experts who argued that the ruling did not rule out Congress using the powers of 12th and 20th Amendments to enforce “presidential eligibility requirements.” “

But members of Congress such as Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California have said they are not “election deniers” and will only seek to solve “a real problem related to to a particular vote in a particular state.”

“I don’t think people should object just because they don’t like the outcome of the election. That’s what Republicans do, and it’s called being sore losers,” he said. declared Lieu to the media.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin even rejected such a position immediately after the 2024 election: a fabricated quote attributed to Raskin claimed that Democrats “would not certify the election” if Trump won, and Raskin set the record . right. In a post on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, Raskin wrote on November 5 that the quote was “100% fabricated.”

“This is yet another lie in the flood of right-wing lies intended to undermine our election,” Raskin said. “Despite this actionable defamation and all the misinformation, America will hold a free and fair election and Congress will certify the winner.”

What people say

Eric Trump, son of the president-elect, wrote on X: “You are sick.” He included a link to the opinion piece, and

Elon Musk responded to Eric Trump’s message: “It’s so crazy of them to say that. The mainstream media is just the propaganda arm of the radical left.”

Steven Cheung, Trump’s campaign manager and his choice for White House communications director, wrote on X: “Oh look. The Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people. Threat to democracy.”

Jerry Dunleavy, former journalist for The Washington Examinerwrote on X: “Former editors of the Columbia Law Review and Yale Law Journal want Congress to engage in what would be one of the most egregious abuses of power in the history of the republic by overturning a democratic election and blocking a regular outfit. ex officio elected president.”

What happens next

Congress will convene on January 6, 2025, to hold a session in which it will review and certify the votes for the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Nervousness will remain high after the events of 2021, but Democrats have shown no will to block certification.