The Hill criticized for asking Congress to block Trump from taking office: ‘You people are sick’

Op-eds for The Hill urged Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment’s disqualification of block President-elect Donald Trump from taking office next month.

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

TRUMP RETURNS: WASHINGTON READIES FOR A SECOND TERM

Article 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits former office holders who have “engaged in insurrection” or “given aid or comfort to the enemy” from holding public office. The restriction can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump looks on during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Citing that disqualification, Davis, former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and Schulte, former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, argued that Trump is ineligible to be president. The two have 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 the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engagement in such an insurrection is overwhelming,” they argued. “The matter was decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”

The authors cited Trump’s second impeachment trial, the investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Congress and Colorado Supreme Court acting to disqualify the former and future president from appearing on state ballots in 2024 as grounds for his ineligibility.

“On January 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for ‘incitement to insurrection’…incitement to insurrection includes ‘engaging in insurrection’ against the Constitution ‘or giving aid and comfort to its enemies,'” grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3,” they argued.

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

Colorado’s decision to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment’s disqualification, which was overturned by the US Supreme Court, found that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurgency , as these terms are used in the section. Three,” Davis and Schulte wrote.

President-elect Trump at AmericaFest in Arizona. (Rick Scooters)

But the decision was appealed and The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favorconcluding that “the states have no power under the Constitution to apply Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

However, Davis and Schulte complained that “the court did not address the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection,” insisting that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case does not prevent Congress from rejecting the electoral votes when they convene on January 6.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE MOVES TRUMP TOWARDS OFFICIALLY BECOMING PRESIDENT

“The counting of Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely vested in Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a political matter that cannot be reviewed. “, they claimed.

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

“A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is clearly in accordance with the normal use of the words ‘not regularly cast,'” they argued. “Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different than 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% of the members of each House.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The dome of the US Capitol Building is seen from a perch in Washington, DC (Fox News Digital)

“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 disqualified votes. If all the votes for Trump had not been counted, Kamala Harris would have been elected. president”, they wrote.

“The likelihood that Republicans in Congress will do something that could elect Harris president is obvious,” they concluded. “But Democrats must take a stand against electoral college votes for a person constitutionally disqualified from holding office unless and until that disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution”.

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

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

“You guys are sick,” Eric Trump replied.

“Looks like @thehill supports the insurrection. Yes, try to block the inauguration of a President who won the popular vote and the electoral college. Let’s see how that goes for you,” said anti-revival activist Robby Starbuck.

This article constitutes a conspiracy to subvert the 2024 election,” posted Will Chamberlain, Senior Advisor to the Article III Project.

Political comedian Tim Young said: “@thehill In fantasyland, 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 sounds very insurrectionary,” agreed journalist Ian Miles Cheong.

“Warrants issued for people who said much less than that about Biden in 2021,” conservative commentator John Cardillo posted.

“This is the kind of nonsense that Democrats have to reject that Trump won in a fair democratic process,” the former presidential candidate said. wrote John Delaney. “Democrats should either work with him when it’s in the best interest of the nation or their constituents, or stand firm when it’s not. Americans don’t want pure obstructionists.”