What’s new

Two legal scholars have suggested that Democrats should block President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, even as party leaders reject such efforts and MAGA Republicans condemn the very idea.

Newsweek emailed the Trump transition team Thursday evening seeking comment.

Why it matters

In a historic political comeback, Donald Trump secured the presidency in the 2024 US election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. This victory comes nearly four years after the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, in which a mob of his supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. The insurrection led to widespread condemnation and legal challenges to 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 and convinced voters of his ability to improve their financial well-being, which played an important role in his electoral success. 

What you should know

Who are Evan Davis and David Schulte?

Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, two experts with extensive legal experience, wrote a commentary for The hill In it, they argued that Democrats had the right to block Trump’s certification on the grounds of “an oath-breaking insurrection” that would make Trump “unfit to serve as president.”

Davis is a Columbia Law School-trained attorney who previously served as president of the New York City Bar Association and publisher of the New York City Bar Association Columbia Law Review. Schulte works as an investment banker in Chicago, but clerked for Judge Potter Stewart and was educated at Yale Law School.

Schulte is an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama and even rented his Martha’s Vineyard home to the Obama family in 2013. He is also friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton Chicago Mag.

January 6th was cited as the reason for the certification being blocked

The argument put forward by both men is based on the 14th Amendment, which states: “No person shall…hold any office, civil or military, in the United States, or in any State having previously taken an oath…to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” to support the United States, to have participated in any insurrection or rebellion against it, or to have given aid or comfort to its enemies.”

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

Davis told Newsweek: “I think Democrats will consider this because there should be some reluctance to override the Constitution and because they voted for impeachment and conviction for incitement of insurrection. We wrote the article to draw attention to the Constitution, either by rejecting electoral votes or by voting 2/3 to repeal disability.”

Schulte said Newsweek: “I think that members of Congress are becoming more aware of the matter every hour and that, as guardians of the Constitution, they have an obligation to think about it. It remains to be seen how they will respond, both Democrats and Republicans. You.” I all took the same oath of office.

“We wrote the article to give voice to the constitutional issue and to describe the interrelationship between the events, the official forums that touched on the issues, and the law of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.”

“Congress will do what it does, and it has the authority under Section 3 to exempt Trump from insurrectional disqualification. The politics are intense even though the law is clear. Trump should be certified unless the obstruction is lifted.” The government will operate under a cloud of illegitimacy.

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

The Colorado Supreme Court had found in the 14th Amendment that there was “clear and convincing evidence that President Trump committed insurrection within the meaning of those terms,” ​​but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states did not have the authority to nominate candidates to disqualify for federal office.

The authors argued that the decision’s reference to Trump’s certification was “unfounded,” particularly because the power to certify Electoral College votes “is vested by the Constitution solely in Congress.” Additionally, they note that the U.S. Supreme Court decision “did not take into account the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.”

“Rejecting the vote on constitutional grounds is an unverifiable political question,” Davis and Schulte wrote in their editorial.

The Electoral Count Act, also cited, contains sections on “grounds for objection” and “consideration of objections and questions.” Specifically, they point to a 2022 amendment to the law that “provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes about the validity of Electoral College votes.”

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

“A vote for a constitutionally disqualified candidate clearly corresponds to the normal use of the words ‘not regular,'” they continued. “Disqualification for participation in an insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship by birth, and 14 years of residency in the United States.”

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

Democrats have said for a year that they will not block Trump’s certification, and some legal experts have already outlined some of the strategies proposed by Davis and Schulte in March 2024.

appeal wrote about a similar discussion from that time that followed the Supreme Court’s decision on the Colorado primary, citing legal experts who argued that the ruling did not preclude Congress from using the powers of the 12th and 20th Amendments Enforce “presidential election requirements.” “

But congressmen like Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California said they were not “election deniers” and were only trying to solve “an actual problem with a particular vote in a particular state.”

“I don’t think people should raise objections just because they don’t like the outcome of the election. That’s what Republicans do, and that’s just called sore losers,” Lieu told the medium.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a Democrat, even rejected such a stance in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 election: a fabricated quote attributed to Raskin said that Democrats “would not certify the election” if Trump won , and Raskin set the record straight. In a post on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, on November 5, Raskin wrote that the quote was “100% made up.”

“It’s another lie in the flood of right-wing lies aimed at undermining our election,” Raskin said. “Despite this criminal defamation and all the disinformation, America is having 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 guys are sick.” He added a link to the comment and

Elon Musk responded to Eric Trump’s post: “Such a crazy thing for them to do. The old media is just the propaganda arm of the radical left.”

Steven Cheung, Trump’s campaign manager and his pick 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, a former reporter from The Washington Examinerwrote on X: “The former editors-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and the Yale Law Journal want Congress to engage in one of the most egregious abuses of power in the history of the Republic by overturning a democratic election and blocking a proper vote.” elected president from office .”

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 willingness to block certification.