Rumours of a plan by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris to use the 14th Amendment to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidency, are not being talked about publicly. However, there has been public discussion regarding the potential use of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” to challenge Trump’s eligibility due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
Background on the 14th Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause”
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, includes a clause that disqualifies individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding office. Section 3 states that no person shall hold any public office if they “have engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, unless granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote in Congress.
In the context of January 6, some advocates argue that Trump’s actions—or lack thereof—during the events surrounding the Capitol attack meet the threshold of “insurrection.” Law professors, former judges, and advocacy groups have pushed for this disqualification, contending that Trump’s alleged actions to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election and pressure on officials to overturn the results fit this description. However, Trump and his supporters assert that his words and actions did not constitute insurrection, as he did not explicitly call for violence, and that attempts to invoke the clause are politically motivated.
Pelosi, Harris, and the Mechanics of Disqualification
While Nancy Pelosi no longer holds office as Speaker, she remains an influential voice within the Democratic Party. Yet any attempt to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment would involve legal challenges, likely moving through state courts and potentially the Supreme Court. Some states, including Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota, have seen legal challenges filed seeking to disqualify Trump from appearing on their ballots under this amendment.
For Vice President Harris, a 14th Amendment-based disqualification would not automatically install her as president; presidential succession depends on electoral procedures. Even if Trump were disqualified, another Republican candidate would likely take his place on the ballot, or the Republican National Committee might select a replacement. The political process is complex and would involve legal and political maneuvering across multiple branches of government and party organizations.
The Broader Implications and Controversies
The debate over the 14th Amendment reflects ongoing national tension over the aftermath of January 6 and the boundaries of lawful dissent versus insurrection. Trump’s opponents argue that invoking the amendment is necessary to protect democratic institutions. However, Trump’s defenders view this as an undemocratic attempt to prevent voters from deciding on his candidacy, undermining their ability to choose.
Any attempt to disqualify Trump from office using the 14th Amendment would face significant legal and procedural hurdles. It would require court rulings, political negotiation, and possibly further Congressional involvement. The future of this debate remains uncertain and, for now, largely speculative.
If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, and if Democrats are inclined to challenge or block his presidency, several potential avenues—within legal, procedural, and legislative boundaries—might be considered. Here’s an exploration of those methods:
1. Invoking the 14th Amendment (Section 3)
- Disqualification Through Insurrection Clause: Some Democrats have argued that Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack could meet the criteria for disqualification under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.” This would involve legal challenges that could proceed to the Supreme Court, where a ruling would ultimately determine if Trump is eligible to serve.
- State-Level Challenges: State courts could be approached to assess Trump’s eligibility based on this clause, potentially impacting his ability to be on ballots or recognized as president.
2. Impeachment Proceedings
- Launching New Impeachment: The House of Representatives has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. If the House were controlled by Democrats, they might begin proceedings based on new grounds or revisit previous impeachments related to January 6. However, successful removal would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is typically difficult to achieve.
3. Challenging Electoral Votes in Congress
- Objecting to Electoral Vote Certification: Following the Electoral Count Act, members of Congress can challenge electoral votes if they present objections with the support of at least one House and one Senate member. While unlikely to change the outcome unless both chambers agree, this could delay certification and bring attention to perceived concerns about Trump’s election.
4. Litigation Over Campaign and Election Conduct
- Investigating Potential Violations: Legal challenges related to campaign finance, voting processes, or alleged irregularities could be pursued if there are grounds to question Trump’s campaign practices or voting results. State or federal courts might hear cases that could impact the finality of results, depending on the evidence presented.
5. Legislative Limitations on Presidential Powers
- Restricting Presidential Budget and Appointments: If Democrats retain control in either the House or Senate, they could limit Trump’s ability to implement his agenda by reducing funding or blocking key appointments. Congressional control of the purse strings can substantially restrict executive actions.
- Requiring Congressional Oversight on Major Decisions: Through legislation, Congress could attempt to impose restrictions on certain presidential powers, like foreign policy decisions or emergency declarations, requiring more Congressional oversight.
6. Independent and State-Led Investigations
- Launching Investigations on State Levels: State attorneys general, particularly in states with Democratic leadership, could pursue independent investigations into Trump’s business dealings, potential tax issues, or other areas where they have jurisdiction. These investigations could create legal hurdles and draw media attention.
- Expanding Federal Inquiries: Although typically independent, existing federal inquiries could continue if any departments find additional grounds to investigate. This would not directly affect his presidency but could create ongoing legal distractions.
7. Leveraging the Emoluments Clause
- Challenging Conflicts of Interest: Democrats could pursue legal action if they believe Trump violates the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits officials from profiting from foreign governments. If he retains business interests that potentially conflict with his role, this could open doors to legal battles.
8. Public Pressure and Media Campaigns
- Building Public Opinion Against Trump’s Policies: Mobilizing grassroots campaigns, organizing protests, and partnering with media to focus on policies or past controversies could generate significant public pressure, potentially influencing Trump’s decision-making or limiting his influence.
- Highlighting Policy Consequences: If Trump proposes controversial policies, Democrats could focus on advocacy and public campaigns to bring attention to potential impacts on public welfare, healthcare, climate, and other areas.
9. Amendments to the Electoral Count Act
- Reforming Electoral Certification Rules: Congress could move to further amend the Electoral Count Act to reduce any ambiguities in how electoral votes are counted and certified. If Republicans control Congress, this may not be feasible, but it’s an avenue that could clarify procedures and address past concerns.
10. Cooperation with Independent or Third-Party Officials
- Forming Alliances with Nonpartisan Bodies: Working with independent organizations, watchdogs, or bipartisan coalitions to monitor presidential actions closely could help check the power of the presidency and ensure that any concerning actions are reported promptly.
Each of these potential strategies would face legal and political challenges, but they demonstrate ways Democrats might consider addressing Trump’s presidency within the bounds of established processes.
About the Author
