OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A Democrat representative who served as an impeachment manager in the impeachment of former President Donald Trump has a new plan to remove Trump from election ballots.
Furious with the decision of the Supreme Court to keep the former president on ballots nationwide, and not OK with having the voters decide for themselves, Maryland Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke to CNN anchor Dana Bash about a new plan to keep the former president off the ballot.
Bash started with a clip where Rep. Raskin said “We’ve been saying all along that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment presents a clear and unequivocal statement that anyone who has sworn an oath of office, and by the way, not just the president, but members of Congress and others who hold federal office, who engage in insurrection or rebellion, having sworn an oath to uphold the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic can never serve again in federal or state office. Donald Trump is disqualified.”
“So, Congressman, now that you’ve read this Supreme Court decision, which effectively says that they don’t agree with that argument. What’s your response?” the host said before Raskin unveiled his plan.
“Well, the court didn’t exactly disagree with it. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it,” he said.
“You know, I disagree with that interpretation, just because the other parts of the 14th Amendment are self-executing. People can go to court and say that something violates equal protection, even if there’s not a federal statute that allows them to do that. But in any event, the Supreme Court punted and said, it’s up to Congress to act.
“And so, I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed Insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the representative said.
“And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it. So, the House has already pronounced upon that. And there was also a 57 to 43 vote in the Senate. The question is whether Speaker Mike Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor of the House,” he said.
“A big question. I’m going to get to what Congress can — maybe from your perspective, there’s a shoot and then there’s a can, which I’m going to get to in one second, but just looking again at this decision today, on page 12 of the decision. The justices said that the patchwork that would likely result from state enforcement would sever the direct link that the framers found so critical between the national government and the people of the United States as a whole. What do you think about that?” the host said.
“Well, that’s just — well, I think that’s just a reflection of the existing electoral system patchwork that we’ve got. There are some presidential candidates who’ve been able to get on the ballot in some states and not other states. In some states, it’s very difficult for an Independent or a Green Party or Libertarian to get on the ballot and other states, it’s much easier to get on. So that patchwork already exists. That’s just a reflection of existing electoral federalism,” the representative said.
“But obviously, the Supreme Court did not want to step up to the plate and deal with the clear textualist meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, much less did they want to deal with the original purposes of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was to keep off of — keep out of federal office, people who’ve already proven themselves, disloyal and untrustworthy,” he said.
