Democrats can stop Trump from becoming President with this sick plan
Even though Donald Trump won re-election in a landslide, the Left hasn’t given up on keeping him out of the White House.
There is one loophole left to exploit.
And Democrats can stop Trump from becoming President with this sick plan.
The media and Democrat Party beat it into the heads of the public over the course of the last four years that objecting to the results of an election amounts to an insurrection.
Democrats are now slipping in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment well.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Two legal scholars – David Schulte and Evan Davis – are now claiming Democrats can use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 2022 to block Trump from taking office.
Schulte and Davis are no gadflies.
Both clerked for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.
Schulte was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review.
Davis served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal.
In their opinion piece published in The Hill, the two incorrectly argued that the January 6 Committee report, the January 6 impeachment hoax, and a Colorado State Supreme Court ruling banning Trump from the ballot adjudicated him as an insurrectionist.
This erroneous interpretation of facts and the law provided the basis for Schulte and Davis to argue Democrats should veto the will of the people.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that states couldn’t ban Trump from the ballot and that it would require an act of Congress to remove a federal candidate from the ballot.
Davis and Schulte said Congress could ignore that aspect of the ruling claiming it was “dicta” – meaning the justices opinions on matters that aren’t essential to deciding the case – and move bar Trump from becoming President.
In their piece, the two wrote that the Electoral Count Act provided a mechanism to object to results from the Electoral College.
“The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: if the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not ‘regularly given.’ A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given,” Schulte and Davis wrote.
“Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States,” Schulte and Davis added.
The two argued Democrats could raise objections to all of Trump’s electors by having the entire conference sign a petition of objection and then forcing Republicans to vote on Trump’s fitness for office.
“To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president,” Schulte and Davis contended.
This is the media and Democrat Party’s definition of an insurrection.
The American people suspected Democrats didn’t actually believe their own rhetoric about Trump being an insurrectionist which is why they rejected the criminal cases against Trump in the election.
Top Democrat lawyers now arguing for their party to adopt the tactics once decried as an attack on democracy confirmed the voter’s suspicions.
