The Hill Faces Backlash For Op-Ed On Blocking Trump's Office

Columnists Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte have sparked controversy with their recent op-ed published in The Hill, advocating for Congress to obstruct Donald Trump’s return to the presidency using the 14th Amendment.

In their column, they suggest that Trump should be disqualified from office due to allegations of insurrection, stirring significant backlash and debate online.

The opinion piece, released on Thursday, calls for the application of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, which bars any person who has engaged in insurrection from holding office. The authors link Trump's actions surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack and his impeachment in 2021 as grounds for this measure.

Understanding The 14th Amendment's Disqualification Clause

The heart of Davis and Schulte’s argument lies in the 14th Amendment, specifically Article 3, which prevents any former officeholders who engaged in insurrection from holding any office. They argue this clause should preempt Trump’s assumption of presidential duties next month.

They highlight Trump's impeachment on January 13, 2021, for incitement of insurrection as a pivotal legal precedent supporting their viewpoint. Furthermore, they reference a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which initially found Trump had engaged in insurrection, though this was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Role in the Constitutional Debate

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision stated that states could not enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment concerning federal offices, which critics argue leaves a constitutional opening for Congress to act. According to Davis and Schulte, by rejecting electoral votes during the joint session for counting, Congress would lawfully prevent Trump from assuming the presidency.

They believe this action aligns with the Constitution and would be shielded from Supreme Court review, elevating it to a nonreviewable political question due to the Constitutional provisions granting Congress the authority to count electoral votes.

Electoral Count Act and Its Implications

The criteria set by the Electoral Count Act serve as the basis for Davis and Schulte's recommendations. They assert that if electoral votes are disqualified under constitutional grounds, this could lead to Vice President Kamala Harris being elected as president instead.

Their interpretation of the Electoral Count Act stipulates that electoral votes cast for a disqualified candidate are not "regularly given," reinforcing their argument for rejecting Trump's electoral votes.

This bold proposition in The Hill has led to an outpouring of reactions, ranging from support for the safeguarding of democratic principles to severe criticisms and accusations of fostering insurrection. Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, decried the op-ed as an attempt to "steal the election," and Eric Trump labeled the columnists and their endorsers as "sick."

Public and Political Reactions to the Op-Ed

Voices on social media reflected a wide array of sentiments, with figures like Robby Starbuck accusing The Hill of endorsing actions akin to insurrection by attempting to block a duly elected President. Similarly, Will Chamberlain referred to the publication as a "conspiracy to overturn the 2024 election."

Commentary from conservative circles, including Tim Young and commentators Kevin and Keith Hodge, painted the column as a real insurrection against the will of the people. Ian Miles Cheong and John Cardillo insinuated that the suggestions bordered on the kind of rhetoric that previously led to legal action in 2021.

Broader Debate on Legal Interpretations and Electoral Integrity

Despite the uproar, the debate touches on significant constitutional and electoral issues. It brings to light the complex interplay between legal interpretations and their implications for U.S. presidential politics, especially concerning the sanctity and authority of electoral processes.

Former presidential candidate John Delaney encapsulated a broader concern, emphasizing that Democrats must accept the outcomes of a democratic process, suggesting that moves like those proposed by Davis and Schulte could undermine public faith in electoral integrity.

As the date for counting electoral votes approaches, the controversy surrounding The Hill’s op-ed exemplifies the heightened tensions in American politics and the ongoing struggle over the interpretation and application of constitutional law in presidential elections.