Former President Donald Trump has not officially announced his plans for 2024, but he has repeatedly hinted that he intends to run for the White House again. However, his eligibility to do so is not certain, as some legal scholars have argued that he is constitutionally disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. What are the arguments for and against Trump’s potential candidacy, and how likely is it that the Supreme Court will have to decide his fate?
The case for disqualification
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from holding federal office if they had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Some leading conservative originalists, such as William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen and Steven Calabresi, have claimed that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election amount to insurrection, and thus bar him from running for president again.
They argue that Trump violated his oath to support the Constitution by inciting a violent mob to attack the Capitol and disrupt the certification of the electoral votes. They also point to his repeated lies about voter fraud, his pressure on state officials to change the results, and his refusal to concede or cooperate with the transition. They contend that these actions undermined the constitutional order and threatened the peaceful transfer of power.
They assert that applying Section 3 to Trump is not only consistent with its original meaning and purpose, but also necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter future attempts to subvert democracy. They maintain that allowing Trump to run again would reward his misconduct and invite further chaos and violence.
People Also Read: Should Trump pick George Santos as his running mate?
The case for eligibility
Other legal experts have challenged the claim that Trump is disqualified under Section 3, arguing that it is too extreme, divisive and anti-democratic. One of them is Michael McConnell, another prominent conservative originalist, who has defended Trump’s right to run for president again.
He argues that Section 3 should be interpreted narrowly, as it was intended to apply only to those who participated in an organized armed rebellion against the United States, not to those who engaged in political speech or protest. He also questions whether Trump’s conduct actually amounted to insurrection, as he did not explicitly call for violence or overthrow of the government.
He warns that excluding Trump from the ballot would deprive millions of Americans of their choice and inflame political tensions. He suggests that the better way to deal with Trump’s behavior is through impeachment, criminal prosecution or electoral defeat.
People Also Read: Will the 2024 Presidential Election be postponed to 2025?
The role of the Supreme Court
The question of whether Trump is eligible to run for president in 2024 may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump himself. The court may have to intervene if there are conflicting rulings from lower courts or state officials on Trump’s eligibility, or if there are challenges to his candidacy from other candidates or voters.
The court may also face pressure from public opinion, as a majority of Americans (57%) say that Trump should not run for president in 2024. However, the court may also be reluctant to get involved in such a politically charged issue, especially after its controversial decisions on abortion and voting rights in recent years.
The court may try to avoid or delay ruling on Trump’s eligibility until after the primaries or even after the general election, hoping that the issue will become moot or irrelevant. Alternatively, the court may issue a narrow or ambiguous ruling that leaves room for interpretation or further litigation.
People Also Read: Why aren’t more people running for president in 2024?
Conclusion
Trump’s potential candidacy in 2024 poses a constitutional dilemma that has no clear or easy answer. The arguments for and against his eligibility are based on different readings of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and different views on its relevance and implications for today’s political context. The Supreme Court may have to resolve this dispute, but it may also face challenges and risks in doing so.
Summary Table
| Arguments for disqualification | Arguments for eligibility |
|---|---|
| Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting violence and trying to overturn election | Section 3 applies only to armed rebellion, not political speech or protest |
| Disqualifying Trump upholds rule of law and deters future subversion of democracy | Excluding Trump deprives millions of voters of their choice and inflames political divisions |
| Applying Section 3 is consistent with original meaning and purpose | Dealing with Trump’s behavior is better done through other means, such as impeachment, prosecution or electoral defeat |
FAQ:
Q: What is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
A: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a constitutional provision that bars anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding federal office.
Q: Why is Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 disputed?
A: Some legal scholars argue that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election amount to insurrection, and thus disqualify him from running for president again. Others disagree and argue that Trump’s conduct does not meet the criteria for insurrection, and that excluding him from the ballot would be undemocratic.
Q: Who will decide Trump’s eligibility?
A: The Supreme Court may have to decide Trump’s eligibility if there are conflicting rulings from lower courts or state officials, or if there are challenges to his candidacy from other candidates or voters. The court may also face pressure from public opinion, which is mostly opposed to Trump running again.
People Also Read: What if NOBODY ran for president in 2024?
