Is Donald Trump Even Eligible to Be President Again?

November 18, 2022 3:13am

Is Donald Trump even eligible to be President again? Don't be so quick to answer that because the answer isn't automatically "yes."

The 22nd Amendment doesn't allow one person to serve more than ten years as President. That ten years would be two full four year terms plus half of the predecessor's term if he ascended to the presidency from the vice presidency. But that doesn't apply here. Trump has only served four years, so the 22nd Amendment has no bearing. But the 14th Amendment might. Legally, the 14th Amendment has no bearing here either. But that doesn't mean it won't come into play.

Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment states, "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 and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

While that verbiage was included in the 14th Amendment to prevent Confederates of the Civil War from holding seats in government, Democrats will twist its meaning to include any Republican who did or said anything in support of the January 6th so-called "insurrectionists" that can be called "aid and comfort."

That epithet wouldn't be factually correct. But since when do facts matter to Democrats? If Democrats are good at anything, they're good at bitter partisanship, lying, cheating, and weaponizing language to get their way. And it will score them a lot of political points among their dangerously destructive base.

The reason the Democrats can get away with calling the January 6th riot an "insurrection" is because the activists posing as journalists in the propaganda press have amplified and will continue to amplify that lie via their onslaught of fake news. But the truth is the January 6th riot was NOT a "coup attempt" or an "insurrection."

Although the January 6th rioters at The Capitol had no chance of getting what they wanted, what they were seeking was one hundred percent constitutional. They were NOT seeking to "overturn an election" or "overthrow the government." They were simply demanding that Congress do what it is constitutionally allowed to do. Their means were criminal, but their intent was not.

I'm not defending the riot. The riot was the most idiotic thing supporters of the Republican Party have ever done. I'm not defending the criminals who broke into The Capitol on January 6th. I'm just pointing out that what they wanted Congress to do was perfectly constitutional. It was just pointless because there was no chance they were going to convince Congress to do the right thing. But all those protesters wanted was for Congress to refuse to certify the electors from the states that conducted unconstitutional elections.

I'm not talking about fraud. Whether fraud happened or not is irrelevant. It need not be brought up. I'm talking about the unconstitutional election processes that at least seven states used in their 2020 elections. Is that my opinion? Yes. But it is also the opinion of judges in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who ruled the loosey-goosey election processes in those states were in fact unconstitutional.

The remedy for those unconstitutional elections is outlined in the Constitution of the united states. There's a Plan B and a Plan C. And they should have been used. But the Supreme Court refused to do its duty and rule on the merits of the disputed election results. And those state courts all ruled long after Biden was inaugurated and it was too late to remedy the election theft.

Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote is NOT merely a formality. The Constitution very specifically empowers Congress to be the final check that an election was lawfully conducted. And it very specifically allows ANY member of Congress to object to ANY electors for ANY reason.

Regarding Congress refusing to certify the Electoral College count, let me remind you that in 2017 during the congressional certification of the 2016 election, Democrat Congressmen Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters all objected to some of Trump's Electoral College votes. Had any Senators also objected, a vote would have been taken as to whether to accept or reject those contested Electoral College votes. And if both houses voted to reject them, the votes would not have been counted. THAT IS A FACT. AND IT WAS PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

What's pathetic is that most Americans are completely unaware that even happened. Why? Because the fake news won't report that historical fact, and the Republicans are incompetent with their messaging.

To be clear, Vice President Mike Pence did NOT have the authority to reject Electoral College votes. Only Senators and Representatives did. And that's all they were asked to do by the protesters. It was a fool's errand, but it was not an unconstitutional request. And it wasn't an "insurrection." The reason the Democrats have so dishonestly used that word is to weaponize it against Republicans. And they are certain to weaponize it against Donald Trump as he runs his third presidential campaign.

But the theory that Donald Trump can be denied elected office because of the 14th Amendment is not merely an academic discussion. There is precedent for it; not for the presidency but for a county commission seat in New Mexico.

Couy Griffin was a county commissioner in Otero County, New Mexico. He was found guilty of entering The Capitol on January 6th. And a Leftist activist judge in New Mexico named Francis Mathew ordered Griffin to be kicked off the commission because he was an "insurrectionist." And, yes, his order used the word "insurrection." The judge wrote that Griffin "took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ... [and then] engaged in that insurrection after taking his oath."

That judicial order was blatantly political. And is was blatantly unconstitutional because the January 6th riot was neither an insurrection nor a coup nor any attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, despite the Democrats and the fake news repeatedly saying it was.

Of course, there's big difference between an appointed low-level district judge in New Mexico and the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. And if such dishonest partisan action was taken against Trump, it would eventually be reversed by the Supreme Court. But do we want to go through all that? Do we want the January 6th riot being the centerpiece of the 2024 election?

If the state legislatures - or even just state election officials - were to state that Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment, so they refused to put his name on the ballot, that would be a huge problem. I can certainly see election officials in California, New York, Illinois, and perhaps a dozen more dark blue states doing that - or at least trying to do it. Sure, Trump wouldn't win Electoral College votes from any of those states anyway. But if they refuse to put him on the ballot, the negative publicity of the judicial process as it wound its way to the Supreme Court would be harmful not just to Trump but to ALL Republicans.

And then when the Supreme Court properly ruled that the January 6th riot was not an insurrection and that Trump was not disqualified from holding office, that would motivate the partisan haters on the Left to show up in huge numbers to vote against the so-called "insurrectionist" the "stacked" Supreme Court put on the ballot. Republicans would be in a lose-lose position no matter what.

And that's just one reason why Donald Trump should not seek reelection. For the good of the country, Donald Trump should stay out of politics. But he doesn't have that in him. Donald Trump has always been about Donald Trump. I'm not saying he didn't do anything good for America when he was in office. He did a lot of good. But Trump is for Trump. And if he harms Republican chances to retake The White House from the unconstitutionally-elected usurper currently occupying it, so be it. He doesn't care. Because in Trump's world, if he doesn't win, he doesn't care who else loses in the process.

The sooner Republicans reject Donald Trump's third presidential bid the better.