Confused: are we sure the 14th amendment is off the table? [View all]

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21


Max Burns
@themaxburns
·
Feb 13, 2021
Gee just gonna leave my @NBCNews column from January 13 here for no reason at all.

"The 14th Amendment could be the key to preventing a president who contributed to a domestic terrorist attack from ever receiving a position of public office again."

Opinion | Here's the fastest, easiest way to keep Trump from ever holding office again
nbcnews.com

Max Burns
@themaxburns
Glad to see Majority Leader Schumer is seriously considering invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which would require only a majority vote of the Senate.

It would also disqualify Trump from ever seeking an office of public trust again. That's critical.
9:49 PM · Feb 13, 2021


https://t.co/Sdgoqxbmmn?amp=1

Snip
In an op-ed for The Post, Foner laid out the straightforward mechanics of a 14th Amendment charge: Legislators file a resolution, then both chambers vote. In that sense, it would be a triumph of the regular democratic process — the process Trump's thugs tried to undermine — that delivers a final defeat to the president's stained legacy.

The case for applying the language to Trump may also be clearer than that of impeachment, because the 14th Amendment's permanent ban on future public service emphasizes for all future generations the severity of Trump's treachery and doesn't require the Senate to take a separate vote, as during the impeachment process.

That's not to say there won't be challenges to invoking the 14th Amendment. Any effort to hold Trump accountable is likely to face strong Republican opposition, though the extremity of Trump's conduct seems to be fracturing party loyalties. The GOP will also likely challenge the application of such a rarely used piece of legal machinery. The Supreme Court will almost certainly be called to weigh in on the inevitable flood of Republican lawsuits.