After Iowa and New Hampshire, the odds that Donald Trump will win his party’s nomination for the presidency have evolved from merely possible to near inevitable.
Which means that he has a significant chance of becoming one of only two presidents (along with Grover Cleveland) to make a comeback after four years out of office, an outcome that most Americans do not desire.
Some are looking to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as a basis for eliminating Trump. Its Section 3 disqualifies anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States.”
This seems straightforward: The presidency is an office under the United States; Jan. 6 and the plots surrounding it were meant to overthrow a legitimately elected administration. In other words, an insurrection.
Several jurisdictions have invoked the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from their ballots, most notably Colorado’s Supreme Court. Similar efforts are underway in 30 other states.
Objections to this application of the 14th Amendment vary: Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection; the president isn’t an “officer” of the United States; Trump isn’t an insurrectionist unless he’s first convicted under the criminal statute that proscribes insurrection; and so on.
But the objection I’ve heard most often attempts to accuse the accusers of trying to deprive the voters of their right to choose whom they want for president. According to this theory, the people are sovereign.
But are the people sovereign? Isn’t it the law that’s sovereign? We’re fond of saying that no one is above the law, which implies that the law — created through our legislative representatives — is above the people. In fact, the social contract that makes societies possible assumes compliance with the law.
The objections to the use of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump’s candidacy are subject to debate; the idea that a vote of the people can supersede the Constitution cannot be.
If Jesus Christ descended from Heaven and ran for president, He would attract multitudes. Democrats would like Him because he’s a socialist. Republicans could picture Him as an anti-elite, populist disruptor.
But the Bethlehem Jesus was born in is not in Pennsylvania, and in earthly years he didn’t get beyond the age of 33. No matter what the people want, He could not run. Not even God Almighty can change the Constitution. Neither can Donald Trump.
Clearly, the 14th Amendment objection to Trump’s candidacy is a case for the Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on the issue on Feb. 8. It will be interesting to see if the court’s conservative majority applies the originalist reading to the Constitution that they’re fond of using elsewhere.
But it’s not likely. The reluctance to apply the 14th Amendment, by the Supreme Court or by other jurisdictions, is largely driven by an element that lurks in the background of these considerations: fear.
We don’t have to imagine what would happen if Trump were barred from the ballot. He spells it out in the first paragraph of his recently filed 59-page legal brief appealing the Colorado Supreme Court’s application of the 14th Amendment: Trump’s disqualification will “unleash chaos and bedlam.”
Is this a prediction or a threat? It’s probably both. In any case, we can be sure that Trump will stoke the chaos and bedlam rather than attempt to moderate the anger of his aggrieved supporters.
But whether Trump is disqualified from the ballot or whether he loses the election in 2024, it’s naïve to imagine that he will leave the scene peacefully.
Two important questions: How much violence will Trump generate among his well-armed supporters? And will Americans who still believe in democracy have the courage to commit the violence that will be required to subdue a second insurrection?
John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, lives in Texas and can be reached at jcrispcolumns@gmail.com.