Conservative voices are strongly condemning The Hill's recent publication of an opinion piece about President-elect Donald Trump.
According to Fox News, The Hill published a controversial column by former law journal editors Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte urging Congress to invoke the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from assuming office in January.
The op-ed, published Thursday, presents arguments for using Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have "engaged in insurrection" from holding public office.
Davis and Schulte, former editors-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and Yale Law Journal, respectively, base their argument on Trump's second impeachment trial, the January 6 Capitol attack investigation, and the Colorado Supreme Court's recent ruling.
The authors advocate for Congress to reject electoral votes during the upcoming joint session, citing the Electoral Count Act as their legal basis. They argue that votes for a constitutionally disqualified candidate would not be "regularly given" under the Act's provisions. The column suggests that if successful, this action could potentially result in Vice President Kamala Harris becoming president.
Davis and Schulte acknowledge the unlikelihood of Republican support for such action but maintain their position. They emphasize Congress's unique constitutional authority in counting Electoral College votes, arguing this makes the matter immune to Supreme Court review.
The columnists detail the process, explaining that an objection would require signatures from 20 percent of each House's members. They specify that if both houses sustain the objection by majority vote, Trump's electoral votes would not be counted.
The op-ed triggered immediate and severe criticism from various conservative figures and Trump allies. Eric Trump responded with a brief but pointed statement: "You people are sick."
The backlash extended beyond Trump's inner circle to include broader conservative voices. Multiple commentators characterized the proposal as an attempt to subvert democratic processes. Anti-woke activist Robby Starbuck and journalist Ian Miles Cheong both drew parallels between the proposed actions and insurrection.
Former presidential candidate John Delaney offered a more measured response, emphasizing the need for Democratic acceptance of Trump's electoral victory:
This is the kind of nonsense Democrats must reject Trump won in a fair democratic process. Democrats should be either working with him when it is in the best interest of the nation or their constituents or standing firm when it's not. Americans don't want pure obstructionists.
The column's legal reasoning centers on three key events: Trump's second impeachment, the January 6 investigation, and Colorado's ballot decision. Despite the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in Trump's favor regarding the Colorado case, the authors maintain that Congress retains independent authority to act.
The authors' interpretation of the 14th Amendment focuses on insurrection against the Constitution rather than the government specifically. They argue that previous legal proceedings have established sufficient evidence for Trump's disqualification.
The Hill's controversial op-ed by Davis and Schulte advocating for congressional intervention to block Trump's presidency through the 14th Amendment has generated significant discussion and criticism. The proposal suggests using the Electoral Count Act during the upcoming joint session of Congress to challenge Trump's electoral votes based on constitutional disqualification grounds. The intense backlash from conservative figures and Trump allies highlights the deep political divisions surrounding the upcoming transition of power, with critics characterizing the proposal as an attempt to override the democratic process.
