Liberal Lawyers Urge Longshot Nuclear Option To Stop Trump From Taking Office | The Daily Caller
By: dailycaller
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Two liberal attorneys claimed Thursday that Congress can still prevent President-elect Donald Trump from taking office — and elect Vice President Kamala Harris in his place — if they act fast.
Congress can reject electoral votes on when they gather to certify them on Jan. 6 because Trump is disqualified from holding office under 14th Amendment, which restricts anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection" from holding office, attorneys Evan Davis and David Schulte wrote in a column for The Hill.
"The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious," the attorneys wrote. "But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution."
Lawmakers have grounds to dispute the vote if electors were "not lawfully certified" or if the vote was "not regularly given," they claim.
"A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words 'not regularly given,'" the attorneys argued, writing that disqualification for insurrection is "no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years' residency in the United States."
"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House," they continued. "If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president."
The Supreme Court rejected Colorado's attempt to remove Trump from the state's 2024 ballot in February. The majority held that Congress must pass legislation in order to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Colorado was one of multiple states that attempted to remove Trump from the ballot early on in the election.
Several top Democrats told Politico on Thursday that they do not intend to object to Trump's win.
"I think you're going to have a pretty sort of normal transfer, and I think we will respect the wishes of the American people … in contrast to what happened January 6, 2021," Democratic New York Rep. Joe Morelle told Politico.
Even Democrats who lodged objections to Trump's electors in 2017 have said they will not repeat the act this year, according to Politico.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
And the nine-year-long attempts keep coming and coming. Whatever happened to accepting the results of a fair and legal election? But Trump breaks the tradition once again by driving the opposition nuts and appealing to those who recognize the absolute need after the last 4 years..
[✘]
Kids that get beat up on the playground don’t go away. They become progressives.
Nah, they become jarheads.
With less than a month to go and the Republicans set to control the House and Senate, there is about as chance of blizzard in the Sahara Desert of what two looney liberal lawyers suggesting will happen.
That went bye bye 4 years ago when a losing candidate tried to game the system, and to this day refuses to admit defeat.
You mean like we saw in 2016?
Bingo!
Claimed she should have been elected solely on popular vote results...
Ever notice how they always make stupid ass claims like that?
Yep, but in all fairness most politicians running for higher office do that. It is the nature of the beast that is politics.
I have never seen any such claim. Clinton is in favor of using the popular vote for electing the PotUS but I cannot find any quote from her where she suggested that she should have been certified as president-elect strictly because she won the popular vote.
Um, I don't remember ever hearing that come from her and I cannot find such comments via Google. Do you have a reference?
I do easily find that there were several individuals on the Democrat side who came out after the 2016 election calling to eliminate the Electoral College. They do seem to do that each time a Democrat wins the popular vote but loses the election in the EC count. Isn't it funny how quiet they were on this topic after the recent election however..
I remember hearing about it years ago but I cannot really say when and where so I admit I could very well be wrong and should not have stated that.
Well worded but sorry. She’s long been for abolishing the electoral college.
This can not be reasonably argued.
You did not read what I wrote:
And while rushing to try to find something wrong, you missed the point of my comment.
My comment stands related to the comment I was responding to and it missed nothing.
Nothing
You claimed I was wrong and stated this as a correction:
Yet my comment stated this:
Explain how just using the popular vote does not eliminate the electoral college.
It is just amazing that this needs to be explained to anyone .
Using the popular vote means that the electoral college is NOT used.
So this:
Means the Clinton is NOT in favor of the electoral college; that she prefers the popular vote for electing the president.
What on Earth is confusing you et. al. about this??
So Sparty's right....
No, I was right (and still am). Sparty (and others) did not read what I wrote.
How is calling for the popular vote to determine the presidential election not also calling for abolishing the electoral college?
I had to read the thread a couple of times to make sure I understood what was said, and I have to say....
Sparty is right.
You can't say you want the popular vote to determine elections without meaning you want to get rid of the EC.
Anyone that sees it different is highly misimformed.
[✘]
Where do you get the idea that I suggested otherwise? Let's see a quote.
Where, exactly, do you read anything from me suggesting that a popular vote for PotUS does not mean that the electoral college no longer applies?
Is it your belief that Hillary Clinton does not know that her call for a popular vote means that the electoral college would become obsolete?
Deliver a quote.
Not needed...
Told ya.
I didn’t realize how pro EC I was until people like Hillary came out against if. That was a flashing red light for me. The more I dug into the reasons it was established, the more sense it made.
Why does it matter what Hillary Clinton thinks? The arguments for EC and popular (and variants) should be based on fact and logic. It does not matter what a politician (or anyone really) thinks; that should not influence you ("flashing red light") in any way.
For example, my position is that the EC needs to be modernized. Here is what I have suggested (for years now):
This parallels the way in which Congress works (House elections per district; Senate elections per state) so it is consistent.
Further, it seems to be fairer. Currently, in 48 states, the winner essentially is given all the electoral votes that went to their opponents. In this system, each congressional district retains its voice.
[✘]
Well, lucky for me I don’t need Hillary, or you for that matter, to tell me what to think. I do that just fine all by myself.
Then show us by providing a thoughtful reply to what I posted.
Indeed, the 2016 election was rigged in trump's favor, he said so himself many times.
Already done. That you don’t agree is simply just one more opinion. Nothing more.
And after all those investigations, it hasn't been proven.
So suddenly he's telling the truth?
Democrats don't believe in the Constitution or laws.
They gave proven it repeatedly over the last nine years and counting.
By this action they are proving to be absolute hypocrites in every sense of the word.
Trump said himself that he would like to get rid of the constitution, but here you come with accusing the enemy of that which you are most guilty....Hitler would be proud.
Crazy people
The stupidity of the liberal left is fucking hilarious. "engaged in insurrection"? That would require charges and a conviction of such action. So far all we've seen are hurt feelings and false unproven claims.
To be fair, it seems the Dems aren't on board with these lawyers. I imagine most people on the left can see this for what it is as well. That's why we don't see the talking heads talking about this or, not that I've seen.
In other news, water is wet, the sun is still hot and Christmas is coming ……
MAGA drones can rest easy, this is not going to happen.
Trying to overturn fair and legal elections is strictly a Republican thing.
Yawn …..
Ditto....
The Democrat insurrectionists will not succeed.
We already know that.
Republicans should force a vote on the floor to see which Democrats vote for this traitorous garbage. Get them on record- which is what the two that put this idea forward want anyways.
So then you acknowledge that Trump is a traitor.
Reading comprehension seems to be a problem today.
And ability to recognize sarcasm.
And don't even get me started on lack of a sense of humor.
They are just tourists taking a tour of the nations capital.
You do realize it is not the Republicans suggesting this don't you?
Everybody know's it's not going to happen. There has to be proof of the accusations first. Democrats and left have failed to prove that.
Then explain the Democrats doing it since 2016 election. Or did you forget the Russia Collusion hoax they ran with?
When has the left ever required proof for anything before jumping into the water (including the depth of the water)
Well, they did prove they can run completely incompetent and unlikable candidates for 3 straight election cycles.