Why Removing Trump from 2024 Ballot Could Backfire

5 Arguments Against Invoking 14th Amendment to Bar Trump, Stresses Supreme Court’s Role and Unity in Decision-Making

In a compelling analysis, legal expert Lessig delves into the complex debate surrounding the potential barring of Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race using the 14th Amendment. Here are the key takeaways from his insightful discussion:

The 14th Amendment Dilemma: Lessig highlights the controversial proposal to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from running. He argues that, while a Trump presidency might be problematic, barring him from the ballot could also be catastrophic for the democratic process.

Intent vs. Insurrection: Lessig contends that Trump’s actions on January 6 do not necessarily qualify as “insurrection or rebellion,” focusing instead on Trump’s intention to influence Congress, not direct a violent uprising.

Constitutional Interpretation and the Supreme Court’s Role: Lessig emphasizes that interpreting the Constitution isn’t just about understanding the text; it’s also about recognizing the role and institutional capacity of the interpreting body, in this case, the Supreme Court. He uses historical cases to illustrate how the Court has balanced textual interpretation with its institutional role.

Congressional Enforcement vs. Judicial Action: The article points out a significant viewpoint in constitutional scholarship: the Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the 14th, were primarily meant for enforcement by Congress, not the courts. This implies that barring Trump should ideally involve congressional action, not a unilateral judicial decision.

The Importance of Court’s Unanimity and Perception: Lessig stresses the importance of the Supreme Court’s unity in such a crucial decision. Whether to remove Trump or not, he argues that a unanimous decision is vital to maintain the Court’s integrity and public perception as a non-political entity.

In summary, Lessig presents a nuanced argument, suggesting that while the idea of a second Trump term may be troubling to some, the implications of barring him from running through a narrow constitutional interpretation could pose a greater threat to the principles of American democracy. The Supreme Court’s role, according to Lessig, should be measured, unified, and mindful of its long-term institutional legitimacy.

Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/avaharper/p/constitutional-conundrum-why-removing