There is a lot of criticism from non-MAGA people of the idea that DJT is an insurrectionist and barred from office by the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. It goes without saying that DJT and MAGA fly into an apoplectic rage at the mere mention of the idea, so I won't say it.
(after calling it a "heinous attack")
In view of the criticism of the idea by non-MAGA, some points are worth consideration.
The legal argument for barring DJT from office from the rule of law point of view is fairly simple:
1. The 14th Amendment bars people like DJT who took an oath of office to defend the Constitution from holding office later if they participated in or supported an insurrection.
2. DJT participated in and supported an insurrection.
3. DJT had taken an oath of office.
4. DJT cannot be sworn into office because he is barred unless congress votes by 2/3 majority to remove the bar.
5. Congress will not vote to remove the bar because Democrats won't vote to do that and Republicans do not have a 2/3 majority in the House or Senate.
6. Therefore DJT cannot be sworn into office, period.
The criticisms I am aware of from non-MAGA people boil down to arguments like this:
1. Even talking about the 14th Amendment bar makes DJT a martyr, making him more powerful among the MAGA rank and file.
2. Even talking about the 14th Amendment bar makes DJT worse than he already is and not open to appeasement or compromise.
3. Disqualifying DJT from office is anti-democratic because it overrides the will of the voters.
4. Let DJT and MAGA get power and hang themselves.
None of those arguments address the rule of law point of view. All four arguments directly negate and disrespect the rule of law. Among many rank and file MAGA, DJT already is a martyr and powerful. The public record indicates that DJT is a true authoritarian. When circumstances permit, he is unwilling to compromise or be appeased. However, he is willing to be bribed.
Regarding 3, the only thing the 14th Amendment says about the voter's will is that only a 2/3 vote by congress can remove the bar. Voters therefore need express their will by telling their representatives and senators to vote to remove the bar. Finally, if DJT and MAGA get the authoritarian power they clearly want, they might succeed in hanging us and our democracy before they hang themselves. Whether a person wants to take that risk is a personal choice, but that choice does not change the fact that their choice negates and disrespects the rule of law.
DJT and MAGA argue it was not an insurrection but instead something else, e.g., a riot, or according to DJT, "a day of love."
The Colorado Supreme Court held that 1/6 was an insurrection in the scope of the 14th Amendment and DJT participated in it, thereby disqualifying DJT from holding office or being on the Colorado ballot.
In reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, the USSC (US supreme court) could have, but refused, to state that (i) 1/6 was not an insurrection under the 14th A, and/or (ii) DJT was not involved in the scope of the 14th A. Thus, one high level state court has held that DJT was disqualified. That holding cannot be ignored as mere blither from unqualified partisans.
Therefore, it remains an open question, support or oppose the argument that DJT is barred by the 14th A? If a person chooses to oppose invoking the 14th A, they are directly opposing and disrespecting the rule of law based on personal judgment. If a person chooses to support the invocation, they are forcing the rule of law to be vindicated because that will force the USSC to decide this issue, which it chose to ignore when it had the chance.
I am a huge fan of the rule of law and democracy. Along with genuine respect for civil liberties, the rule of law is one of the two top hallmarks of government that distinguishes a rule of law-based democracy from a rule of the tyrant/kleptocrat-based authoritarian regime.
I solidly support congress acting to disqualify DJT as eligible for office. That would force the issue to the USSC to decide. Presumably it would decide in DJT's favor. Then we would have to live with the consequences of that holding. But for better or worse, that is how a real rule of law should work. For authoritarians in power, it works in other ways.
