I was wondering how long it'd take for the mainstream media to start calling on Democrats to stop Trump from taking office.
Yes, this is a real opinion piece from The Hill.
Looks like they waited until Christmas was over to hit the publish button on this bad boy, and I imagine this is the first of many calls from leftist media to keep Trump from taking back power after he was democratically elected.
Sounds like they want an insurrection to stop Trump the "insurrectionist":
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. ‘No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.'
These totally-not-insurrectionists want to stop "insurrectionist" Trump (who was never convicted of insurrection of any kind) by having Congress do the thing that some J6 "insurrectionists" wanted Congress to do: Refuse to certify the election.
These writers say we must save American democracy by interfering in [checks notes] the appointment of the democratically elected nominee of the American people.
(If this is confusing, you have to understand that it's not an insurrection when Democrats do it.)
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump's second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for 'incitement of insurrection.' At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses 'engaging in insurrection' against the Constitution 'or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,' the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court 'found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.' The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
The authors also mention the January 6 hearings and Trump's calling on Mike Pence to "stop the steal."
But here's the real meat of the argument from writers Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte:
The [Electoral Count Act] specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: if the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not 'regularly given.' A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words 'not regularly given.' Disqualification for engaging in 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. 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 guy arrested for moving Nancy Pelosi's lectern had a suggestion for the libs:
The authors argue that nothing less "is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution," than to disqualify Donald Trump; and I expect nothing less of Democrats than to turn the next three weeks into absolute chaos trying to keep Trump out of office.
The calm before the storm is over, folks.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
