Loyalty to the Constitution: A Case for Enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Why the Congress and the President May Be Constitutionally Obligated to Acknowledge Donald Trump’s Disqualification and What It Means for Democracy
Introduction
I want to begin with a clear acknowledgment: I am not a legal scholar or constitutional expert. What follows is not an authoritative legal opinion but a reasoned argument grounded in publicly available facts, historical precedent, and the plain language of the Constitution. My goal is to raise an urgent question about the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and to invite legal scholars, constitutional experts, and the public to review, critique, and refine this argument.
The claim that the President of the United States may be constitutionally obligated to enforce Section 3 to disqualify Donald Trump from holding office is both unprecedented and profoundly serious. It touches on foundational principles of governance, the rule of law, and the peaceful transfer of power. At its core, it challenges us to consider whether loyalty to the Constitution demands action, even at the risk of political controversy or division.
Patriotism is loyalty to the Constitution above any party, ideology, or individual. The Constitution is not a document of convenience—it is the supreme law of the land, the foundation of our democracy, and the framework that safeguards our rights and freedoms. Ignoring its mandates, even for expediency, undermines the very principles that hold our republic together.
This is not a trivial argument, and I recognize the gravity of suggesting that a leading political figure might be barred from office. Yet it is precisely the weight of this question that compels us to examine it critically and rigorously.
Does Section 3, as a self-executing provision, demand immediate enforcement when its conditions are met? Does the President, as the nation’s chief executive, have a constitutional obligation to act upon such findings? And if so, how can such actions uphold the Constitution while respecting the rule of law and the democratic process?
These are challenging questions, but they are essential to preserving the integrity of our Constitution. This is not merely a legal matter but a national one, affecting all Americans. I urge citizens, alongside legal experts, to engage in this vital discourse to uphold our shared constitutional values and to ensure that no one—not even a president—is above the law.
To address these pressing questions, we must first establish a clear understanding of the constitutional and historical principles at play. By examining the self-executing nature of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the President’s constitutional duty to enforce the law, and the checks and balances that guide our system, we can determine whether loyalty to the Constitution compels action in this unprecedented situation.
Foundational Arguments
Subsection 1: Undeniable Facts About the 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause
The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause (Section 3) is one of the clearest constitutional directives. Its purpose is unambiguous: to prevent individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid and comfort to those who have, from holding public office. Its historical enforcement and textual clarity affirm its self-executing nature, applying automatically without requiring legislative or judicial action.
Fact 1: The Disqualification Applied Automatically to Confederate Officials
Following the Civil War, high-ranking Confederate officials, including generals, were barred from holding office under Section 3.
The clause’s application was not limited to military leaders. Civilian officials who had supported the Confederacy, such as members of the Confederate Congress and state governors, were also disqualified from office under its terms.
For example, Alexander H. Stephens, the former Vice President of the Confederacy, was initially prevented from returning to political office because of Section 3. His disqualification was automatic, based solely on his role in the Confederate government, without the need for additional legislative or judicial action.
These cases illustrate that the clause was universally understood and applied to anyone meeting its criteria, not just military personnel.
Fact 2: Congressional Acknowledgment of the Clause’s Self-Executing Nature
In 1872, Congress passed the Amnesty Act, which removed the disqualification for most individuals affected by Section 3.
By removing the disqualification, Congress implicitly acknowledged that it was already in effect. The Act did not create the disability; it simply lifted it for specific individuals.
This demonstrates that Section 3’s enforcement required no enabling legislation or additional mechanisms—it was an inherent constitutional restriction.
Counterargument: Some might argue that the Amnesty Act indicates Section 3 required congressional action to be enforceable. This interpretation is incorrect. The Amnesty Act did not enable or trigger Section 3’s enforcement; it acted as a remedy for a pre-existing disqualification. The disability imposed by Section 3 existed automatically upon the conditions being met, as demonstrated by its widespread application to Confederate officials prior to 1872.
Fact 3: No Textual Carveout Limits Future Applicability
Section 3’s text contains no language restricting its applicability to the post-Civil War era or Confederate officials. It is a general provision that applies to any individual meeting the specified conditions.
The absence of a carveout means its self-executing nature remains operative in all relevant cases moving forward. There is no basis for treating it differently in modern instances of insurrection or rebellion.
Fact 4: The Broad Principle of Automatic Enforcement
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is an example of a self-executing constitutional provision—a clause that requires no additional legislation, regulation, or judicial ruling to become effective. Once the factual conditions it describes are met, its legal consequences automatically apply.
Historical practice shows that the Disqualification Clause was understood as binding and self-executing. No additional judicial proceedings or legislative actions were deemed necessary to enforce it during Reconstruction.
Just as other constitutional provisions, such as the presidential term limit in the 22nd Amendment, do not require supplementary legislation to be binding, Section 3 operates directly and independently.
Implications for Today
The historical enforcement of Section 3 leaves no doubt about its applicability. Just as it applied automatically to Confederate officials, it applies to any modern individual who meets its criteria, whether through direct engagement in insurrection or providing aid and comfort to such acts.
The Constitution does not permit selective enforcement of its provisions. To ignore Section 3 now would be to undermine its clear purpose and historical precedent.
Conclusion of Subsection
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a self-executing provision that applies universally and indiscriminately. Its enforcement during Reconstruction required no additional congressional or judicial action, and there is no textual basis for treating it differently in modern cases. The lack of a carveout for future instances underscores its ongoing relevance as a binding constitutional mandate.
Subsection 2: The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Constitution
The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and all federal laws derive their legitimacy from its authority. Central to this framework is the President’s sworn duty, articulated in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This obligation applies not only to federal statutes but fundamentally to the Constitution itself, including all its amendments. Among these, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment carries specific and binding mandates that the President is constitutionally required to uphold.
Fact 1: The Constitution Explicitly Commands Execution of Its Provisions
Article II, Section 1, requires the President to take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath encompasses not only the text of the Constitution but also its amendments, including the 14th Amendment.
Article II, Section 3 further obligates the President to ensure the faithful execution of all constitutional laws. This includes acting upon self-executing provisions like Section 3 of the 14th Amendment when its conditions are met.
Fact 2: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a Law That Requires Enforcement
Section 3 is not merely an aspirational principle; it is a binding constitutional directive with legal force. Its plain language imposes an automatic disability on individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion or provide aid and comfort to such acts.
The enforcement of this provision does not require congressional or judicial action to become operative. Once the conditions are met, the disability exists by the force of constitutional law alone.
As the nation’s chief executive, the President has a constitutional obligation to recognize and act upon this provision when applicable.
Fact 3: Historical Precedent Supports the President’s Enforcement Role
Throughout U.S. history, presidents have taken direct actions to enforce constitutional provisions, particularly in moments of crisis or when core principles of the Constitution were under threat.
Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln issued the Proclamation during the Civil War, citing his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to enforce the principles of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and later codified in the Constitution through the 13th Amendment. His actions exemplify a president enforcing constitutional values during a crisis.
Harry Truman and Desegregation of the Military: Truman issued Executive Order 9981 in 1948 to desegregate the armed forces, enforcing the principle of equal protection under the law long before it was fully recognized by the judiciary. This proactive step demonstrated the President’s authority to act on constitutional mandates even in the absence of specific legislative or judicial prompting.
Civil Rights Protections in the 1960s: Modern presidents, including Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, enforced constitutional mandates during the civil rights movement by deploying federal resources to protect African Americans’ right to education and voting. Eisenhower’s federalization of the National Guard to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, exemplifies this obligation.
Fact 4: Failure to Enforce the Constitution is a Dereliction of Duty
Ignoring or selectively enforcing constitutional provisions undermines the rule of law and the integrity of the presidency.
In the context of Section 3, a failure to act when its conditions are met would be tantamount to allowing individuals who have engaged in insurrection to subvert the very Constitution they sought to overthrow. Moreover, such inaction could arguably amount to aiding and abetting insurrection by enabling those who have violated the Constitution’s core principles to wield power within the government, thereby perpetuating the threat they pose to democratic institutions and constitutional order.
Implications for Today
If the conditions of Section 3 are met in a modern case, the President has not only the authority but the duty to act. This is not a matter of political discretion but a constitutional imperative.
Such enforcement strengthens the rule of law by demonstrating that no individual, regardless of status, is above constitutional accountability.
Conclusion of Subsection
The President’s constitutional obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" unequivocally includes the enforcement of the 14th Amendment and its Disqualification Clause. Section 3 is not a passive provision but a binding legal directive that requires action when its conditions are met. To ignore this duty would be to undermine the Constitution itself, a breach of the President’s most fundamental responsibility. This principle of enforcement is not just a historical imperative but a living obligation for today’s leaders to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.
Subsection 3: The Logical Necessity of Checks on Judicial Authority
In 1803, Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution, solidifying judicial review as an essential check on legislative and executive powers. This principle is a cornerstone of American constitutional governance, ensuring that no law or action violates the supreme law of the land. However, while judicial review is vital, its implications warrant careful scrutiny to prevent its misuse or overreach.
The Importance of Judicial Review
Judicial review is indispensable to maintaining the rule of law. By acting as a check on the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary ensures that constitutional boundaries are respected and that individual rights are upheld.
This power, however, does not render the judiciary omnipotent. The Constitution envisions a system of mutual accountability among the branches of government, where no single branch operates without limits.
The Problem of Unchecked Judicial Power
If judicial interpretation of the Constitution is absolute and unchallengeable, then the judiciary risks becoming the ultimate authority, undermining the balance of power.
Hypothetical extremes expose the flaw: If SCOTUS interpreted that the President is a king or nullified key constitutional principles, there would be no recourse if its authority were truly unchallengeable.
Such a scenario would directly contradict the framers’ intent, which was to distribute power across branches to avoid tyranny.
Judicial Review Does Not Extend to Rewriting History
While Marbury v. Madison gives the judiciary substantial power to review the constitutionality of actions taken by other branches, it does not grant the Court the power to rewrite history itself.
In 1872, Congress passed the Amnesty Act, removing the disqualification for most individuals affected by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Importantly, this Act was passed less than four years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, meaning many of the same individuals who had participated in the ratification process were still in Congress at the time. These individuals, who understood the full meaning and intent of the Amendment, unequivocally reaffirmed Section 3’s self-executing nature by passing the Amnesty Act.
Any judicial decision that fails to align with this historical fact and the legislative intent behind the 14th Amendment is an attempt to usurp power beyond the scope of Marbury v. Madison by claiming the authority to rewrite history rather than review constitutionality. This overreach would be inconsistent with the limits placed on judicial power and undermine the integrity of constitutional enforcement.
Why Checks on Judicial Authority Strengthen the System
Checks on judicial authority do not weaken the judiciary; they ensure it remains functional and accountable within the constitutional framework.
The judiciary’s independence is preserved, but its role is balanced by the actions of the executive and legislative branches, particularly in cases where judicial rulings may stray from constitutional text or principles.
Far from diminishing SCOTUS’s role, this interplay reinforces the judiciary’s legitimacy by ensuring its decisions align with constitutional intent.
Addressing Concerns About Executive Enforcement
Critics might argue that enforcing Section 3 through executive action sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked presidential power. This concern misunderstands the constitutional process.
Executive enforcement of Section 3 would not bypass judicial review. Instead, it invites the courts to review the President’s actions, ensuring they adhere to constitutional principles.
By taking proactive steps to enforce the Constitution, the executive branch fulfills its duty without usurping the judiciary’s role. The courts retain the final authority to uphold or overturn such enforcement actions, preserving the balance of power.
Historical Practices That Support This Argument
Abraham Lincoln and Dred Scott: Lincoln rejected the broader implications of the Dred Scott decision, acting in ways that directly contradicted the Court’s stance while upholding his interpretation of constitutional values.
Andrew Jackson and the National Bank: Jackson vetoed the renewal of the National Bank’s charter, countering SCOTUS’s previous ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland. His actions reflected a differing interpretation of constitutional principles, albeit controversial.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: Facing a judiciary hostile to New Deal legislation, FDR threatened judicial reform to push SCOTUS toward interpretations aligned with societal needs.
Conclusion of Subsection
Judicial review is an essential mechanism for safeguarding the Constitution, but it must operate within a system of mutual accountability. Checks on judicial authority are not acts of rebellion; they are necessary to maintain balance and functionality within the constitutional system. This interplay ensures that all branches of government adhere to their intended roles, preserving the integrity and resilience of American democracy. By respecting the interdependence of all branches, we ensure that the Constitution remains a living, functional framework for governance rather than a tool of concentrated power.
Subsection 4: Evaluating Whether Donald Trump Meets the Criteria for Disqualification Under Section 3
Having established the self-executing nature of Section 3, the next step is to evaluate whether Donald Trump meets the constitutional criteria for disqualification. The findings of the Colorado Supreme Court provide a compelling basis for this evaluation. While the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the Colorado decision, it did so on procedural grounds and did not challenge the court’s factual findings or legal reasoning regarding Donald Trump’s actions.
Fact 1: The Colorado Supreme Court's Findings
The Colorado Supreme Court found that Donald Trump’s actions on and leading up to January 6, 2021, met the criteria for “engagement in insurrection” as defined under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The court cited Trump’s repeated false claims about election fraud, his exhortations to supporters to "fight like hell," and his failure to act swiftly to end the violence as evidence of his role in the insurrection.
The court concluded that these actions and omissions went beyond protected political speech and constituted active participation in an effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a defining characteristic of insurrection.
Fact 2: SCOTUS Did Not Overturn the Merits
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Colorado decision, but only on procedural grounds, addressing jurisdictional issues or technical matters unrelated to the substantive findings of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Importantly, SCOTUS did not refute or undermine the Colorado court’s factual findings that Donald Trump’s actions constituted engagement in insurrection under Section 3.
Furthermore, the reversal was not based on the grounds that Donald Trump’s constitutional rights were violated in the process of establishing the Colorado Supreme Court’s factual findings.
Thus, these findings remain legally uncontradicted and stand as a significant judicial determination regarding Trump’s conduct.
Fact 3: Procedural Fairness and Due Process
Critics might argue that disqualifying a candidate based on a court’s findings could raise due process concerns. However, the Colorado Supreme Court ensured a rigorous and fair process:
Trump had the opportunity to contest the claims, was represented by legal counsel, and had access to a full review of evidence.
The court’s decision was based on a thorough examination of publicly available records, official statements, and actions directly attributable to Trump, ensuring the findings were grounded in verified evidence.
Fact 4: Alignment with Section 3's Criteria
Section 3 establishes two primary criteria for disqualification:
The individual must have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
The individual must have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies.
Trump, as a former President, clearly satisfies the first criterion, having taken the presidential oath of office in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s findings affirm that his actions on January 6 meet the second criterion, characterizing them as engagement in insurrection.
Current Legal Standing
No subsequent court ruling has contradicted or invalidated the Colorado Supreme Court’s factual determination that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s procedural reversal removed the immediate legal effect of the Colorado decision, the underlying findings remain unchallenged in terms of their substance.
Conclusion of Subsection
The Colorado Supreme Court’s determination that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment stands as the most comprehensive judicial assessment of his actions on January 6. These findings have not been overturned or refuted on their merits, leaving them as a significant legal and factual determination regarding Trump’s conduct. This factual record provides a strong foundation for further constitutional and legal consideration.
Subsection 5: The Supremacy Clause and the Mandate to Enforce Section 3
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding all branches of government to its provisions and principles. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) explicitly states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This clause imposes a direct obligation on Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary to enforce all constitutional provisions, including Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The Universality of the Obligation
Congress:
As the legislative branch, Congress has the responsibility to ensure that its actions—particularly in certifying electoral votes—are consistent with Section 3’s mandate. By allowing a disqualified individual to assume office, Congress would be complicit in violating the Constitution.The Executive:
The President, as the nation’s chief executive, is sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath, alongside the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3), requires the Executive to enforce Section 3 when its conditions are met.The Judiciary:
The Judiciary is tasked with interpreting and applying the Constitution in accordance with its text and intent. Courts must adjudicate disputes arising under Section 3, ensuring its enforcement and resolving any challenges to its application.
The Supremacy Clause as a Check on All Branches
The Supremacy Clause is not merely a declaration of constitutional authority; it is a binding directive that ensures all branches of government act within constitutional bounds. It serves as a check against selective enforcement or neglect of constitutional provisions, mandating adherence to the Constitution’s text and principles.
Implications for Section 3
Under the Supremacy Clause, the self-executing nature of Section 3 creates a non-negotiable obligation for every branch of government:
Congress must ensure that electoral votes for disqualified individuals are invalidated during the certification process.
The Executive must act to prevent a disqualified individual from assuming office, whether through acknowledgment of disqualification or enforcement measures.
The Judiciary must resolve disputes and challenges to Section 3’s application in accordance with the Constitution’s intent.
Failure by any branch to enforce Section 3 would not only undermine the Constitution but also violate the Supremacy Clause, setting a dangerous precedent for selective adherence to constitutional mandates.
Having established the constitutional and historical foundations, we can now address the logical conclusion of these principles. If Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is indeed self-executing, and if the President is constitutionally obligated to faithfully execute the laws, then the question becomes: what action, if any, must be taken in response to the findings that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection? The main argument explores this imperative and its implications for our constitutional system.
Main Argument: The Logical Conclusion of the Foundational Arguments
The Foundational Arguments establish a clear and unassailable path to a logical conclusion: Congress and the President of the United States have complementary constitutional obligations to act on the factual findings that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, as determined by the Colorado Supreme Court. These actions are not matters of political discretion, but requirements grounded in the Constitution's text, historical precedent, and the principles of mutual accountability between branches of government.
The Colorado Supreme Court Findings Stand as the Most Comprehensive Judicial Assessment
The Colorado Supreme Court found, based on extensive evidence, that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. SCOTUS’s procedural reversal did not challenge these findings on their merits, leaving them as the most robust legal determination to date.
The factual record established by the Colorado Supreme Court provides a clear and credible basis for enforcement.
Section 3’s Self-Executing Nature Necessitates Immediate Enforcement
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a self-executing provision that imposes an automatic disqualification on individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion. Historical precedent demonstrates that its enforcement does not require additional legislative or judicial mechanisms.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s findings provide robust evidence that Donald Trump meets the criteria for disqualification under Section 3. These findings remain legally unchallenged on their merits and serve as a basis for immediate constitutional enforcement.
The Will of the Voters Cannot Override the Constitution
Critics may argue that Donald Trump’s ability to secure votes for the presidency, even after January 6, reflects the will of the people and should override the Constitution’s provisions. This argument, while emotionally appealing, is fundamentally flawed:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The democratic process itself derives legitimacy from the Constitution and must operate within its constraints.
Allowing the popular vote to supersede the Constitution’s mandates would undermine the very framework of democratic governance, setting a dangerous precedent for ignoring constitutional limits when politically expedient.
Just as the popular vote cannot override term limits or age requirements for office, it cannot override constitutional disqualifications such as those outlined in Section 3.
The enforcement of Section 3 does not invalidate the election results; it upholds the Constitution’s clear requirements. JD Vance, as the vice-presidential candidate on Trump’s ticket, would still be entitled to assume the presidency since the ticket won the election, ensuring that the democratic process is respected.
The Role of Congress
Congress is the first line of defense in ensuring that an insurrectionist does not assume the presidency. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution binds Congress to act to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and prevent someone disqualified for engaging in insurrection from taking the office of the President. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) provides a clear procedural mechanism for achieving this end.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022
Section 109 of the ECRA amends 3 U.S.C. § 15 to include the following provisions regarding the counting and the objections to electoral votes:
3 U.S.C. § 15 (d)(2)(B) & (C)
(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR OBJECTIONS.—
(i) OBJECTIONS.—No objection shall be in order unless the objection—
(I) is made in writing;
(II) is signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators duly chosen and sworn and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives duly chosen and sworn; and
(III) states clearly and concisely, without argument, one of the grounds listed under clause (ii).
(ii) GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS.—The only grounds for objections shall be as follows:
(I) The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1).
(II) The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
(C) CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.
(ii) DETERMINATION.—No objection may be sustained unless such objection is sustained by separate concurring votes of each House.
Grounds for Objection
Members of Congress may object to electoral votes if:
(I) The electors were not lawfully certified under the certificate of ascertainment.
(II) The votes of electors were not “regularly given.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional basis for objections, as it disqualifies individuals engaged in insurrection from holding public office. Electoral votes cast for Donald Trump, a disqualified individual, would therefore fall under these objectionable grounds.
3 U.S.C. § 15 (d)(2)(e)(1) & (2)
(e) Rules for tabulating votes.—
(1) COUNTING OF VOTES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B)—
(i) only the votes of electors who have been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5, or who have legally been appointed to fill a vacancy of any such elector pursuant to section 4, may be counted; and
(ii) no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected.
(B) EXCEPTION.—The vote of an elector who has been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5 shall not be counted if—
(i) there is an objection which meets the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(B)(i); and
(ii) each House affirmatively sustains the objection as valid.
(2) DETERMINATION OF MAJORITY.—If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection the grounds for which are described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.
Impact of Sustained Objections
If Congress sustains objections to Donald Trump’s electoral votes on the grounds that his disqualification under Section 3 renders them invalid:
Exclusion of Votes: The disqualified votes would be excluded from the total count.
Reduction in Majority Threshold: Under the ECRA and the Twelfth Amendment, excluding these votes would reduce the total number of electors, thereby lowering the majority threshold required to determine the winner of the presidential election.
Reversal of the Election Outcome
With Donald Trump disqualified and his 312 electoral votes excluded, the remaining electoral votes would be re-evaluated:
The exclusion of Trump’s votes would leave JD Vance, his running mate, without a majority of the remaining electors.
Kamala Harris, as the Democratic candidate, would then hold the majority of the valid electoral votes (226 compared to JD Vance’s adjusted total), reversing the election outcome.
Harris would be declared the winner and assume the presidency on January 20, 2025.
Challenges in the New Congress
Despite the ECRA’s clear framework, Congress’s ability to fulfill this responsibility depends on overcoming significant partisan dynamics:
Republican Majority: When the new Congress is seated on January 3, 2025, Republicans will control both chambers. For objections to Trump’s electoral votes to succeed, at least one-fifth of the members in both the House and Senate must agree to the objections, and a majority in each chamber must sustain them.
Partisan Loyalties: Persuading Republican members to uphold objections against their party’s presidential candidate would require an appeal to constitutional fidelity and the rule of law over partisan interests.
The Constitutional Obligation
The Supremacy Clause mandates that all branches of government adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. For Congress, this obligation means ensuring that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is enforced during the certification of electoral votes. Allowing electoral votes that were cast for a disqualified individual to stand would not only undermine the Constitution but would compel Congress to participate in a process that directly violates its mandates.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 provides a clear procedural framework for Congress to act on its constitutional duty. By sustaining objections to Donald Trump’s electoral votes, Congress would enforce Section 3, exclude invalid votes, and ensure the presidency is held by a constitutionally eligible individual. This is not merely a procedural exercise but a fundamental act of fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
If Congress fails to act, it will abdicate its constitutional responsibility, forcing other branches of government to intervene. Such failure would tarnish the institution’s integrity, erode public trust, and normalize insurrection as a tolerable act within American democracy. Upholding the Constitution is not a matter of political convenience; it is a binding duty dictated by the Supremacy Clause and the principles on which the nation was founded.
In this moment, Congress must rise above partisanship and affirm its loyalty to the Constitution. The stakes are nothing less than the preservation of constitutional governance and the rule of law.
The Role of the President
If Congress fails to uphold the Supremacy Clause to sustain the objections and allows Donald Trump’s electoral votes to be counted, the responsibility to uphold Section 3 shifts to the President. The Constitution’s supremacy demands that no individual disqualified under its provisions assume the presidency, regardless of congressional inaction. The President’s role in enforcing Section 3 is addressed in the subsequent sections of this argument.
Failure to act on the findings regarding Donald Trump’s engagement in insurrection would constitute a dereliction of this duty. By ignoring clear constitutional mandates, the President would undermine the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution itself.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution obligates the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This duty applies to the Constitution and its amendments, including Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Failure to act on the findings regarding Donald Trump’s engagement in insurrection would constitute a dereliction of this duty. By ignoring clear constitutional mandates, the President would undermine the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution itself.
Enforcing Section 3 Would Not Lead to a Constitutional Crisis
Judicial Review Provides a Safeguard:
Judicial review ensures that constitutional enforcement actions are subject to legal scrutiny, preserving the rule of law while allowing for the correction of any procedural or substantive errors. It also ensures transparency in constitutional enforcement by providing a clear and public resolution of disputes. Should Donald Trump or his representatives argue that his constitutional rights were violated during the Colorado Supreme Court proceedings or in the enforcement of Section 3, SCOTUS would have the authority to review and potentially overturn the executive action. This process preserves the balance of powers and reinforces the integrity of the constitutional system.Congressional Authority to Remove the Disability:
Section 3 explicitly provides that Congress, by a two-thirds majority in both houses, may vote to remove the disqualification. This mechanism offers an additional safeguard against potential overreach or misapplication of Section 3, ensuring that the legislative branch retains its constitutional role in addressing such cases.
These dual safeguards—judicial review and congressional authority—prevent any enforcement of Section 3 from creating a constitutional crisis. Instead, they ensure that the process remains firmly grounded in the Constitution’s text and structure while maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government.
Enforcing Section 3 Does Not Constitute a Coup
There is no suggestion in this argument to invalidate the election results or disrupt the democratic process. If Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3, the election outcome would remain intact, and the appropriate successor from the winning ticket—JD Vance—would be inaugurated as President.
A coup involves the illegal or violent overthrow of a government. Enforcing Section 3 is the opposite: it is a lawful, constitutional action aimed at upholding the integrity of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
By enforcing Section 3, the government affirms that the Constitution, not individual ambition, governs the peaceful transfer of power.
Precedent and Historical Integrity Demand Consistency
Historical examples, such as the automatic disqualification of Confederate officials and the later removal of those disabilities through the Amnesty Act, demonstrate that Section 3 is not a discretionary provision. It applies universally and automatically to individuals who meet its criteria.
Ignoring the application of Section 3 in Trump’s case would create an inconsistent and politically motivated standard, undermining the amendment’s purpose and the Constitution’s integrity.
Acknowledging the Colorado Supreme Court’s Findings and Section 3’s Automatic Nature
If the President were to issue an executive action enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, such action would not create a new disability for Donald Trump. Instead, it would act as a formal acknowledgment of the factual findings of the Colorado Supreme Court, which have not been overturned or substantively challenged. This executive action would merely affirm Trump’s existing disqualification under Section 3, which operates automatically once its conditions are met.
The Implications of Acknowledging Trump’s Disqualification
By acknowledging Donald Trump’s disqualification, the executive branch would affirm the self-executing nature of Section 3, while leaving the resolution of any disputes over its application to the Constitution’s established processes. There would be only two legitimate avenues for removing Trump’s disqualification:
Judicial Review by the Supreme Court:
Donald Trump could appeal the Colorado Supreme Court’s factual findings by claiming that his constitutional rights, such as due process, were violated in the process of reaching those findings.
Should the Supreme Court find merit in such a claim and overturn the factual findings, the disqualification under Section 3 will no longer apply.
Congressional Action:
Under the explicit text of Section 3, Congress retains the power to remove disability through a two-thirds vote in both houses. This mechanism offers a political resolution, balancing accountability with legislative discretion.
Executive Action as an Affirmation, not a Trigger
Importantly, this executive action would not “trigger” Section 3, because Section 3 operates automatically when its conditions are met. The executive action would simply recognize and affirm the existing constitutional reality.
This distinction is critical: a future president—say, JD Vance—would lack the authority to “un-acknowledge” or overturn this action because it does not originate the disqualification. Instead, it merely acknowledges a constitutional disability that already exists, as determined by the factual findings of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Why This Approach Maintains Constitutional Integrity
Preserves the Balance of Powers: By acknowledging Section 3’s automatic nature and leaving its resolution to judicial or legislative processes, the executive branch acts within its constitutional role without overstepping into areas reserved for the judiciary or Congress.
Respects the Rule of Law: This action reinforces the idea that constitutional provisions are binding and self-enforcing, ensuring that no individual is above the law.
Ensures Accountability: It allows the Supreme Court and Congress to act as appropriate arbiters of disputes while affirming the executive’s duty to faithfully execute the Constitution.
Taken together, the self-executing nature of Section 3, the President’s constitutional duty, and the safeguards of judicial review and congressional authority demonstrate that enforcing Section 3 is not only lawful but imperative.
Allowing Inaction Perpetuates Constitutional Violations
Failing to act on Section 3’s mandate risks emboldening future insurrectionists and undermining the principle that no one is above the Constitution.
By taking no action, the government would effectively signal that constitutional provisions can be selectively enforced, weakening public trust in democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Imperative Without Crisis
The logical conclusion of the Foundational Arguments is clear: The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and binds all branches of government to uphold its mandates. For the President, this obligation is not optional. executed.” This duty extends to the enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is self-executing and creates an automatic disqualification for individuals who engage in insurrection.
The President has a constitutional obligation to act on the Colorado Supreme Court’s findings regarding Donald Trump’s engagement in insurrection. This action would not precipitate a constitutional crisis but would instead activate the constitutional processes designed to address such disputes—judicial review and congressional authority.
Enforcing Section 3 ensures the Constitution is upheld, not undermined. It respects the rule of law, invites judicial scrutiny, and preserves the balance of power. This step is not only logical but necessary to affirm that no individual, regardless of status, is above the Constitution.
While enforcing Section 3 may invite political controversy, the Constitution’s authority supersedes political considerations, ensuring that its provisions are applied uniformly and without bias.
Failure to enforce Section 3 risks normalizing insurrection as a tolerable act, weakening the Constitution’s deterrent power and threatening the stability of democratic governance.
Final Words
The question of whether the President has a constitutional obligation to act on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not just a theoretical exercise; it is a test of our nation’s commitment to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. As we confront the undeniable findings of the Colorado Supreme Court regarding Donald Trump’s engagement in insurrection, the stakes could not be higher. At its core, this argument is about ensuring that no individual, regardless of their status or popularity, is above the law.
The Supremacy Clause serves as the ultimate directive, mandating that all branches of government act in accordance with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This clause compels Congress, the President, and the Judiciary to enforce Section 3 and ensure its provisions are not selectively applied or ignored. By adhering to the Supremacy Clause, the government upholds the constitutional principle that the rule of law must prevail over political expediency.
For the government as a whole—Congress, the President, and the Judiciary—enforcing Section 3 is not merely a choice; it is a constitutional mandate. The Supremacy Clause binds all branches to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. By ensuring Section 3 is enforced, each branch plays its part in preserving the integrity of the Constitution and affirming that no individual, regardless of status, is above the law. Far from undermining democracy, such enforcement reinforces its principles and demonstrates the resilience of our constitutional system.
To be patriotic means to uphold the Constitution above all else—above party, above ideology, and above individual ambition. Section 3’s self-executing nature, its historical application, and its unambiguous language leave no room for selective interpretation. Congress must act to prevent disqualified individuals from claiming electoral votes, the Judiciary must resolve disputes with fidelity to the Constitution’s text and intent, and the President must faithfully execute the Constitution’s laws, including Section 3. Each branch is integral to ensuring the rule of law prevails over political expediency.
By fulfilling their respective constitutional roles, Congress, the President, and the Judiciary affirm their loyalty to the Constitution and uphold the foundational principle that the peaceful transfer of power is not subject to the whims of any individual or political party. This collective adherence to constitutional mandates safeguards democracy and ensures that the system remains robust in the face of challenges. Failing to act, on the other hand, risks normalizing insurrection as a tolerable act and eroding public trust in our democratic institutions.
If this argument is correct, the entire government is faced with a defining choice: to defend and protect the Constitution by collectively enforcing Section 3 or to abdicate its duty and allow an insurrectionist to assume power. Such a failure would not only tarnish the legacy of each branch but also set a dangerous precedent, jeopardizing the rule of law and the future stability of our republic. This is not merely a political question but a test of constitutional fidelity and moral courage.
To those who may disagree, this argument is not offered as a final answer but as a starting point for serious consideration and debate. The Constitution is the foundation of our democratic republic, and its mandates are not optional. As citizens, scholars, and public servants, we share the responsibility to ensure that its principles are upheld, and its protections endure.
Let this serve as a call to action—not just for the President, but for all who are entrusted with safeguarding our democracy. Patriotism demands nothing less than loyalty to the Constitution. In the face of political controversy, constitutional integrity must prevail. It is through such moments of courage and clarity that our nation reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law and the enduring promise of liberty and justice for all.
Auxiliary Resources
For readers interested in exploring the legal and historical context of this argument, the following documents provide essential background and details:
Colorado Supreme Court Decision
Full Text of the Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Section 3 – This ruling outlines the court’s findings that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and provides the factual basis for enforcement of the 14th Amendment.Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA)
Full Text of the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 – The ECRA clarifies the procedures for Congress to handle disputes over electoral votes, emphasizing the role of objections under Section 3.Text of the 14th Amendment, Section 3
Read the Full Text of the 14th Amendment – Explore the language and scope of the Disqualification Clause, which remains a binding constitutional mandate.Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2)
Text and Interpretation of the Supremacy Clause – Review the constitutional provision that establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, binding all branches of government.Electoral College Certification Procedures (3 U.S.C. § 15)
Read the U.S. Code on Electoral College Certification – Understand the legal framework guiding Congress’s role in certifying presidential elections.
Update (12/20/2024): Addressed the role of Congress
Transparency Notice: The final draft of this article was edited using AI