Staff Reports
In a fiery and animated discussion on CNN this morning, legal analyst Elie Honig tore apart the arguments put forth by a CNN commentator regarding the potential disqualification of former President Donald Trump from future office under the 14th Amendment. Honig’s dismantling of these arguments comes on the heels of a Denver court commencing hearings today to determine if Trump should be barred from appearing on Colorado’s 2024 election ballot.
WATCH: Legal Expert Brutally Fact-Checks CNN Pundit Arguing Trump Will Be Disqualified
In a spirited exchange on CNN this morning, legal analyst Elie Honig critically refuted arguments presented by a CNN pundit regarding former President Donald Trump’s potential disqualification… pic.twitter.com/a77Upb5KnZ
— Mrs Denosko🇺🇸 🌝 (@Denosko1) October 30, 2023
CNN’s John Avalon kicked off the discussion with a somewhat optimistic take, suggesting that Trump should be held to a higher standard because of his previous position as president. Avalon argued that a guilty verdict in Colorado could potentially prevent Trump from participating in future elections. However, Honig was quick to point out a glaring flaw in Avalon’s reasoning. “The great thing about John Avalon is he paints a picture of how things ought to be in an ideal world. I would say, ‘I agree; that would be lovely.’ However, I’ve been coming in to say, ‘But here’s why it’s not going to work that way.'”
Honig went on to explain that both Congress and the Constitution have failed to provide clear guidelines on how to enforce the 14th Amendment. He humorously quipped, “The problem is, you can’t just make it up now and apply it retroactively. Some scholars argue it’s ‘self-executing.’ What does that even mean? Clearly, someone has to enforce it. Why do you think we’re having legal debates in Colorado right now?”
The lawsuit, brought forward by six voters, invokes Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, asserting that Trump should be declared ineligible for future elections due to his alleged involvement in the Capitol breach on January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs argue that Trump violated his official oath by attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 and was intended to prevent former Confederate officials and military officers from reclaiming positions of power after the Civil War. However, its provisions still hold weight today. In simpler terms, Section 3 disqualifies individuals from holding certain offices if they have previously sworn to support the U.S. Constitution and then engage in or support insurrection or rebellion against the country.
The issue at hand lies in the decision of the state-level judge in Colorado. If she rules against Trump, Honig predicts two possible outcomes. Firstly, there would likely be a significant political backlash favoring Trump. Removing a major candidate from the ballot based on the decision of an unelected state judge would undeniably disenfranchise millions of voters. It would essentially be the judge saying, “You can only vote for Joe Biden, as I’ve personally determined that Donald Trump committed insurrection.”
Secondly, even if the initial judgment goes against Trump, the case is likely to be appealed and ultimately overturned. Honig believes that the decision will work its way through the Colorado judicial system and may even reach federal court. In addition to the case in Colorado, Trump is also facing similar legal battles in other states such as Minnesota, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Michigan.
This ongoing legal battle raises important questions about the interpretation and enforcement of the 14th Amendment. While it may seem attractive to bar Trump from future office, it is crucial that the decision is made within the confines of the law and not based on personal political motivations. Our justice system must uphold the principles of fairness and due process, even in the face of such high-profile cases.
