Re: The Real Insurrection

In yet another attempt to impede Donald Trump from gaining the presidency, on
Thursday, The Hill ran an opinion piece by two lawyers, one of whom had
served as president of the New York City Bar, in which they urged Congress to
reject the Electoral College vote in order to stop Donald Trump from being
inaugurated as president.

Evan Davis, who once served as editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and
later served as counsel to New York Democrat governor Mario Cuomo, and David
Schulte, who had served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, later
became a friend and financial supporter of Barack Obama, and is now an
investment banker, quoted the 14th Amendment, which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or
as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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.

�Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not
the government,� the authors write. �The evidence of Donald Trump�s engaging
in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three
separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active
participation of Trump�s counsel.�

The authors cite Trump�s second impeachment trial, in which Democrats sought
to impeach Trump just before he left office. After the House passed the
article of impeachment, citing �incitement of insurrection,� on January 13,
2021, by a 232�197 vote, with all 222 Democrats voting in favor, an argument
ensued over whether the Senate, which was in pro forma sessions until January
19, could take on the matter. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmitted the
article of impeachment to the Senate on January 25, five days after Trump had
left office. Supporters of the impeachment argued that the Constitution
permitted disqualification from holding future office. Trump was acquitted by
the Senate on February 13; 57 senators voted in favor of conviction and 43
voted against.

The authors then cite �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.�� After the
verdict was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, it was sent on appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which did �not address the finding that Trump had
engaged in insurrection,� the authors admitted.

The authors finally cite the House Select Committee that investigated January
6. They argue that evidence from witnesses leads to �the inescapable
conclusion � that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.�

The authors cite the amended Electoral Act stating that one ground for
objection to an electoral vote is if a vote of one or more electors was not
�regularly given.� They then offer this supposition: �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.�

They conclude their argument by stating:

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.

--
Let's go Brandon!