A Democrat Coup, Part I: January 6 Is Democrats' latest scheme to ensnare their political opponents.

Democrats' plan to use an obscure provision of the 14th Amendment to knock off their political rivals.

Part 1 in a series of 2, “A Democrat Coup.” For part 2, click here.

It is becoming increasingly clear that January 6 is the Democrats’ plan to disqualify potentially thousands of Republicans from being eligible to run for office in November, 2022 and beyond.  It all starts with January 6 . . . sort of.

For some time, most of us have believed that January 6 was a hoax.  A valuable hoax to be sure for Democrats.  Among other things, by continuing to keep the rally that spiraled out of control in the news, Democrats could smear Republicans, keep Trump in the news, make his supporters look unhinged and rebellious, and keep the Democrats’ base in a constant state of fear that Republicans were determined to “overthrow democracy” or “engaged in an insurrection.”  Recently, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that January 6 is a carefully plotted strategy to use an obscure (and potentially irrelevant) portion of the Constitution to disqualify their political opponents from future Federal and State office.

Before outlining the scheme, let us consider Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  It reads:

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Enacted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, it plainly intended to bar from Federal and State office participants in the Confederacy and those that “gave aid or comfort” to it.  One wonders whether it was ended to capture generations born long after the conflict.  But, as written, it plainly could be interpreted to apply to anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.  Rather than debate the possible interpretations of the clause, let us turn to the Democrats’ inappropriate plot.

Nancy Pelosi’s January 6 House Select Committee has been controversial and unprecedented from its inception.  Initially, it seemed the Committee’s lone goal was to smear Trump and his supporters and to keep the memory of the event in the minds of the public for political advantage and fundraising.  In recent weeks, however, the Committee’s workings have made it quite clear that one of its goals, if not its primary goal, is to define former President Trump’s attempt to use the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to keep then candidate Biden’s November election victory from being certified as an “insurrection.”  This goal started to appear more clearly as the Committee began focusing, as it has in recent weeks, on seeking information about Trump’s strategy toward keeping the results from being certified on January 6, thus kicking the election to the House where Trump’s chance of being re-elected were all but certain because in a House vote, each state gets only 1 vote and Republicans controlled a majority of State House delegations.  In light of the fact that Trump and his allies were seeking to challenge the certification on January 6 under a process provided by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the Twelfth Amendment, it was, at first blush, puzzling why the Select Committee would be inquiring about such information.  Seemingly, there is no mechanism for transforming the legal exercise of a process called for by provisions of a statute into an “insurrection or rebellion.”  But, in the age of Trump (and, honestly, Obama), neither logic nor the rule of law provides any obstacle to Democrats in the pursuit of partisan ends.

Then, on December 20, 2021, Marc Elias tweeted this:

Marc E. Elias @marceelias

My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress. We may even see litigation.

Marc Elias’ Tweet is a far reaching interpretation of Section 3.  Among other things, it is hard to argue that January 6 was either an “insurrection” or a “rebellion.”  Of course, if we have seen anything from the Democrats in the ages of Obama and Trump, it is that Democrats are not bound by the rules of decorum or the rule of law. Language and laws are what they say they are, regardless of the language and precedent.  Accordingly, based on Elias’ tweet, it seems that Democrats will be seeking to disqualify thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of Republicans, from seeking Federal or State office in the coming years; all based on January 6.

January 6, however, comes in two flavors. Flavor one is the run of the mill person that attended the January 6 Capitol Rally. While this is problematic and repugnant, it is not the primary use of January 6 for the Democrats. Flavor two, the chief goal of January 6, will be using the supporters of Trump’s re-election exercising their rights under the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to prevent Biden from being certified on January 6 to be disqualified from running from office anytime in the future. This second exercise is far more problematic and far more far reaching—you could disqualify not only Trump in 2024, but potentially Mark Meadows, Paul Gosar, Ted Cruz or many others in 2022 and countless others in the foreseeable future.

It is as aggressive as it is far reaching. Notice how anyone, anyone, involved in the challenge to Biden’s certification on January 6 potentially could be disqualified. We are not talking merely about Trump, or his Chief Staff Mark Meadows, or Paul Gosar or Ted Cruz, both of which were prepared to sponsor objections to Electors, but anyone who gave “aid or comfort.” Thus, the person that helped to type the necessary resolution or delivered it to the Post Office, once signed, could be ensnared. At this juncture, we can only hope that it will not succeed and that people will see through the obvious political nature of the play and reject it out of hand.

Regardless, it is, however, coming. We shall see how it plays out. The consequences for the Country, and her people, could not be more dire. Unless this obvious attempt at demonizing political dissent by attempting to punish, under an obscure and potentially irrelevant Constitutional provision, the exercise by good faith citizens to challenge a Presidential Election pursuant to a Constitutionally created legal process is both rejected and punished, the rule of law and government of the people, by the people, and for the people will be forever harmed and, potentially, damaged beyond repair. Let us hope and pray not.

In Part II of this article, we will examine such things as the details of Trump’s Electoral College challenge and how the Democrats might use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to their Advantage.

If you enjoyed this article, please share it:

Also, please subscribe so you do not miss future articles and podcasts: