The Democrat Coup Continues.
How Democrats continue to erode the Rule of Law when trying to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene (and others) from the ballot.
In parts 1 and 2 of this series, we explained the basics of the Democrats’ coup as it relates to January 6. Essentially, they decided to use January 6 and the media narrative that it was “coup” or “insurrection” as a mechanism to disqualify Republicans from Federal and State office in 2022, 2024, and the future. The recent hearing on whether to bar Marjorie Taylor Greene from the ballot in 2022 is another step forward in the Democrats’ coup.
Before getting to Greene’s hearing and the issue surrounding it, let us reflect on the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It provides:
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.
Passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 plainly intended to bar participants in the Civil War from serving in Federal or State government. The Amendment was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865, following the end of the Civil War in Apri of that year. At the time, many members were not pleased to see former Confederates appear in Congress to retake the very oath they previously violated by waging war against the Country.
Two important parts of Section 3 are plain from its language. First, Congress could remove the “disability” with a two-thirds vote of each House. In addition, it contained no enforcement mechanism. Both are critically important in considering the current cases, such as the one against Greene, seeking to bar Republicans from the ballot based on the events of January 6.
In fact, Congress twice exercised its authority based on the last sentence of Section 3 to remove the disability. In May of 1872, Congress passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which removed the “disability” provided by Section 3 for most of the secessionists who had rebelled during the Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States." Indeed, following the Act’s passage, President Ulysses S. Grant, by proclamation dated June 1, 1872, directed all district attorneys having charge of proceedings and prosecutions against those who had been disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to dismiss and discontinue them, except as to persons who fall within the exceptions named in the Act.
Thereafter, Congress would again exercise its authority provided by the last sentence of Section 3 to remove the “disability” of running for office provided by it. In 1898, Congress passed a statute similar to the Amnesty Act of 1872, providing that “the disability imposed by section three of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” Taken together, the 1872 and 1898 Acts’ of Congress appear to have, as they were provided the power to do in the last sentence of Section 3, removed any such “disability” provided by Section 3. This, along with the fact that Section 3 likely only ever applied to the Civil War, should put an end to the matter.
Further making the case that any exercise of Section 3 going forward is inappropriate is the point that the Amendment provides no mechanism for its enforcement and Congress has not passed one since the Section’s ratification in 1866. As to this issue, in an 1869 decision by then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase, the Chief Justice ruled that a challenge to the right of Hugh W. Sheffey to hold a Virginia state court office, given his support for the Confederacy was inappropriate. Chase ruled that Section 3 did not disqualify Sheffey because “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and disqualification from office “can only be provided for by Congress.” This, of course, was before the “disability” had been removed by the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898.
In light of the history, the use of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar certain Republicans from being placed on the ballot in 2022 would seem frivolous. However, this has not prevented Democrat aligned groups from seeking to bar Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and others from the ballot based on Section 3.
In Cawthorn’s case, the challenge by State officials was blocked by a Federal court that properly interpreted the Amnesty Act of 1872 and 1898 to have removed any such “disability” provided by Section 3. Unfortunately for Greene, a Federal court in Atlanta came to the opposite conclusion. Thus, she was forced to testify under oath before an administrative law judge on Friday, May 22, 2022 as to whether she had engaged in an insurrection and should be removed from the ballot in 2022 pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge is expected to issue a recommendation shortly. That recommendation will be considered by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as to whether Ms. Greene will appear on the ballot. We shall see if Mr. Raffensperger will act appropriately.
Setting aside the history demonstrating that the “disability” likely applied only to the Civil War and, in any event, has since been removed, the notion that a State administrative agency should possess the power to remove any person from a ballot based on the mere allegation of a “coup” or “insurrection” is beyond problematic. It should not, however, be surprising in this day and age when Democrats seem bent of tearing down the Rule of Law and replacing it with the rule of unelected bureaucrats at best and the mob at worst.
At this juncture, we can only hope that those looking in to this issue properly apply both the law and the facts and properly permit any candidate challenged based on the narrative of January 6 to be on the ballot and subject to the voters in 2022 and beyond. Failing that, the voters consider these undemocratic tactics and punish those pushing them going forward.