The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson


Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Insurrection and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

With the second Impeachment of President Trump resulting in the acquittal on charges of inciting insurrection in the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, you may think that it is over. But is it over? The following comments by Democrat Senators should give pause to all Americans who believe it is over.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, did not rule out bringing legislation to bar former President Donald Trump from office if he is not convicted at the ongoing Senate impeachment trial. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has been on the forefront of the 14th Amendment push among Democrats, and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., late last month called it "intriguing."

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that Congress can bar people who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. from holding office. It was originally meant to prevent former Confederates from serving in the government after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment states:

Section 3.

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.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

And ‘Intrigue” is the proper word for what the Democrats are considering. We currently have laws dealing with insurrection against the United States. Would former President Trump have to be convicted of violating such laws before Congress acts, or would Congress bypass the judicial processes and take direct action. If Congress bypassed the judicial process, then the question becomes, what are the due process rights of President Trump in Congressional actions against him? We saw in the second Impeachment of President Trump the House of Representatives affording no due process in their impeachment actions, and the Senate had only cursory due process rights for President Trump. Although the Senators on both sides agreed to these cursory due process rights, it is a Constitutional principle that no actions by anyone, or any group, can supersede our Constitutional Rights. The Congress, therefore, superseded President Trump’s due process Constitutional Rights. Congress also impinged upon President Trump’s First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly, as I have written in my article, “The Second Impeachment of President Trump”.

If we continue down this road of no due process rights in the House of Representatives, and the “Star Chamber” actions of the Senate, then nobodies’ Constitutional Rights of due process will be protected by Congressional actions. Anyone could be accused by Congress of insurrection by capricious or arbitrary standards or partisan political motivations when exercising their “freedom of speech” rights and their right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Upon conviction without due process, they could then be stripped of their right to run for or hold elective office or to serve as an officer in the government. This action would become a means to disqualify a person with whom Congress disagrees with or is fearful of. It is also antithetical to our Constitutional ideals of a representative government where all voices can be heard.

Therefore, it is my opinion that only a person who has been convicted of insurrection through the normal judicial process can be subject to disqualification by Congress. By doing so, the Constitutional rights and due processes of the accused are protected, and the security of the United States is defended.

Robert G. Natelson has written a series of articles that examine the second Impeachment of President Trump. Robert G. Natelson is a former constitutional law professor, is a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, and a senior adviser to the Convention of States movement. Robert G. Natelson's meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been relied on repeatedly in the U.S. Supreme Court, both by justices and by the parties. Professor Natelson was a law professor for 25 years at three different universities. He taught Constitutional Law, Advanced Constitutional, Constitutional History, and First Amendment courses. He is now the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, Colorado. He is the author of the book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.” These articles are informative and are based on Constitutional history and principles, and the Rule of Law in America. These articles are:

You should read these articles and weep for the future of America if the Democrat Party actions become normative in our society, as I have written about in my article, “Impeachment Consequences”.