An editorial from The Hill argues that Donald Trump is disqualified from being certified as President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but this stance rejects the will of the voters and rejects the finding of the Supreme Court on this matter. This editorial could be considered a call for insurrection by the Democrats own standards.
Key Facts:
– Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars individuals who engage in insurrection from holding office.
– The Hill cites Trump’s second impeachment and a Colorado court’s findings to claim he engaged in insurrection.
– The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states lack authority to disqualify federal candidates.
– Advocates suggest using the Electoral Count Act to remove votes for Trump.
– The editorial urges Congress to discard ballots for a candidate they deem unfit.
The Rest of The Story:
The Hill’s ludicrous claims center on whether Trump’s actions qualify as “engaging in insurrection” and if Congress should reject Electoral College votes for him.
Some on the lunatic left point to prior proceedings, such as the House Select Committee hearings, which concluded that Trump played a key role in events on January 6th.
Others argue that this push disregards the will of the voters and sets a dangerous precedent.
They say the Constitution’s rules should be carefully enforced but not weaponized to overturn an election result without a broad consensus.
Commentary:
This editorial from The Hill crosses a line, suggesting an approach that appears nearly unhinged.
For four years, Democrats have labeled Trump and his supporters as threats to democracy, yet The Hill now calls for actively undermining a popular vote.
Such a perspective could itself be seen as a form of insurrection, since it aims to invalidate legitimate votes and override an election’s outcome.
It is hardly fair to tag some people as insurrectionists while giving free rein to those who advocate overturning results they dislike.
The Bottom Line:
The Hill’s editorial insists on disqualifying Trump, but its approach seems insane, radical and illegal.
The writers of this article and the editors at The Hill should be treated the same way as those who showed up in Washington DC on January 6th. They should be investigated and prosecuted if cause is found.