Rule of Law

OP-ED: Can Mitt Romney do more to protect us from Donald Trump?

Utah senator could lead a move to invoke the 14th Amendment to ban Trump from holding office again.

A lot has happened since the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, including the acquittal of former President Trump on charges of impeachment. While some may be eager to “move on” from the events of that terrible day, much of the nation will be unable to forget.

In an attack that left police officers dead, while threatening the lives of Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress, the violent mob that day shattered not only life and property, but also America’s sacred, centuries-long tradition of holding a peaceful transfer of power between presidential administrations.

Rioters who smashed into the U.S. Capitol — including some from Utah — did so for one key reason and at the behest of one person.

Their violent insurrection was incited by former President Donald Trump in an effort to stop the counting of electoral votes, overturn the choice of the American people in the 2020 presidential election, and keep Trump in the White House.

As House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney put it, “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

Sadly, however, 43 Republican Senators countenanced this betrayal when, in the face of overwhelming evidence presented at his second impeachment trial, they voted to acquit Trump.

Convicting Trump, as Sen. Mitt Romney rightly voted to do, would have allowed the Senate to disqualify Trump from ever again holding federal office. That would have protected the nation from Trump attaining the White House in the future, where he would be able to continue undermining American democracy.

Does the Senate’s failure to convict, however, spell the end of constitutional accountability for the former president? Thankfully for our nation, it does not.

Members of Congress such as Romney have an additional method of accountability handed down to us by the framers of the 14th Amendment, which was drafted and enshrined in our Constitution in the wake of the Civil War.

One of its provisions, Section Three, includes the prohibition against allowing anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State” if he or she has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The uniquely disqualifying nature of Trump’s acts leading up to and on Jan. 6 is that they implicate not just one, but two, provisions of the Constitution.

Not only were his actions high crimes and misdemeanors — conduct susceptible to impeachment, removal and disqualification under the Constitution’s impeachment clauses — but they also subject him to being disqualified under Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

For members of Congress such as Romney, who objectively evaluated the evidence and judged, correctly, that Trump was guilty, invoking Section Three should be an easy choice.

Importantly, however, Section Three should also be attractive to senators — most prominently Minority Leader Mitch McConnell among them — who found that Trump bore responsibility for the insurrection, even as they refused to convict him on the article of impeachment.

Senators, led by Romney, could recognize the serious threat presented by Trump and initiate proceedings to pass legislation that indicates the view of Congress that Section Three applies to Trump, while also establishing a formal enforcement mechanism for federal courts to evaluate the issue.

Alternatively, Romney could initiate a resolution, a kind of congressional action that lacks the force of law, but which could present facts and the sense of Congress that Section Three applies to Trump. Such action could still provide a foundation for legal challenges from others who might question Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot ever again.

The bottom line is simple. While great issues of the economy and the pandemic continue to loom incredibly large for millions of Americans in our daily lives, the question of accountability for a former president who incited an insurrection against our democracy remains. Leaders such as Romney need not treat these tasks as mutually exclusive.

To protect our nation in the years ahead, we must not only overcome the pandemic and rebuild our economy. We must also have constitutional accountability. The framers of the 14th Amendment worried about the destabilizing effect of permitting reelection of leaders who engaged in rebellion or insurrection against our nation. So should we.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
June 8, 2021

After Long Legal Battles, Congress Debates How to Fix ‘Broken Down’ Process for Subpoenas

The National Law Journal
After a nearly two-year legal battle to get congressional testimony from a former White House...
By: Praveen Fernandes, By Jacqueline Thomsen
Rule of Law
June 11, 2021

VIDEO: Originalism: It isn’t just for Conservatives

Originalism isn't just for conservatives anymore. (It never really was!) Watch CAC’s new video to...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
May 25, 2021

Launching Originalism Watch and Exploring Progressive Originalism

When it’s done correctly, originalism points more often than not to progressive—not conservative—outcomes. CAC President Elizabeth Wydra, CAC...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Mark Joseph Stern
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Tiger Lily, LLC v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Tiger Lily, LLC v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering whether a federal law permits the CDC to impose a federal eviction...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the federal eviction moratorium, implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19, falls within Article...
Rule of Law
April 27, 2020

OP-ED: Executive Branch Inconsistency on Congressional Standing

Take Care Blog
On Tuesday, April 28, the en banc D.C. Circuit will hear telephonic oral argument in...
By: Ashwin Phatak