It’s been popping up in the news every so often these days. People, worried that Donald Trump might actually get elected after having tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election, are using Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as justification to keep him off the ballot in a number of states next year.

That was one of the post-Civil War amendments that ended slavery and gave rights to the former slaves. The particular section under consideration was added to prevent leaders of the Confederacy from taking office at any level where they could presumably work to destabilize the country (again).

The text is:

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.

The main argument used by the petitioners in the various efforts to get Trump off the ballot is that what he did on January 6^th, 2021, was unquestionably the aiding and abetting of an insurrection. There are a couple of legal sticking points. First, the wording says “engaged in”, not “aiding”. Do his actions that day count as full-on engaging in an insurrection? Or did he somehow give “aid and comfort to the enemies” of the US? Secondly, the prohibition is from holding office, not running for. The petitioners argument here is that by allowing him to run even though he cannot serve, it takes away votes from the other, legitimate candidates and prevents them from obtaining a clear victory.

Some of the arguments against the petitioners are kind of silly. “It doesn’t specifically mention the presidency!” is one.

The supporters of the petition are worried that the case will drag out and wind up at the Supreme Court, where…..they are afraid the conservative majority will rule against them.

I’m wondering why the petitioners aren’t trying other angles of attack. Why not try to pass a state law that bars anyone under indictment for a felony, or convicted of a felony and who hasn’t yet completed their sentence, cannot run for any office – local, state, or national – in that state? It’s pretty obvious that someone who is in prison cannot properly serve in a government position, nor should someone who is likely to wind up in prison. Elected office cannot be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Since such laws clearly aren’t targeting a specific person or candidate, it should not be difficult at all to get them passed reasonably quickly. It’s not even a permanent ban. Be declared innocent in your trial, or complete your sentence, and you’re good to go! Rather hard to argue against them, right?

But back to the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that last sentence in Section Three:

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

That’s a clearly stated “out” for his campaign. All they have to do is get Congress to give him an official “OK to run” certificate, and all these cases and discussion becomes moot. If he really should be permitted to run, it won’t be a problem…..