Republicans face threats from the Fourteenth Amendment beyond just former President Trump
The 14th Amendment Argument Spreads: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Rep. Scott Perry from Pennsylvania Ballot
Former President Donald Trump’s legal troubles are not unique as a new lawsuit seeks to bar Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) from appearing on Pennsylvania’s ballot.
Harrisburg-area activist and former congressional candidate Gene Stilp filed a lawsuit on Jan. 2 calling for Republican Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt to remove Perry from the ballot ahead of the April 23 10th Congressional District primary.
Perry, who is under investigation for his involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, is facing the same 14th Amendment argument that has been used against Trump. The argument is based on Section 3 of the amendment, which states that no one can hold public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies.”
Stilp’s lawsuit alleges that Perry played a significant role in pushing Trump’s election fraud claims and supported efforts to replace the attorney general with someone more loyal to Trump. Stilp argues that Perry’s actions qualify as engaging in insurrection and rebellion.
Perry’s campaign spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as ”frivolous,” but this legal threat against Perry highlights a concerning precedent. Mike Davis, a former chief counsel to Sen. Chuck Grassley, warns that Democrats may use this tactic against all Republicans in the future.
It’s worth noting that Perry has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing, unlike Trump who is facing multiple criminal charges. However, the usage of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Republicans from holding public office is gaining traction. In a similar case, a Republican county commissioner in New Mexico was removed from office for his involvement in the Jan. 6 riot.
The Supreme Court may soon weigh in on these 14th Amendment disputes, as Trump has appealed the rulings against him in Colorado and Maine. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for Trump’s political future and the fate of other Republicans facing similar challenges.
As the 2024 election approaches, the rising number of 14th Amendment challenges raises questions about the government’s power to take punitive action against individuals and the potential consequences for their political careers.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s appeal could shape the outcome of these disputes and determine whether he will secure the Republican nomination to face off against President Biden in November.
Stay tuned for updates on this developing legal battle.
What is Amendment 21 in simple terms?
Amendment Twenty-one to the Constitution was ratified on December 5, 1933. It repealed the previous Eighteenth Amendment which had established a nationwide ban on the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol. No person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in insurrection or rebellion against it, or gives aid or comfort to its enemies.
The lawsuit filed by Stilp alleges that Perry’s participation in the Capitol riot constitutes an act of insurrection and rebellion against the United States and therefore disqualifies him from holding office under the 14th Amendment.
This argument has gained traction in recent years as the events of January 6th brought attention to the potential consequences of such actions. It has been used not only against former President Donald Trump but also against other elected officials and individuals who have been involved in the events of that day.
The 14th Amendment argument is rooted in the principle that individuals who actively participate in activities aimed at overthrowing the government should not be allowed to hold public office. It serves as a safeguard to protect the integrity of the government and the democratic process.
While the lawsuit against Perry specifically focuses on his involvement in the Capitol riot, it raises broader questions about the responsibility and accountability of elected officials. It asks whether individuals who engage in behavior that undermines the very institutions they are meant to serve should be allowed to continue holding office.
The lawsuit also highlights the role of state officials, such as Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, in ensuring the integrity of elections. Schmidt is being called upon to exercise his authority and take appropriate action to remove Perry from the ballot.
This case brings attention not only to Perry’s individual situation but also to the larger issue of accountability for elected officials. It emphasizes the importance of upholding the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution and protecting the democratic process from those who seek to undermine it.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for future cases involving the 14th Amendment argument. It could establish a precedent for the disqualification of individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office.
As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be essential to closely monitor the arguments presented by both parties and the decisions made by the court. This case represents yet another chapter in the ongoing debate surrounding accountability for political leaders and the limits placed on their actions. It serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the principles and values upon which our democracy is built.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
