Forum

If you think the Progressives folded their tents and called it a day when they got a shellacking on election night, then you are an ostrich with your head in the sand. Democrats to cancel Trump?

Donald Trump has been propelled back into the national spotlight in a spectacular political turn of events after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris not only in the Electoral College but the popular vote as well. While this may be old news, the Progressives view it as a rallying cry to seize control of the White House and potentially Congress in the coming weeks!

BREAKING: Democrats Officially Try To Overturn The Results Of The 2024 Election

» WATCH/SHARE THE LIVE X STREAM HERE:https://t.co/iRbKT1dcMY pic.twitter.com/oFQYC3EUzx

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) December 27, 2024

As you read this, a growing cabal of politically seasoned Progressive combatants is demanding Congress block Trump and not be allowed to take office, citing constitutional clauses they claim disqualify him. The Progressive Neo-Confederates are claiming Trump directed and led the Capitol uprising on January 6, 2021, citing his involvement in that event. 

Some Democrat leaders have dismissed such steps as politically unworkable but are not stopping the military swamp forces from deploying this strategy! 

Here is their argument.  "No person shall... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath... 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."  This clause is the foundation for the effort to disqualify Trump.

Constitutional experts David M. Schulte and Evan A. Davis have laid forth a strategy for Democrats to prevent Trump from being certified as president in an opinion piece for The Hill, claiming his involvement in the Capitol disturbance amounts to "oath-breaking insurrection."

Attorney Davis, who attended Columbia Law School, and investment banker Schulte, who attended Yale and has strong connections to Democratic leaders, have called on Congress to serve as "guardians of the Constitution."

Davis told Newsweek, "The evidence of Trump’s involvement in the insurrection is overwhelming." "The Constitution is clear: individuals who engage in insurrection cannot hold office." Schulte continued, "Congress has the authority and duty to enforce these provisions, even if the political consequences are intense."

Davis and Schulte base their argument on the broader constitutional and legal context surrounding presidential eligibility. They cite the Electoral Count Act changes of 2022, which provide particular grounds for contesting electoral ballots, such as whether they were "regularly given." Voting for a candidate who is constitutionally ineligible, like someone who has participated in an uprising, would satisfy this requirement, the academics said. 

The Progressive combatants emphasize the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to settle disagreements over electoral votes, dismissing this ruling as unrelated to the congressional certification procedure.

Many Progressive combatants and high-ranking Democrats are concerned a failure to act could have political repercussions and that doing nothing would violate fundamental values. Expert in constitutional law, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland flatly opposed the proposal, stressing the value of upholding the electoral process. "I don't think people should object just because they don't like the outcome of the election," California Representative Ted Lieu agreed.

Warnings on how this proposed barring Trump from being sworn in has fallen on deaf ears, and the progressive combatants are running headlong and at full speed, armed with their strategy using a full-frontal attack to force their will upon Congress. However, there are significant legal and political obstacles to taking such an unprecedented step. A two-thirds majority in Congress would be needed to overturn Trump's "ability" under the 14th Amendment in order to block his certification, which is improbable given the party split.

While some Democrats are hesitant to use methods that could be perceived as violating democratic principles, many are holding onto hope that their long-shot strategy could succeed and they could win the White House through a legal constitutional process. 

Although Davis and Schulte's legal arguments have sparked a significant constitutional debate, there are numerous practical and political obstacles to their solution.

Final Word: Should a measure prevent Trump from taking the oath of office, the Democrat Party as a whole would be confronted with 80 million irate MAGAs and a furious J.D. Vance. Trump's disqualification will not affect his ticket, therefore, J.D. Vance, would enter the office of President, pissed-off being ready, willing, and able of inflicting severe damage to the Democrat Party.  YIKES!