By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory, legal scholars Evan Davis and David Schulte argued that Democrats could constitutionally block his certification based on his alleged involvement in the January 6th insurrection, citing the 14th Amendment. Their argument centers on the amendment’s disqualification clause for those who have engaged in insurrection against the United States. While the Supreme Court rejected a state’s attempt to bar Trump from the ballot, Davis and Schulte contend that Congress retains the power to act on this constitutional ground during certification. Despite this proposal, leading Democrats have thus far rejected any efforts to block Trump’s inauguration.
Read the original article here
A proposed plan to legally prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency has ignited a firestorm of outrage within the MAGA movement. The very suggestion, however improbable, has sent shockwaves through their ranks, fueling a torrent of angry reactions.
The intensity of this response is noteworthy, especially given the perceived lateness of the proposal. Many commentators point out that any attempt to block Trump should have been initiated years ago, during the period following the January 6th Capitol riot. Now, with an election concluded and the public having cast their votes, the prospect of such a move seems far-fetched and politically explosive.
The sheer impossibility of preventing Trump’s inauguration based on events several years past has only further escalated the anger. The belief among many MAGA supporters is that the attempt itself represents an illegitimate overreach, an attack on the democratic process, and a blatant disregard for the expressed will of the electorate.
This perceived slight is amplified by the existing deep political divisions. It taps into long-standing grievances held by many Republicans, reinforcing existing narratives about unfair treatment, liberal bias, and perceived attempts to silence conservative voices. The idea of blocking Trump is seen as yet another affront to these simmering resentments.
Adding fuel to the fire is the perception of hypocrisy. Some critics argue that the Democrats, who have historically prioritized upholding democratic norms, are now contemplating actions perceived as undemocratic. The contrast is framed as a stark double standard, sparking accusations of political opportunism.
The underlying anger isn’t solely focused on this specific proposal, but rather reflects a broader sense of frustration within the MAGA base. It’s a collective reaction to a multitude of perceived slights and grievances, and this particular proposal acts as a lightning rod for those existing frustrations. Even the most mundane occurrences—the mere existence of minorities, successful individuals, or any challenges to the prevailing MAGA worldview—are sufficient to ignite a response.
Further contributing to the outrage is the belief that the proposed legal mechanisms lack legitimacy. The suggestion is viewed as a last-ditch effort, a desperate attempt to circumvent the democratic process and impose a will that runs counter to the outcome of the election. This, coupled with a profound distrust in established institutions, fuels the flames of anger.
The prevailing sentiment among many commentators is that the plan, however well-intentioned, is completely impractical. They believe that attempting to block a duly elected president at this late stage would cause further societal division and exacerbate existing political tensions. The potential consequences—a deeply polarized and potentially unstable country—are a significant concern.
Despite the widespread fury from the MAGA base, the practical feasibility of such a plan is widely questioned, even by those who fundamentally disagree with Trump’s presidency. Many find the proposal absurd, a politically naive and strategically disastrous approach. The near-universal conclusion is that it lacks the necessary political support, legal foundation, and timing to succeed.
Beyond the immediate reaction, the underlying issue revolves around deeper concerns about the state of American democracy. The widespread belief that the election results are legitimate, regardless of personal feelings towards Trump, highlights the commitment to the democratic process among many. The reaction, therefore, is not only about stopping Trump, but about upholding the principles of a fair and transparent electoral system.
Ultimately, while the proposed plan to block Trump from office has undoubtedly provoked a furious response from the MAGA base, the general consensus appears to be that the proposal is a flawed and unrealistic strategy. Its main impact seems to be the further entrenchment of existing divisions and the reinforcement of deeply held beliefs and biases. The long-term implications of this event remain to be seen, but the immediate impact has undeniably heightened existing political tensions.