In a recent Supreme Court decision, the justices declined to rule on whether the 14th Amendment could disqualify individuals, including former President Donald Trump, who engaged in insurrection from holding federal or state office. The court stated that it was Congress's responsibility to enforce this provision of the Constitution.
Congressman Raskin, a member of the January 6th Select Committee, expressed disagreement with the court's decision, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 should be self-executing like other parts of the amendment. He highlighted the House's previous impeachment of Trump for inciting insurrection as evidence of Congress's stance on the matter.
Raskin acknowledged the challenges Congress faces in addressing such contentious issues, particularly given the current political divide. He noted the slim majorities in both the House and Senate and the reluctance of some GOP members to confront Trump's influence within the party.
Looking ahead to a separate case on presidential immunity from criminal charges, Raskin speculated on how the court's unanimous decision in the 14th Amendment case might influence their approach. He expressed hope that the court would uphold the principle that no president is above the law, despite potential partisan leanings among some justices.
While the court's decision did not directly impact the immunity case, Raskin suggested that a bipartisan ruling in favor of accountability for presidents could help restore public trust in the Supreme Court. He alluded to the need for the court to distance itself from political pressures and uphold the rule of law.
As the legal battles continue, the implications of these cases extend beyond individual politicians to the broader principles of constitutional governance and accountability. The role of Congress in upholding the Constitution's provisions and the judiciary's responsibility to interpret and apply the law remain central to these ongoing debates.
