The 14th Amendment and its implications have been a topic of intense discussion recently, and legal expert Nick Ackerman sheds light on the matter. Section 3 of the amendment has been the focal point of the conversation, which addresses insurrection broadly. However, Section 5 provides Congress with the power to enforce the ban on insurrection. Some arguments have arisen from Trump's camp suggesting that this portion means the decision regarding his eligibility to be on the primary ballot should not be left to the states. Ackerman dismisses this argument, stating that the provision simply allows for the removal of the insurrectionist disability through a two-thirds vote from each house of Congress.
Moreover, Ackerman clarifies that the conditions set by the amendment for an individual to run for the presidency are similar to other requirements such as being 35 years old, being born in the United States, and residing in the country for at least 14 years. The only difference is the possibility for Congress to remove the insurrectionist disability through a two-thirds majority vote. He further adds that it is necessary for the United States Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter in this situation to ensure uniformity among the 50 states. Without their involvement, there may be inconsistencies and complications arising from different interpretations and technicalities within state laws.
