Legal scholars are making headlines after asserting that Vice President Kamala Harris could legally reject the certification of Donald Trump’s potential reelection based on the 14th Amendment’s “oath-breaking insurrection” clause. This rarely used provision, outlined in Section 3 of the Constitution, bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the United States from holding public office.
In an op-ed published by The Hill earlier this week, legal experts argued that evidence linking Trump to the January 6 Capitol riot is “overwhelming.” They claim that Democrats, including Harris, hold the constitutional authority to block Trump’s return to the presidency by rejecting election certification, a process that hinges on the vice president’s role in confirming Electoral College results.
This argument builds on the controversy surrounding former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to overturn the 2020 election results despite pressure from Trump. Experts now contend that Harris has the legal ability to take action Pence did not.
The Constitution and the Insurrection Clause
The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 explicitly states that any person who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it is disqualified from holding office. Legal analysts argue that the clause applies directly to Trump due to his alleged role in inciting the Capitol riot.
“The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming,” one expert wrote in the op-ed. They emphasized that the matter has already been scrutinized in multiple forums, including proceedings involving active participation by Trump’s legal team.
Proponents of this legal strategy highlight that the disqualification is based on rebellion against the Constitution rather than the government itself, drawing a clear distinction to strengthen their case.
Could Kamala Harris Change the Game?
As vice president, Harris would preside over the certification of Electoral College results in January 2025, should Trump win reelection. According to these legal scholars, she could reject the certification, citing Trump’s alleged insurrection under the 14th Amendment.
If this scenario unfolds, it would mark an unprecedented move in U.S. history, likely triggering a constitutional crisis. Yet, experts argue that Democrats must prioritize protecting the Constitution from what they call a clear violation of its principles.
Social Media Reacts to Legal Experts’ Argument
The controversial suggestion has sparked heated debate on Twitter:
@Justice4All: “The Constitution is clear—an insurrectionist can’t be president. Kamala Harris must stand up for democracy!” @RedStateRally: “Democrats will do anything to stop Trump. This is unconstitutional overreach, plain and simple.” @CivicWatcher: “If Harris rejects certification, it will set a dangerous precedent. This is a slippery slope.” @BlueWave2024: “Finally, someone is using the Constitution to hold Trump accountable. January 6 can’t just be forgotten.” @LegalEagleViews: “The 14th Amendment exists for a reason. Trump disqualified himself when he incited that insurrection.” @IndependentVoter: “Both sides are spinning this. Let the courts decide Trump’s eligibility, not politicians.”
What’s Next for This Legal Argument?
The idea of invoking the 14th Amendment against Trump is likely to gain traction as the 2024 election approaches. However, any such action would face fierce opposition, with legal challenges expected to follow swiftly.
As the nation braces for another heated election cycle, the question of whether Kamala Harris could—or should—use her position to block Trump remains a flashpoint in American politics.