States Could Be Forced to Keep Donald Trump on Ballot Under This Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court could force all 50 states to put former President Donald Trump on their 2024 presidential ballots if he wins the Republican Party nomination as a result of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, according to Jeffrey Clark, a former U.S. Department of Justice assistant attorney general who is facing charges over his alleged involvement in efforts to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.

Clark made the claim during an appearance on conservative-leaning One America News Network, where he argued individual states shouldn't decide whether Trump violated Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, as has been alleged in a series of legal actions.

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court removed Trump from the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot, arguing he was disqualified from serving a second term due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that nobody who "having previously taken an oath" to defend the constitution went on to engage in "insurrection or rebellion" is able to hold "any office, civil or military, under the United States."

The plaintiffs argued that Trump's actions following the 2020 election, which saw hundreds of his supporters storm Congress on January 6, 2021, constituted an insurrection, thus barring him from the presidency. Just days later, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, came to the same conclusion, removing Trump from that state's 2024 ballot.

During his One America News Network appearance Clark said that Section 3 has to be weighted against Section 5, which states: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

He noted Trump has neither been charged nor convicted of insurrection in a criminal court, which he argued is Congress' chosen means of applying Section 5, making Section 3 inapplicable.

Clark said: "There's Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to enforce the rest of the 14th Amendment and it looks like the enforcement mechanism that they chose is a federal criminal statute for insurrection which, of course, President Trump has not been charged with let alone convicted of."

Clark also said the case could end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court as while state courts can apply federal law, "they're not the final word on it." He said: "There's only one court that can speak with finality about the meaning of that provision of the constitution and that's the U.S. Supreme Court."

Following the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, an attempt was made in Congress to impeach Trump for "inciting an insurrection," but the former president was acquitted as there wasn't the two-thirds Senate majority required for a conviction.

Trump is facing criminal trials at the federal level and in the state of Georgia over claims he broke the law while attempting to overturn the 2020 election outcome, though he has pleaded not guilty to all counts and insists the cases against him are politically motivated.

Clark has also been charged in the Georgia case with criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings and violating anti-organized crime legislation in the state, though he also denies any wrongdoing. An attempt by Clark and three of his co-defendants, Republican activists who allegedly falsely posed as presidential electors, to move the case to a federal court was rejected by a judge.

Newsweek has reached out to representatives of Trump's 2024 campaign by email for comment.

On Friday, former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, a Trump critic, said it should be "inconceivable" for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule Trump is eligible to stand in 2024, which he claimed would be in violation of "53 simple, straightforward, unmistakable words" contained within section three of the 14thAmendment.

Speaking in a YouTube video, he said: "It is inconceivable that the United States Supreme Court would rule that someone who holds the office of the presidency, who then engaged in insurrection, should be permitted to hold the office of the presidency again. That would violate those 53 clear, unmistakable words in the 14th Amendment...and it would certainly violate the spirit of the 14th Amendment, Section 3."