A controversial column in The Hill has ignited a firestorm by suggesting Congress should use the 14th Amendment to stop Donald Trump from becoming president again.

Columnists Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte have sparked widespread debate with their argument that Trump should be barred by Congress from taking office on grounds of supposedly inciting insurrection, as Fox News reports.

Davis and Schulte, authors of the contentious piece, argue that the 14th Amendment provides a mechanism to disqualify Trump due to his involvement in acts defined as insurrection.

This amendment specifically prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, enforceable by a congressional supermajority.

The column references Trump’s impeachment on Jan. 13, 2021, the extensive investigation into the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, and a specific ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court as proof of Trump's disqualification. However, this state court's decision was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared that states could not enforce such federal disqualifications.

Davis, Schulte Claim Strong Evidence Against Trump

The authors contend that the evidence of Trump’s involvement in the insurrection is undeniable, having been confirmed in three separate legal forums. They specifically mention the impeachment, the Capitol unrest, and judicial proceedings as the basis of their argument.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of the Colorado state ruling, Davis and Schulte emphasize that Congress retains the exclusive constitutional authority to manage and count Electoral College votes.

They suggest that Congress could legally refuse to count electoral votes cast for Trump under the Electoral Count Act, considering them as votes for a disqualified candidate.

Such a move by Congress, according to the column, could lead to Kamala Harris assuming the presidency if Trump's votes are rejected and not counted.

Online Outrage Over The Hill’s Editorial Decision

The response to the column was swift and severe, with many online commentators and public figures accusing Davis and Schulte of promoting an insurrection of their own by trying to overturn the results of an election.

Critics argue that the column undermines democratic processes and is a threat to democracy itself.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung denounced the column as a blatant attempt to steal the election. “Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people. Threat to Democracy,” Cheung stated.

Commentators like Robby Starbuck and Will Chamberlain echoed these sentiments, labeling the article as a conspiracy and an endorsement of insurrection against the duly elected outcome of the election.

Social Media Critics Slam The Hill

On social media platforms, the backlash was articulated through various harsh criticisms. Figures like Tim Young and the Hodgetwins accused The Hill of being in a fantasy land, attempting to subvert the will of the American populace by blocking Trump's inauguration.

Ian Miles Cheong and John Cardillo pointed out the perceived hypocrisy, noting that similar rhetoric had previously led to legal actions against those who opposed Biden in 2021.

The comparison to real insurrections was frequent among the criticisms.

Former Congressman John Delaney urged Democrats to reject such tactics, emphasizing that Trump had won through a legitimate democratic process. This perspective was widely shared by those opposing the column's recommendations.

In conclusion, while the authors of the op-ed believe their constitutional interpretation justifies the prevention of Trump’s presidency, the fierce backlash underscores the deep political and social divisions regarding the interpretation and application of constitutional law in electoral politics.