Invoking the 14th Amendment is “Democracy” at Work
Why it is wrong to say that a challenge to Trump being on the 2024 ballot is "anti-democratic"
A popular retort to the notion of invoking the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot for the 2024 presidential election is that this move would be “anti-democratic” and that the electorate should be allowed to decide for themselves if someone is qualified through their vote during the general election.
This is certainly a reasonable position, at least in part, and worthy of consideration in the debate of whether or not to take action based on the 14th Amendment’s exclusion of office holders that engage in insurrection. But there is an equally strong retort to this retort: that the 14th Amendment is by no means “anti-democratic”, but actually a great example of our unique democratic system at work.
By “democratic system”, I mean our functioning republic at work. As we have heard a lot over the last several years, we are not a “democracy” as much as a “republic”. This argument was usually used in favor of preserving our unique, but often convoluted, traditions such as the Electoral College or the filibuster, which results in policy (or many times, the lack thereof) not always determined directly by a majority vote. I personally have no problem thinking of our system as both a republic and a democracy, as both concepts are present throughout our system of governance.
Anyone arguing for perceiving our country more as a “republic” than a “democracy” should be at ease with the concept of current officeholders dusting off the Constitution for guidance on how to handle problems prevalent in our current time. Insomuch as a “republic” basically means that we elect people to make immediate decisions and set policies that respond to events as they arise in real time – as opposed to using a majority rule vote to decide on every dispute or dilemma that comes up – then this is exactly what would happen with an action based on the 14th Amendment. Any ballot decisions would have to go to individuals in charge of overseeing the election process in their states (often a state’s Secretary of State), which would include ballot qualification review. These people are either elected directly by the voters in their jurisdictions, or appointed by someone that was directly elected.
People elect leaders to make decisions in the moment on the issues that spontaneously emerge. If the electorate doesn’t like those decisions, they can vote those leaders out, and the next leaders can make decisions how they see fit and so on and so on. The officeholders also have the power to exercise discretion and not make a decision or put off a decision until after an election, which is in itself a decision to be considered by the electorate at the next election.
Regarding “democracy”, the 14th Amendment is, by definition, an amendment to the Constitution, and there’s nothing quite so democratic as passing a Constitutional Amendment. It’s a very arduous process and there must be some kind of nationwide consensus for it to be feasible. It is required that two-thirds of the House and Senate approve and three-fourths of the states affirm ratification of an amendment.
This means the people have spoken on the issues covered by the 14th Amendment, and the fact that they spoke 155 years ago shouldn’t diminish its value for potential application today. Another way to look at it is if there ever weren’t a consensus on the 14th Amendment, the country had 155 years to repeal it or amend it further. There does not seem to have ever been serious preliminary discussions about this, so it’s safe to assume there’s still a consensus that remains.
Therefore, it is in perfect compliance with our system of government, as a combination of “democracy” and “republic”, for the 14th Amendment to be considered and potentially invoked. The fact that it has had an infinitesimal amount of consideration for 155 years doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply if strong arguments for the application become apparent.
Many of the issues saturating the Trump era are things that no one in America has had to deal with for many decades, even centuries. They tend to be novel things for the modern era, and need to be dealt with by the current crop of elected or appointed officers as they see fit. Arbitrarily deciding that this, or any, problem should be punted and resolved by the electorate is not a necessity, but it is one option of many that the current officeholders and decision-makers can and should consider.
Calling the invocation of the 14th Amendment “anti-democratic” is simply not true. It was born of democracy and fully in line with our system of government.