George Conway slams fellow analyst for 'complete nonsense' Trump disqualification argument: 'You know better'

27 December 2023

After the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump unqualified to run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the Michigan Supreme Court decided against making that same decision Wednesday, there are questions around what the US Supreme Court will ultimately decide.

During the latest episode of CNN's The Source with Kaitlin Collins, conservative attorney and The Atlantic contributor George Conway, and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig engaged in an intense back-and-forth over the validity of the Colorado high court's ruling. Honig argued that Congress should have the final say under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, while Conways says that simply is not true.

"George Conway, you were skeptical of this entire premise of Section 3 of the 14th amendment — barring someone, former President Donald Trump — from serving again, from qualifying to run for president again. You have changed your mind on that following the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court. Why?"

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Conway replied, "I approached this whole issue with trepidation because it is a big deal to throw a former president off the ballot. But I was convinced very much by the original Law Review article written by the conservative law professors. This is a stronger argument than I thought. I still felt courts were going to try to look for a way out and that somehow some genius legal lawyer or law professor would come out with a response. And when I saw the Colorado case, I didn't see one. I didn't see a federal argument against what the Colorado Supreme Court did. All the arguments that i have seen against disqualification are bogus, like the one my friend Elie just mentioned. He suggested the only way that section 3 of the 14th amendment could be enforced is through an act of Congress. That's not true. There's nothing in Section 3 that says that. There's nothing that says that in the other provisions of the 14th amendment."

He continued, "If that were true, that would mean if Congress repealed tomorrow all of the Civil Rights acts that were enacted from the time of the Civil War through the '60s to the present, that would mean under Section 1 — that Section 1 — which prohibits race discrimination, that would mean states could start re-segregating schools and there would be no way to enforce it. That's just not the law. There's nothing in the 14th amendment that says section 3 is any different than section 1 in that score. So, that goes out the door. all the other arguments, like the president is not an officer — that's silly because the Constitution refers to the presidency as an office dozens of times. So I mean, really, the arguments are pathetically weak. An unless somebody comes up with something better, the supreme court is going to have a difficult time avoiding the consequence of the plain language of the 14th amendment."

Honig then said, "I agree with original George here. There is language on this, specifically in the 14th Amendment. Everyone is talking about Section 3, which is very important. It says, 'If an officer engages in insurrection or gives comfort to enemies of the country, he's disqualified.' Great. But Section 5 is two sections ahead that says Congress shall have the power to pass legislation to enact this amendment. So, has Congress done that? No, it doesn't say Congress shall have the power or states can if they feel like it."

Conway shot back saying, "That's nonsense. That's complete nonsense," before Honig said, "It's the language of Section 5. What's your response to that? It's clear. Congress has the power."

"What you just said -- it does have the power," Conway answered. "But what it does not say is that Amendment is not self-executing. That's the point I was making with Section 1. What it means is, if Section 3 says somebody who is engaged in an insurrection is not eligible if they've already taken an oath, then that's what it means. You don't need Congress to tell you to follow the Constitution ,no more than you need Congress to tell you to follow the Section 1's prohibition in the 14th amendment that says that you can't put Black kids in a different school. It's just not that hard. I don't know what you're talking about."

"I'm not following this," Honig contended.

Conway insisted, "Elie, Elie, Elie. You know better. You have read the provision. That provision applies to Section 1 as well. Your logic would mean that courts — that states could engage in race discrimination tomorrow if all the civil rights statutes were gone. It's just nonsense. It's not a serious argument. I'm sorry, it's not a serious argument."

He emphasized, "I made a complete argument that Section 3 is parallel to Section 1. That's what we do as lawyers. We don't say that a provision, like section 5 that says that Congress has the power, that does not mean that a provision of the Constitution is not enforceable unless Congress says so. That's nonsense. If the framers of the 14th amendment had meant to say that, they could have said that. Instead they said this section 3, that somebody who engages in an oath to the Constitution to support the Constitution, then engages in insurrection — which isn't really hard requirement for somebody to meet — not engaging in insurrection — they're barred. It says that without regard. It doesn't say 'unless Congress does something in Section 5.' It doesn't say that. I'm a conservative. I was a member of the Federalist Society. This is how we read plain text. We don't make stuff up because we don't like the result."

The legal analyst told Conway, "Let me talk. You are filibustering. Let's take it as a given that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. The amendment is clear. you want to talk text in section 5 is clear, congress has the power. what you are trying to do is read into it."

Conway emphasized, "You're misreading section 5. The text says Congress has the power power, it doesn't says that Section 3 doesn't stand alone. You're just not making any sense."

Watch the video below or at this link.

George Conway slams fellow analyst for 'complete nonsense' Trump disqualification argumentyoutu.be

From Your Site Articles