9-07-2023 11:20am

14th Amendment Showdown: Couy Griffin, Donald Trump & Democracy

Chris Edwards Editor

Couy Griffin with President Trump during happier days, neither knowing they'd both be embroiled in 14th Amendment Courtroom Drama to keep them from office.

Otero County, New Mexico’s Couy Griffin, Donald Trump and other prominent politicians saviors or pariah with regards to 14th Amendment?

When Couy Griffin met president Donald Trump and was photographed with him at the White House; neither knew their paths would lead both of them to a showdown in the courts over the 14th Amendment.

The effort to keep former president Trump off the ballot in certain states is triggered by an interpretation of a clause in the 14th Amendment. Momentum to that interpretation is directly linked to Otero County New Mexico and former Commissioner Couy Griffin and the precedent setting case against him that removed him from holding public office. The ruling was affirmed by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

However, unlike every other elected office in government, the president, is not elected by direct vote, thus a wrinkle to the effort to block his road to the presidency.

Couy Griffin speaks to AlamogordoTownNews.com on KALHRadio.org with Anthony Lucero about his lawsuit pending to the Supreme Court concerning the 14th amendment via link below…

https://youtu.be/fM4dgF631Nw?si=z7FOK0ZBN077B3Zm

14th Amendment Background of Application:

In September 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 “an insurrection.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” as an “officer of any State” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States.”

This is a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Protecting American democracy means ensuring those who violate their oaths to the Constitution are held responsible,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “This decision makes clear that any current or former public officials who took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and then participated in the January 6th insurrection can and will be removed and barred from government service for their actions.”

Under New Mexico law, any private citizen of the state may file a lawsuit to remove a disqualified county official from office. A group of New Mexico residents were represented in the case by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the New Mexico-based law firms of Freedman Boyd Hollander and Goldberg P.A, Dodd Law Office, LLC, and the Law Office of Amber Fayerberg, LLC, as well as by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

“The Court’s findings that Mr. Griffin engaged in repeated efforts to mobilize a mob and incite them to violence on January 6, 2021 amply support the Court’s conclusion that he is unqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment to hold public office,” said Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

An eyewitness to Griffin’s behavior testified that Griffin also took on a leadership position within the mob at the Capitol on January 6th. Videos of Griffin’s speeches en route to Washington, DC for the “Stop the Steal“ rally showed Griffin’s willingness to stop, by any means necessary, a Biden presidency.

In the days after the attack, Griffin continued to defend the insurrection, boasted about his involvement, and suggested a possible repeat of it in the future. Following a federal indictment for his behavior, he was convicted of breaching and occupying restricted Capitol grounds.

Application to Donald Trump and the presidency:

Constitutional experts say it doesn't matter, legally, whether Trump has been convicted of the crime of mounting the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The ban on serving as president is rooted in requirements for the job – no different than, for example, being at least 35 years old and being a natural-born American citizen.

"Disqualification triggers automatically. You don't need a conviction or act of Congress," says Northwestern University law professor Steven Calibrisi, co-chairman of the Federalist Society's board of directors and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The problem with the Trump case, says Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell, a former federal circuit court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, is that it's not clear who should be disqualified and what the mechanism for doing so should be.

Voters elect electors to vote for the president:

More legal complications arise if some secretaries of state keep him off the ballot. Republicans could nominate Trump at their national convention.

Americans don't technically vote for president. They vote for electors who then cast their slates for president. So then it's a harder task to deny electors a role because they, in turn, could cast their ballots for someone who engaged in an insurrection.

And what if those Trump electors come to Washington for the formal certification of the 2024 presidential election, insisting their ballots be counted even though Trump was kept off the ballot in their states – and the certifying official is Vice President Kamala Harris?

"It will be an exact replay – with switched sides," Michael McConnell former Federal Judge said to US News and World Report – a replay, to be sure, the backers of a 14th Amendment challenge to Trump aren't eager to see.

Trump case murky but what about local election candidates?

So, the case of keeping Trump off the ballot might not make a difference in political gamesmanship, since the president is not elected via direct vote of the people, unlike every other office of government.

However, could the precedent of the case of removal against Couy Griffin be used to keep local and or state candidates off the ballot? The case of the president being elected by electors makes the question murky at best.

But, what if, local politicians, also participated in the events of January 6th, which was classified in a New Mexico court as “an insurrection”?

Then, could they be removed from the ballot or removed from office, if elected?

Do local representatives to the New Mexico round house face a risk of the same fate as Couy Griffin if they engaged in the capital rally of Jan 6th?

District 51 New Mexico State Representative, John Block, was by his own admission a participant at the Capital events on January 6th?

Did his domestic partner, Karl Melton Alamogordo City Commissioner District 3 participate in the events of January 6th, at the Capital with Block, Griffin and others?

What other local politicians were there on January 6th?

Could CREW or concerned citizens of New Mexico issue legal challenges against lower level government officials; such as a state representative, or a city commissioner in Otero County, based on the Couy Griffin precedent?

Interesting questions for interesting and uncertain times for politicians living in the aftermath of the events and the interpretation of those events of January 6th.

Political analysts and scholars will be debating and adjudicating the issue for many months and years.

The case of the removal of Couy Griffin as commissioner may have profound and far reaching consequences that may trickle to every level of government in the United States.

Does the Couy Griffin case and the challenges against Donald Trump, the eventual Supreme Court challenges make Griffin an important cog in history?

Will Griffin be viewed as a savior or pariah with regards to 14th Amendment?

Time, more court filings will determine Couy Griffins place in the annuls of future written political history. Political Science classes will be studying the case against Couy Griffin, its implications on our democracy for decades.

Stay tuned as his appeal makes its way through the US Supreme Court for consideration.