“Because safeguarding our Constitution is an urgent call for every American.”


Introduction and Background

In these challenging times, it feels as though we are constantly tested by the mistakes of our past and the fears lurking in our future. We have witnessed moments of profound unity, as well as unsettling actions fueled by greed, arrogance, and an unsettling disregard for foundational principles. One striking example is the debate surrounding Donald Trump’s potential disqualification from holding any future public office, especially as questions over insurrection and constitutional obligations echo across the country. There is an important constitutional basis for these debates—Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—and a growing call for officials to take definitive action that honors their oath of office.

In a recent episode of “Lights On with Jessica Denson,” we heard not only impassioned arguments but also detailed legal analysis from constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People. Together, Denson and Bonifaz explored how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could bar Trump from seeking or holding governmental office again. Amid echoes of Adaptive Resiliency, which demands that we learn from past calamities to better protect our future, this discussion reveals a deeper narrative: our Constitution has established safeguards against insurrection, and it is our collective duty to enforce them.

Yet even with constitutional clauses, Supreme Court rulings, and dedicated advocates, the path to proper enforcement is far from straightforward. The conversation is shaped by ongoing tensions between legal precedents, congressional authority, and the moral courage needed to defend our democratic institutions. If we want to ensure a just political ecosystem—one that respects the rule of law and democratic norms—we must understand not only the facts but also the broader social implications. As Jessica Denson and John Bonifaz emphasize, this is not a moment for complacency. Instead, it’s a call to all Americans to rise with Adaptive Resiliency and protect the Constitution from any form of exploitation.


The Constitutional Argument: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

When the framers of the 14th Amendment wrote Section 3, they did so in direct response to the Civil War. They aimed to prevent individuals who had broken their oath to the Constitution by engaging in insurrection from simply regaining power. Bonifaz points out that Section 3 is not an obscure or outdated relic; it remains vital in guarding our republic against those who would undermine its foundational pillars.

Under Section 3, any individual who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then participates in or aids an insurrection is disqualified from holding any federal or state office. Denson and Bonifaz argue that the January 6 Capitol attack highlights just such an instance: they believe Trump’s alleged instigation of the insurrection meets the criteria that Section 3 was designed to address. To many, the events of January 6 were a stark example of how precarious democracy can be if those entrusted to protect it choose to do the opposite.

As Bonifaz makes clear, the Constitution doesn’t wait for future clarifications. Its language is already direct enough to invoke disqualification. The tension arises because it’s unclear who, precisely, should enforce it—and how.


Supreme Court Rulings and Legal Precedents

Recent legal proceedings have only magnified the uncertainty surrounding enforcement. One critical case is the Trump v. Anderson ruling, in which the Supreme Court explored the bounds of states’ authority to enforce Section 3. While the decision concluded that Congress holds ultimate responsibility for removing someone’s disqualification, it gave limited guidance on the exact process to follow. As a result, states like Colorado have taken independent steps to keep Trump off the ballot, provoking fiery debates about whether local or federal entities have the final say.

Bonifaz references the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that found Trump disqualified under Section 3, removing him from that state’s primary ballot. Although that ruling is expected to be appealed, it underscores the idea that states can stand firmly behind the Constitution to protect their electoral processes. Still, critics argue this approach is too scattershot, possibly leading to inconsistent outcomes in different states.

For supporters of disqualification, these recent rulings prove just how fragile our guardrails for democracy can be. With the Supreme Court punting the issue back to Congress, and many state legislatures divided, the responsibility to uphold the law rests in a grey area. That is why “Lights On with Jessica Denson” demands clarity and action from all corners of government.


Congressional Authority and Responsibility

Central to the debate is the role of Congress. With Trump v. Anderson emphasizing that final enforcement of disqualification lies with Congress, the question becomes: Will our legislators actually step up and honor their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Several congressional avenues are theoretically open. For instance, Congress might pass specific legislation detailing enforcement measures for Section 3. Such laws could define the process for determining whether someone has indeed engaged in insurrection, set standard procedures for judicial review, or even outline criminal penalties for violations. This would bring a uniform approach nationwide and avoid the patchwork of state-by-state decisions.

Yet the reality of passing such legislation is anything but simple. In an age of partisan polarization, the mere mention of Donald Trump triggers strong reactions on both sides of the aisle. Supporters of Trump argue that disqualification talk is merely political weaponry, ignoring what they see as valid free speech arguments. Those advocating for disqualification counter by highlighting the catastrophic consequences of ignoring a constitutional clause meant to protect democracy from internal threats.

During “Lights On,” Bonifaz and Denson also mention Congress’s power to object to electoral votes they believe are “not regularly given.” This power could come into play on January 6, 2025, when the newly elected Congress convenes to certify electoral votes. Should Trump receive any electoral votes, Bonifaz suggests lawmakers could refuse them on constitutional grounds. But the success of such an action would depend on the collective will of our representatives, who must be ready to face the political fallout.


State Election Officials and Electors

The conversation doesn’t end at the federal level. State election officials and electors hold a critical piece of the enforcement puzzle. They possess the authority to question a candidate’s eligibility for the ballot. Indeed, some states have processes allowing private citizens or political opponents to challenge a candidate’s qualifications. If election officials conclude that Section 3 applies, they can refuse to place Trump on the ballot or invalidate his filing.

Critics of this decentralized approach fear it may produce inconsistent rulings across various courts, leading to confusion among voters and eventually culminating in a Supreme Court showdown. However, supporters believe such grassroots actions underscore the Constitution’s resilience. By empowering local officials to uphold the law, we collectively strengthen the checks and balances that keep our republic stable.


Public Engagement and Call to Action

One of the most galvanizing points Denson and Bonifaz bring up is the importance of everyday people recognizing their own power. Too often, Constitutional debates are left to so-called experts in Washington or state capitals, while local communities feel powerless. This passivity, Denson warns, only allows complacency to set in, further jeopardizing democratic principles.

Jessica Denson encourages all of us to do the following:

  1. Stay Informed: Watch the interviews, read reliable news sources, and educate yourself on the complexities of Section 3. Misinformation is rampant, and only by understanding the facts can we engage thoughtfully.
  2. Contact Your Representatives: She reminds us that every member of Congress swears to uphold the Constitution. By calling (202) 224-3121 and voicing your stance, you encourage them to do their duty on January 6—whether that’s in 2025 or any session where Trump’s eligibility could be questioned.
  3. Uphold Oaths: Remind your representative that inaction is not neutral. Failing to enforce the Constitution, particularly regarding insurrection, emboldens those who seek to undermine our democracy. According to Bonifaz, “The collapse of our democracy will be on their shoulders” if they neglect this responsibility.
  4. Amplify the Message: By sharing resources like “Lights On with Jessica Denson” on social media or among friends, you contribute to a collective surge of public awareness. As Denson notes, “Every tweet, every post, and every conversation sparks the fire of civic engagement.”

Balancing Political Complexity and Constitutional Obligation

Yes, this conversation is riddled with complexities. Even for the most seasoned legal experts, the boundaries between free speech, insurrection, and the power of Congress can be blurry. But the moral weight behind Section 3 is clear: it was created to protect the nation from those who betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. Our founders knew the volatility of fractured allegiances and took steps to prevent a second wave of betrayal.

Such measures are an emblem of Adaptive Resiliency: learning from past catastrophes to set better guardrails for the future. The Civil War taught this country the hard lesson that democracy can fracture from within if sedition is allowed to fester. Today, the events of January 6 highlight a similar threat. If we don’t enforce constitutional provisions explicitly designed to safeguard our governing system, we risk repeating history’s darkest moments.


Conclusion

As each day brings new headlines and speculation about Trump’s aspirations for 2024 and beyond, the arguments raised by Jessica Denson and John Bonifaz feel increasingly urgent. This is more than a technical matter of statutes and precedents. It is a moral reckoning for a democracy still grappling with the aftershocks of January 6.

If we allow the Constitution to be interpreted loosely when it comes to insurrection, we jeopardize the very essence of our democratic structure. Conversely, enforcing Section 3 with clarity, unity, and courage could be a defining moment, signaling that our society still has the integrity to honor its founding principles. With citizens calling Congress, local officials examining eligibility, and the Supreme Court clarifying its stance, the ultimate outcome may rest upon our collective commitment to ensure that those who threaten democracy are not granted the power to undermine it further.

In the face of cynicism and complacency, remember these words from a hypothetical observer of the Founding Fathers’ efforts:

“If future generations cannot uphold the principles we set forth, then the war we fought for freedom has little meaning. But if they do, it will echo like a bell of liberty throughout the ages.”

The matter at hand—whether Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—is not a trivial dispute. It is about the continued survival of constitutional democracy, the moral authority of our laws, and our capacity for Adaptive Resiliency in the wake of turmoil. We must decide, as engaged citizens, whether we will reaffirm these vital safeguards or allow them to fade into irrelevance.


Take the Next Step:

  • Call your representatives at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to uphold the Constitution by challenging Trump’s eligibility if and when he attempts to run for office.
  • Remind them that if they fail in their sworn duty, the history books might place the burden of democracy’s collapse on their shoulders.

For a deeper look into this pivotal constitutional debate, watch the full episode of “Lights On with Jessica Denson” featuring John Bonifaz here:
The TRUTH about Trump’s Disqualification│Lights On with Jessica Denson

Video Source: