As Dispute Over Disqualifying Cawthorn Heads to Court, He Remains Defiant

Targeted over January 6 ties, he denounces Biden as ‘geriatric despot’ on House floor.

Representative Madison Cawthorn. House Television via AP.

Whether Representative Madison Cawthorn will be able to run again for Congress this fall will come down to how judges interpret two conflicting 19th century measures, both born in the shadow of the Civil War but newly relevant in the aftermath of January 6, 2021.

Despite the efforts to disqualify him from the ballot, Mr. Cawthorn remained undaunted on the floor of the House on Thursday, delivering a fiery speech against the president whose election he has previously called “stolen” and “rigged.”

In this most recent broadside, Mr. Cawthorn labelled President Biden an “inept, geriatric despot” and said the only salute the Commander in Chief deserves was one delivered with “one finger” for sending 3,000 soldiers to support Ukraine, a policy he labeled “the whims of an idiot.”

The comments came as an effort is underway to bar Mr. Cawthorn and others from running. That campaign relies on the text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of 1868. This provision, which was last used in 1919, is known as the Disqualification Clause and is a product of Reconstruction.

It provides for the exclusion from politics of officials who “engage” in an “insurrection” against America, a hot button issue just three years after the fall of the Confederacy. The 14th Amendment does, though, allow a two-thirds vote of Congress to lift those restrictions.

Mr. Cawthorn’s defenders are pointing to the 1872 Amnesty Act, which was passed with the two-thirds supermajority, to soften the measures embedded in the 14th Amendment. The Amnesty Act, they say, was meant to walk back most of the disqualifications imposed by Section 3.

The measure, they note, was passed as post-war reconciliation took center stage. It removes “all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth amendment” from “all persons whomsoever.” It has some exceptions, though, including those who spearheaded secession while in Congress.

In June 1872, on the heels of the Amnesty Act, President Grant issued a proclamation ordering federal prosecutors to drop disqualification cases nationwide, excepting those not covered by the Amnesty Act. He also pardoned the majority of Confederate troops.

The Amnesty Act is one of the arguments Mr. Cawthorn is mobilizing to keep his name on the ballot. In his complaint to block the challenge to his candidacy, he argues that the Amnesty Act not just extended clemency to Confederate soldiers, but potentially to himself as well.

Mr. Cawthorn’s attorney, James Bopp Jr., tells the Sun that because the Act offered amnesty to all but a select few, it should be read expansively — it applies not just to the past, but to the future as well, as a permanent condition of clemency.

Others dispute that reading. Indiana law professor Gerard Magliocca labels this reading an “exotic argument” and “creative but wrong.” The Congressional Research Service agrees, noting that the “Amnesty Act appears to be retrospective.”

The legal director for Free Speech for People, which is leading the challenge to Mr. Cawthorn’s candidacy, insists the Disqualification Clause remains alive. He tells the Sun that Free Speech will “intervene” in the case to keep Mr. Cawthorn off the ballot. He said a court filing will be made next week.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use