北卡罗莱纳州的一群选民正在挑战共和党众议员麦迪逊·考霍恩(Madison Cawthorn)竞选连任的资格，认为他在1月6日的行为和对推翻选举的支持使他失去了资格，因为宪法条款禁止任何“参与叛乱”的联邦官员担任公职。
“我认为，公共记录上肯定有足够的证据表明，他参与、协助、支持和教唆了1月6日及其前后的叛乱，”前北卡罗来纳州最高法院法官罗伯特·奥尔(Robert Orr)说，他是代表挑战考索恩(Cawthorn)的选民的律师之一，考索恩是保守派煽动者和唐纳德·特朗普的铁杆支持者。
南北战争后颁布的取消资格条款第十四修正案禁止任何曾宣誓保护宪法的人担任联邦职务，包括一名国会议员，他曾“参与叛乱”反对美国或“援助或安慰”其“敌人”。
奥尔说:“这个特定的取消资格者的语言不以任何方式仅限于那些在邦联服役的人，而是任何参与或支持反对国家的起义或叛乱的人，以及任何宣誓就职的人。”
挑战者引用的所谓证据包括Cawthorn如何投票否决了选举结果在不同的战场州，在对国会大厦进行攻击的特朗普集会上发表讲话，发推文说，他“正在众议院为我们的宪法而战”，“这场战斗是在众议院，而不是在华盛顿的街道上”，等等。
哈佛大学(Harvard University)荣誉退休的宪法学教授劳伦斯·特伯雷(Laurence Tribe)认为，即使确定考索恩没有“参与”叛乱，如果公众关注“为叛乱提供援助和安慰的言论——第14修正案中的言论——证据似乎就足够了。”
我和其他爱国者在众议院为我们的宪法而战。这场战斗是在众议院，而不是在华盛顿的街道上。
—麦迪逊·卡索恩(@CawthornforNC)2021年1月6日
Cawthorn最近向联邦法院申请禁令，以避免他在1月6日在北卡罗来纳州选举委员会任命的五人小组面前就自己的行为作证。
Cawthorn投诉522 Cv 00050 m经过ABC新闻政治在Scribd上
他告诉ABC新闻，他非常“认真”地努力让他被取消资格，并表示这可能会“在未来产生重大影响”
在他的法律文件中，Cawthorn说，“竞选政治职务是第一修正案活动的精髓，并提供了很大的保护，”北卡罗来纳州的挑战法令是违宪的，取消资格的规定仅在内战后不久适用，国会拥有决定他任职资格的最终权力。
他在一篇文章中说声明该法令“被自由民主党人用作武器，试图通过让州官僚而不是人民选择谁将在国会代表北卡罗来纳州来击败我们的民主。我不仅捍卫我的权利，也捍卫人民民主选举他们代表的权利。”
在一份回应文件中，北卡罗来纳州选举委员会认为，应该允许它调查这些挑战，以保护州选举的完整性。
据信参与或鼓励1月6日事件的其他当选官员可能面临类似的挑战。
“第14修正案第三部分的规定范围非常广泛，它肯定会涵盖任何人，”他说。奥尔说，如果前总统唐纳德·特朗普试图再次竞选公职，“并希望在北卡罗来纳州投票，他可能会面临完全相同的挑战”。
“根据第六条的最高条款，每个州都有义务执行联邦法律，联邦法律的一部分是宪法，宪法的一部分是第14修正案的第三部分，这与某人竞选公职的资格有关，”部落说。
罗恩·费恩是一名律师，也代表希望取消考霍恩资格的选民，他也是自称支持民主的组织“人民自由言论”的法律总监，他说他的组织计划对其他当选官员提出类似的挑战。
“我们自由言论人民组织正在关注其他国会候选人、州候选人，当然，如果唐纳德·特朗普决定竞选公职，也是如此，因为第14修正案的叛乱者取消资格条款的范围可能会包括相当多的人。”
Fein说Cawthorn“不会是最后一个”,但没有透露更多细节。
当被问及他所代表的党派时，费恩说这是无党派的努力，选民们没有被要求透露这一点。
这种质疑的程序框架因国家而异。例如，在北卡罗来纳州，向州选举委员会提出质疑，而在其他州，向州秘书或直接向法院提出质疑。
但费恩说，一个不变的是，“第14修正案和叛乱取消资格条款适用于任何地方。”
Should certain politicians be subject to disqualification under the Constitution's ban on 'insurrectionists'?
A group of voters in North Carolina is challenging Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn's eligibility to run for reelection, arguing his actions on Jan. 6 and support for overturning the election disqualifies him under a constitutional clause barring any federal official who has "engaged in insurrection" from holding office.
"I think there's certainly enough evidence on the public record as it now stands for a finding that he engaged in, assisted, aided and abetted the insurrection on and surrounding Jan. 6," said Robert Orr, a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice and one of the lawyers representing the voters challenging Cawthorn, a conservative firebrand and diehard Donald Trump supporter.
Enacted after the Civil War, theDisqualification Clausein the 14th Amendment bars any person from holding federal office who has previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution -- including a member of Congress -- who has "engaged in insurrection" against the United States or "given aid or comfort" to its "enemies."
"The language of this particular disqualifier isn't limited in any way to just those who served in the Confederacy, but to anybody who going forward has participated in or supported an insurrection or rebellion against the country, and who had taken an oath of office," Orr said.
The alleged evidence cited by the challengers includes how Cawthorn voted to reject theelectoral resultsin different battleground states, speaking at the Trump rally that proceeded the attack on the Capitol, tweeting out that he was "fighting a battle for our Constitution on the House floor" and that "the battle is on the House floor, not in the streets of D.C," and more.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, contends that, even if it's determined Cawthorn didn't "engage" in an insurrection, if the public focuses "on the words giving aid and comfort to an insurrection -- words in the 14th Amendment -- the evidence seems more than sufficient."
I’m fighting a battle for our Constitution on the house floor with other patriots. The battle is on the house floor, not in the streets of D.C.
— Madison Cawthorn (@CawthornforNC)January 6, 2021
Cawthorn recently asked a federal court for an injunction -- to keep him from having to testify about his actions on Jan. 6 in front of a five-person panel appointed by the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
He told ABC News he takes the effort to have him disqualified very "seriously" and said it can have "major implications down the road."
In his legal filing, Cawthorn said "running for political office is quintessential First Amendment activity and afforded great protection," that the North Carolina challenge statute is unconstitutional, that the disqualification provision citied applied only soon after the Civil War and that Congress has the ultimate power to decide his eligibility for office.
He has said in astatementthe statute is "being used as a weapon by liberal Democrats to attempt to defeat our democracy by having state bureaucrats, rather than the People, choose who will represent North Carolina in Congress. I'm defending not only my rights, but the right of the People to democratically elect their representatives."
In a response filing, the North Carolina State Board of Elections argued it should be allowed to look into the challenges to protect the integrity of state elections.
Other elected officials believed to have been involved in or who encouraged the events that played out on Jan. 6 could face similar challenges.
"The provisions of Section Three in the 14th Amendment are very expansive in scope, and it would certainly encompass anybody," he said. If former President Donald Trump tried to run for office again "and wanted to be on the ballot in North Carolina, he would arguably face that exact same challenge," Orr said.
"Under the Supremacy Clause of Article Six, every state has the obligation to enforce federal law and part of federal law is the Constitution, and part of the Constitution is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which is relevant to someone's eligibility to run for office as anything else," Tribe said.
Ron Fein, a lawyer also representing the voters hoping to get Cawthorn disqualified -- and Legal Director of Free Speech For the People, a self-described pro-democracy organization -- says his group plans to bring similar challenges against other elected officials.
"We at Free Speech For People are looking at other congressional candidates, state candidates and, of course, Donald Trump if he decides to run for office, again, because the reach of the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist Disqualification Clause could potentially include quite a few of them."
Fein said Cawthorn "won't be the last" but did not get more specific.
Asked about the party affiliation of those he's representing, Fein said it was a nonpartisan effort and the voters hadn't been asked to reveal that.
The procedural framework for such challenges differs by state. In North Carolina, for example, a challenge is filed with the state board of elections, while in other states, it is filed with a state secretary or directly in court.
But Fein said one constant is that "the 14th Amendment and the insurrectionist Disqualification Clause apply everywhere."
