Is Donald Trump ineligible to be president under the 14th Amendment? No, next question. Except some Trump-deranged actors out there won’t let anyone get to the next question. In Colorado, that has led to a filing to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024. National Review’s Jim Geraghty explains why that’s nonsense. He begins with “the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Then Geraghty weighs in:

Attempting to keep Trump off the ballot in this manner is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because Trump has not yet been convicted of leading an insurrection. It is a bad idea because Trump has not yet been indicted on a charge of leading an insurrection; the indictment by Jack Smith is over fraud, conspiracy, and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The indictment in Georgia is for racketeering and conspiracy. As our Andy McCarthy lays out, this is not because prosecutors just forgot to indict Trump on this charge. It is because federal prosecutors “can’t prove Trump committed insurrection,” which, when you think about it, is a pretty darn big stumbling block.

He also notes why trying to do so is foolish politically, whether you agree with the political end or not.

Finally, attempting to block Trump from being listed as a candidate on the general-election ballot is a bad idea because if you want Trump and his philosophy defeated, then you want him defeated at the ballot box. Knocking somebody off the ballot on a technicality is no substitute for the American people saying, in large numbers through the process of voting, “No, we don’t want that option and that path ahead.”

A lot of people cannot comprehend this conclusion; there is a belief that if you oppose Trump, then you must oppose him in every way possible, and that any tool at hand should be used and that any option, no matter how legally or constitutionally dubious, must be utilized in the name of preserving the Constitution and the rule of law. (These are often the same people who contend that Trump is a threat to democracy because of his disregard for historical norms.)

Geraghty discusses some of the political calculation here, such as how “partisans on both sides are walking around with way too much faith that the weaknesses of the other guy will be enough to put their guy over the top in November 2024.” As for eligibility, though, he says:

Disqualifying a candidate from the ballot is a big deal and shouldn’t be pursued willy-nilly. Candidates should only be disqualified when their ineligibility is clear — say, not meeting the age or residency requirements.

He concludes:

I see a lot of evidence for a strong argument against reelecting the incumbent Democrat. But apparently, much of the 2024 presidential-election coverage will be focused on courtrooms and evoke the mania of the O. J. Simpson trial.

Read the whole thing here.