Then, McConnell questioned Baude and Paulsen’s belief that all sorts of actions fit under the heading of “insurrection,” even actions that many people would consider constitutionally protected speech. The authors’ idea, apparently, is to define the offense so broadly that Trump is sure to be guilty of it. “Baude and Paulsen maintain that Section 3 ‘covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support,'” McConnell wrote. “They explicitly state that Section 3 trumps the First Amendment. The terms ‘broad range of conduct’ and ‘indirect support’ are ominous, especially since they also say that Section 3 trumps the First Amendment and does not require due process. What could go wrong?”

A lot could go wrong. And then, there is the problem of letting state secretaries of state make so momentous a decision as to remove a major political party’s presidential candidate from the ballot on their own authority. “We must not forget that we are talking about empowering partisan politicians such as state Secretaries of State to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot, depriving voters of the ability to elect candidates of their choice,” McConnell wrote. “If abused, this is profoundly anti-democratic.”

Finally, McConnell noted that Congress has passed a law against insurrection, which, like the 14th Amendment, also carries the penalty of disqualification to hold public office. The Justice Department could actually charge people with insurrection if it chose. The cases would then “proceed through the ordinary course of prosecution by the executive, trial by a court, decision by a jury, and appeal to appellate courts, with due process at every step,” McConnell wrote. “It is significant that the Department of Justice has prosecuted hundreds of persons for their involvement in the January 6 incursion at the Capitol, but has not charged anyone, including Trump, with insurrection under this or any other statute. It is not obvious that partisan officials in state governments, without specific authorization or checks and balances, should apply broad and uncertain definitions to decide who can run for office in a republic, when responsible officials with clear statutory and constitutional authority have not done so.”

McConnell’s objections are contained in a brief letter to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, but they capture in some depth the essential danger of the latest 14th Amendment craze in the anti-Trump world. In addition, no one’s analysis, so far at least, has really explored the effect such a stunt would have on our political system. But you can be sure of one thing: Someone is going to try this. Some official somewhere will cite the new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, to remove Trump from a ballot. And then, who knows what will happen?