As we are all painfully aware, Trump has announced that he will seek the office of President. Again. This of course has unleashed a flood of ink and pixels of outrage, support from minions and “analysis” from experts about how he could even serve from jail.

Most of this is the inevitable noise generated by a man who taught the country a master class in media manipulation.

But this time things are very, very different—or at least they should be. As media outlets gleefully watch their clicks and attendant ad revenues rise, they are failing to ask the most glaring question of all.

How in the hell is this guy even qualified to run? Here’s why this should be the question of the day.

As I have posted many times before, here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

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.

News media outlets in their glee of covering Trump yet again—as if he’s ever been truly absent from their coverage—seem to be forgetting the massive volume of evidence amassed against him for causing the January 6th Insurrection. And per the 14th above, this clearly disqualifies him from holding ANY office.

Their information has been referred to the DOJ for their action. But in the many days, indeed months, leading up to last night’s announcement and in today’s breathless gush of commentary, no one seems to have asked Merrick Garland what his intentions are regarding Trump and the 14th. It would seem an obvious thing, since Garland’s and indeed every member of the DOJ’s oath of office would mandate action on this front.

Some may argue that there is a “lack of precedence” and that the 14th has never been used against a president before. They answer to that is, “so what!” There has also never been a president before who blatantly tried to overthrow the government of the United States and install himself as president for life.

Unfortunately, the use of the 14th against candidates and office holders has been rare and the results spotty. Madison Cawthorn’s qualifications were challenged by a group of voters in his state. This court fight lasted a few months until he lost his primary, rendering the action moot. Marjorie Taylor Greene was also sued under this point but prevailed in court with a sympathetic judge. One notable success was the removal of Trump ally Couy Griffin from his office in Arizona.

Once again we stand at the crossroads of the purpose of the Department of Justice and its responsibility to the Constitution. Laws enacted by Congress to enforce the clauses of the 14th Amendment were what brought the DOJ into existence.

This leads to an even wider question. Why has the DOJ not yet acted to remove not only Trump from contention, but also Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Clarence Thomas, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert and a host of others.

The DOJ does not have a choice here, rather a duty. So why has the press not been asking why this duty is not being acted upon? Perhaps because the ratings and revenue generated by this treasonous cabal is just too good to ignore?

There are times when whataboutism can be useful. We should be asking news outlets and the DOJ, “What about the 14th Amendment? What are you doing about all those that fall under Section 3?”

The basic purpose of the 5th Estate—and in the modern digital age this label now belongs to all of us, not just the press—is to bring government and institutions to task by examining their actions or failures to act.

Let’s all get to it.