On SCOTUS ruling that Colorado, a state, doesn't have the authority to take trump off its ballot.

[brush]

I don't like it but that is correct. The 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 is self-executing. It says insurrectionists are not eligible for any government office.
Period. Plain and simple. There should be no question about it. It reads as follows:

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 ...
Why have a Constitution if we don't follow it?

And when you think about it, IMO, SCOTUS is of course wrong again, it's not up to Congress either, or SCOTUS. Again, the 14A, Sec 3 is self-executing.

It should be enforceed, insurrectionists are not eligible in all states as the amendment reads.

SCOTUS is right in one respect, we can't have a president who is not recognized as president in some states and not others.

[Permanut]

1. Boy I'll bet the states' rights people will be all over this.

[gab13by13]

2. Absolutely, the Supreme Court punted.

The SC reverse engineered its decision.

[triron]

6. They ran off the field and hid

The Supreme shitholes.

[patphil]

3. But the state has the authority to make it hard, even impossible, for people to vote.

And/or for their vote to be counted.

States rights when it's convenient, and Federal Law when it isn't.
It's the Republican way.

[samsingh]

4. the crooks, i mean republicans on the court

give States rights when it suits their right wing agenda, and take other rights away for the same reasons.

[triron]

5. Thank you. Refreshing to hear someone else say this.

Funny how they contradict constitutional and historical scholars so blatantly.

[Silent Type]

7. 9-0 is hard to argue with.

[triron]

8. 6 assholes and 3 chickenshits.

[brush]

10. Yep, I hope the 3 aren't allowing themselves to be bullied.

I expected at least strong explanation to explain their position on the amendment and that they are only concurring because we can't have an insurrectionist on some states; ballots and not otheres.

Kinda disappointed in them.

[brush]

9. What's even harder to argue with is the amendment.

You read it in my post, right?

It says what is says.

SCOTUS imo is just as wrong on this as the were on Dobbs. Par for the course for them.

Again, 14A, Sec. 3 is self-executing an insurrectionist trump should not be on the ballot of any state. That's what the Constitution says.

[Silent Type]

12. I thought Tribe and Luttig were way off the mark when they started this. Luttig is difficult to listen to, as well.

[brush]

34. 'see post 32.

[Silent Type]

36. OK. So you would have made it 9 to 1.

[brush]

37. You're misunderstanding. SCOTUS was right in ruling a state,

in that case Colorado, does not have the authority to take a presidential candidate off the ballot while other states don't, as then if that candidate wins, he/she won't preside over Colorado as president. We can't have that.

What SCOTUS got wrong, and Judge Luttig, Neal Kytal and Lawrence Tribe agree, is that the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 is self-executing. No insurrectionists are eligible in nay state.

So now we have an insurrectionist on the ballot, and any of the traitors that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 are now eligible to run for Congress, Senator, or state rep, or even be an army officer.

The amendment was written to make sire confederates and future traittors could not worm their way back in and work to overthrow from within, which sure sounds like

nds like trump and his Plan 2025 is out to do...get rid of our democracy and install autocracy.

We get the kind of government we deserve. Understand?

[SWBTATTReg]

26. If it's self-executing, then citizens of all stripes should be able to challenge tRUMP's eligibility on any state

ballot or any federal ballot. That is, to force an self-executing action in an Amendment to be enforced/enacted.

[Polybius]

39. What makes an insurrectionist an insurrectionist?

Who gets to decide? Someone has to.

[SYFROYH]

11. Do you think Section 5 came into play.

Amendment 14, Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[brush]

15. Good question.

Section Five “enables Congress, in case the State shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment.

The State, meaning the United States, hasn't enacted laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment — namely that insjrrectionists should now be allowed on ballots, so I say no.

IMO the amendment should be enforced as written.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. The right is for states' rights except when they're not

[Polybius]

40. Wouldn't the opposite be true too with some?

I think "states rights" really have to be looked at in a case-by-case situation.

[mathematic]

14. How do you respond to the liberal justices' argument that the amendment limits state's power, not expands it?

The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a
few States could decide the Nation’s next President would
be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Re-
construction Amendments “were specifically designed as an
expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sover-
eignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179
(1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution
placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose
its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for
Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may
hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongru-
ous to read this particular Amendment as granting the
States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candi-
date for federal office”).

The Justices seem to be saying your position is ridiculous.

[brush]

18. IMO SCOTUS got one thing right, that a state, any state, doesn't have the authority to not allow a candidate...

on their presidential ballot, and would therefore not recognized that candidate if he/she should win the election as presiding over their state as president.

Absolutely correct. We can't have some states recognizing one person as president and others not. What SCOTUS got wrong IMO was not abiding by what self-executing 14A, Sec. 3 says...insurrectionists are not eligible to hold any office of any state or of the military.

Is trump an insurrectionist? I prefer to believe my non-lying eyes as I saw what he did and didn't do on Jan. 6, 2021. He didn't live up to his oath to defend and protect the Constitution, which of course includes 14A Sec. 3

He shirked his duties, did nothing.

[Think. Again.]

29. If the position is...

"The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a
few States could decide the Nation’s next President would
be especially surprising with respect to Section 3."

...then the Electoral College is unconstitutional.

[ripcord]

16. So who decides if Trump was guilty of insurrection

Should it be left up to the states with no oversight from the feds and no conviction?

In that case red states could accuse Biden of insurrection for allowing the "invasion" at the border. No conviction is needed and the feds don't get a say so he is off several state ballots.

[brush]

17. Ahhhhh...do you not believe your lying eyes? We all watched it on TV.

[ripcord]

19. So in all court cases if we have video we don't need a trial?

Without a conviction the SCOTUS is correct.

[brush]

20. IMO the 14A Sec. 3 is correct. Insurrectionist are not eligible.

He didn't live up to his oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and that includes the 14A. He shirked his duties.

He sat on hs ass and watched the attempted overthrow of the government for more than 3 hours without lifting a finger to call in the Nat'l Guard or the myriad of other LEO agencies under his command.

[Jedi Guy]

21. True as that is, he hasn't been tried and convicted for that or any other actions related to January 6.

Unless and until he's charged, tried, and convicted with committing insurrection, the 14th Amendment isn't applicable to him. Just as a person who kills another person isn't legally a murderer until they've been convicted in a court of law, Trump isn't legally an insurrectionist until he's been convicted.

Your take on this is that someone, anyone, can point at a person and say, "They're an insurrectionist!" and thereby bar them from office on those grounds, no conviction required. That's not how it works.

[brush]

23. I agree with Judge Luttig and others that it's self-executing.

No insurrectionists should be allowed to serve in any states or the military.

Period. It's what the amendment says. Even Sec. 5 of the amendment says that if the State hasn't enacted a law by Congress that now allows insurrectionists to serve, and Congress hasn't, then it's self-executing.

I'd love to see what rep would rise on the floor of the House and propose a bill allowing insurrectionists to be allowed to serve

Maybe MTG would, and a few other trump sycophants too.

[Jedi Guy]

25. Okay. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, even if it isn't true. N/T

[brush]

33. See post 32.

[totodeinhere]

27. Under our system of justice you have to have a trial.

And there must be a conviction. Trump, as evil as he is, is entitled to the same rights as any other defendant.

[brush]

32. Not according to the wording of Sec.3 of the 14A.

Just a small matter put in the Constitution after the Civil War so insurrectionists would not get back into power and work from within.

Just a small matter. Even Sec. 5 of the same amendment says that if the State, meaning the United States, has not enacted a law saying insurrectionists can now serve, and that would be Congres...well such a law has not been enacted.

Now some are saying it's it's up to them. Well no such law has been enacted so IMO 14A, Sec. 3 is self-executing as it is writ.

[totodeinhere]

35. Yes I have heard the interpretation that you are mentioning.

But my question then is who would decide whether or not he is an insurrectionist? If not the courts would it be Congress? And if it is Congress do you think that the Republicans in Congress would allow it? And what would stop the Republicans from claiming that it is Biden who is the insurrectionist and therefore he should be disqualified?

[LiberalFighter]

22. Does this mean states can't disqualified candidates running for state or any lower office?

Can't split it like that.

[brush]

24. 14A Sec. 3 says yes, no office in any state...and no military officers either.

It was passed just after the Civil War so they were very wary of confederates trying to get back in and work from withing.



We have had an inssurection against the government since.

IMO trump is an insurrectionist, Putin-loving traitor.

[totodeinhere]

28. In its ruling the Supreme Court did say that states do

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2024, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

have the authority to disqualify candidates for state offices but they cannot do it for federal offices. Only Congress can do that. And with the repukes controlling the House don't hold your breath on that one.

[pinkstarburst]

30. Which is a reasonable ruling

No matter how we feel about 45 or Jan 6th, allowing something like this would open up every swing state with a republican governor to removing Biden from their ballots in the general. And believe me, they would find some sort of ridiculous nonsense excuse to do it on.

[totodeinhere]

31. Agreed.. n/t

[Blues Heron]

47. not really a good argument for letting an actual traitor back into office. Basically a strawman argument.

We have to take this case by case, not make up some what-if out of whole cloth.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. And yet, states routinely disallow people from appearing on the ballot

States don't allow people on the ballot for federal offices if they fail to meet the qualifications, e.g., you can't be a Representative if you're under 25; you can't be a Senator if you're under 30; you can't be President if you're not a natural born citizen.

The Subversive Corrupt Court of the United States got it wrong.

[ripcord]

41. That isn't the states keeping someone off the ballot

It is the federal government.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

42. The federal government is only involved via the U.S. Constitution

Secretaries of State forbid unqualified people from appearing on their state's ballot; the U.S. Constitution -- including Amendments -- specify the qualifications.

[totodeinhere]

43. The Court ruling has to do with the 14th amendment.

The Court is saying that the states cannot use the 14th amendment to disqualify federal candidates. The disqualifications that you mentioned are not dictated by the 14th amendment and this decision was about the 14th amendment and nothing else.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

45. The 14th Amendment specifies a qualifier, just as Articles I, II, Am XXII.

[former9thward]

44. You are leaving off Sec. 5

It says Congress has to make the laws to enforce the Amendment. They have not. The 14A is not "self executing".

Trump has never been charged with insurrection -- let alone be convicted of it.

[brush]

46. Sec. 5 also says that the State, meaning the United States...

must enact a law to allow insurrectionists to serve in office in Congress, as an elector, as a military officer or in office in any state. Congress has not done that so Sec. 3 is self-executing.

This was done after the Civil War so confederates would not try to infiltrate the government and the military to work from within to overthrow the government again.

IMO SCOTUS was right in ruling that one state doesn't have the authority to take a candidate of the ballot because if that candidate wins, he/she wouldn't preside over that state as president.

What SCOTUS should've ruled IMO is that an insurrectionist should be rule ineligibe to be on a ballot or serve in every state, which is what self-executing Sec. 3 says.

As it is now, trump, all his henchmen and all the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol, can now run for office.

Not a good thing.

[LeftInTX]

48. The amendment does not prevent people from running for office. It prevents people from holding office

It has been used several times by congress and the senate to prevent people from being seated.

One person who was charged/convicted of espionage ran in the special election in his vacated seat and won again. He was kicked out again.
He eventually ran again, won and was seated. Somewhere in all of this, his espionage conviction was overturned. (Early 20th Century, Red Scare)

It was the house's decision not to seat and to seat the congressman.

In both cases, they got the George Santos treatment. The other was a confederate. He didn't run again for federal office, but I believe he may have held a state position.

Article 2, (age etc) is "eligibility", amendment 14 is "holding office".

___________________

The section 3 of the 14th Amendment is vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. Former confederates did eventually hold federal office.

Charles S. Thomas of Colorado was the last Confederate veteran to serve in the Senate. Born in Georgia, he served briefly as a teenager in the Confederate Army. He settled in Denver after the war, where he built a law practice and pursued a Senate career. Following three failed attempts to gain a Senate seat, the 63-year-old Thomas finally became a U.S. senator in 1913, a position he held until 1921. During his years in the Senate, Thomas became known for a rather unconventional habit that marked the arrival of springtime in the Senate Chamber.

https://www.americanheritage.com/confederates-congress-heritage-or-hate

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Crisp enlisted in the 10th Virginia Infantry and was commissioned a lieutenant. He served with that regiment until May 12, 1864, when he was taken prisoner at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

After the war Crisp studied law and passed the bar. He was elected to Congress from Georgia in 1882, and served until his death in 1896.

From 1890 until his death, he was leader of the Democratic Party in the House, as either the House Minority Leader or the Speaker of the House.

[brush]

49. Ineligible?