General Discussion

brush

(53,778 posts) Mon Mar 4, 2024, 03:01 PM Mar 4

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

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.

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On SCOTUS ruling that Colorado, a state, doesn't have the authority to take trump off its ballot. [View all] brush Mar 4 OP

Boy I'll bet the states' rights people will be all over this. Permanut Mar 4 #1

Absolutely, the Supreme Court punted. gab13by13 Mar 4 #2

They ran off the field and hid triron Mar 4 #6

But the state has the authority to make it hard, even impossible, for people to vote. patphil Mar 4 #3

the crooks, i mean republicans on the court samsingh Mar 4 #4

Thank you. Refreshing to hear someone else say this. triron Mar 4 #5

9-0 is hard to argue with. Silent Type Mar 4 #7

6 assholes and 3 chickenshits. triron Mar 4 #8

Yep, I hope the 3 aren't allowing themselves to be bullied. brush Mar 4 #10

What's even harder to argue with is the amendment. brush Mar 4 #9

I thought Tribe and Luttig were way off the mark when they started this. Luttig is difficult to listen to, as well. Silent Type Mar 4 #12

'see post 32. brush Mar 4 #34

OK. So you would have made it 9 to 1. Silent Type Mar 4 #36

You're misunderstanding. SCOTUS was right in ruling a state, brush Mar 4 #37

If it's self-executing, then citizens of all stripes should be able to challenge tRUMP's eligibility on any state SWBTATTReg Mar 4 #26

What makes an insurrectionist an insurrectionist? Polybius Mar 4 #39

Do you think Section 5 came into play. SYFROYH Mar 4 #11

Good question. brush Mar 4 #15

The right is for states' rights except when they're not Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 4 #13

Wouldn't the opposite be true too with some? Polybius Mar 4 #40

How do you respond to the liberal justices' argument that the amendment limits state's power, not expands it? mathematic Mar 4 #14

IMO SCOTUS got one thing right, that a state, any state, doesn't have the authority to not allow a candidate... brush Mar 4 #18

If the position is... Think. Again. Mar 4 #29

So who decides if Trump was guilty of insurrection ripcord Mar 4 #16

Ahhhhh...do you not believe your lying eyes? We all watched it on TV. brush Mar 4 #17

So in all court cases if we have video we don't need a trial? ripcord Mar 4 #19

IMO the 14A Sec. 3 is correct. Insurrectionist are not eligible. brush Mar 4 #20

True as that is, he hasn't been tried and convicted for that or any other actions related to January 6. Jedi Guy Mar 4 #21

I agree with Judge Luttig and others that it's self-executing. brush Mar 4 #23

Okay. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, even if it isn't true. N/T Jedi Guy Mar 4 #25

See post 32. brush Mar 4 #33

Under our system of justice you have to have a trial. totodeinhere Mar 4 #27

Not according to the wording of Sec.3 of the 14A. brush Mar 4 #32

Yes I have heard the interpretation that you are mentioning. totodeinhere Mar 4 #35

Does this mean states can't disqualified candidates running for state or any lower office? LiberalFighter Mar 4 #22

14A Sec. 3 says yes, no office in any state...and no military officers either. brush Mar 4 #24

In its ruling the Supreme Court did say that states do totodeinhere Mar 4 #28

Which is a reasonable ruling pinkstarburst Mar 4 #30

Agreed.. n/t totodeinhere Mar 4 #31

not really a good argument for letting an actual traitor back into office. Basically a strawman argument. Blues Heron Mar 5 #47

And yet, states routinely disallow people from appearing on the ballot Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #38

That isn't the states keeping someone off the ballot ripcord Mar 4 #41

The federal government is only involved via the U.S. Constitution Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #42

The Court ruling has to do with the 14th amendment. totodeinhere Mar 4 #43

The 14th Amendment specifies a qualifier, just as Articles I, II, Am XXII. Hermit-The-Prog Mar 4 #45

You are leaving off Sec. 5 former9thward Mar 4 #44

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

The amendment does not prevent people from running for office. It prevents people from holding office LeftInTX Mar 5 #48

Ineligible? brush Mar 5 #49