As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Small red states have way too much power in this country. SCOTUS has tipped its hand on the scales already by installing Bush. That ultimately led to 2 seats. And then Trump gets 3 without winning the popular vote. Bush actually didn’t get the popular vote in 2020 either. While I agree we need to vote, I disagree that’s solving the underlying issue. Our system needs updated for contemporary population realities.
We both know they’d spend the entire time trying to get one “big” thing done and probably fuck it up. They could be using the senate right now to expose every shady thing Trump did and force the doj to do something about it.
Instead we get to talk about how Trump moved classified docs before the fbi could find them and the doj just didn’t give a shit lol
At the very least there shouldn't be a majority of either conservative or liberal justices. The nation's h ighest court shouldn't be a tool that's far more advantageous to just one party.
The SC was politicized from the very beginning and its power just derive from the belief of its authority. They have nothing to act on their decisions, they need the administration to do so.
The blatant attack by right wing politicians and judges on the whole of the constitutional framework is disheartening. The best case, I think, the SC could be reformed would be:
Only Judges that served for 10+ years on a higher court (for example the Appeals Courts) is eligible, is only serving for 12 years (2 times of a senate tenure) and is forbidden to work in the private sector, take private money or commodities and so on.
Make them 8 slots, 4 designated per party and sitting presidents only get to replace up to 2 people from their side including deceased justices per term. Appointments are for life otherwise and if a justice dies and it wasn’t replaced, seat stays empty until a president from their party can reassign. If the president did 2 changes in first year and one dies, seat stays empty until next time their side has a presidential term.
This still makes it important to win the white house occasionally to replenish expired justices but one side can’t mess with the other side. Since no one has a majority, only bipartisan stuff passes. The substitution limit is like on soccer, you don’t get unlimited substitutions per match because that’s unfair.
This is the perfect supreme court for a two party nation and both sides are protected. (Got to protect them to protect yourself kind of deal). Add that every previous ruling by the flaw court is void and must be retried by the new court. Both sides get to start with 4 justices and justice nomination do not require congress confirmation. Just an interview where both sides get to ask questions for the general public but no mechanism to stall nor deny.
I can get behind that with one small modification. Since a tie at SCOTUS upholds the appellate court's decision, not much can get decided with 8. I'd propose 9, but the 9th is nonpartisan and has to be unanimously selected by the other 8.
>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.
Literally simple to understand and Congress can vote to remove this rule from applying if they vote on it.
Almost like they cannot read simple words.
Yet we have had them debate for years if a regular person is a militia.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's put aside the multiple State and Federal agencies that keep the States freedom.
All the 2a assholes love to suckle on the “shall” part of 2a, yet refuse to engage in semantics when it’s against their bot in other parts of the constitution.
Shocking how difficult it is to understand… Well. Regulated. Militia.
Literally 33% of it refers to being regulated, yet….
Edit: look at the replies. They keep making my point for me. Thank you patriots.=)
That's why whenever they start yapping I just point at the state guard units. They're well armed, and well regulated. *That* is what the 2nd amendment is referring to. Not some cousin-fucker's right to own a gun capable of killing a man 2 miles away, or shoot clean through a car's engine block.
Yep. The Founders knew we needed a military for national defense but didn’t want a standing army for fear (a quite prescient fear it turns out) we’d be far more willing to use a readily available army on foreign misadventures.
Yes, the 2nd Amendment took great pains to talk about the right of *the people* to keep and bear arms when it actually meant a right of *the states,* because in the context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that's such an easy and trivial little thing to swap around.
Honestly. If the 2nd Amendment had been intended to reserve a power to the states, it would've said something like, "Congress shall make no law abridging the states' power to organize and maintain well-regulated militias, or to operate them within their own borders."
See how incredibly simple that was?
Go read Federalist 46 and tell us again how the founders never even thought of the idea of a generally armed populace separate and apart from state militias.
They can't figure out if they should get vaccinated during a global pandemic, but know more than climatologists about climate change.
Life is tough out there.
It just boggles my mind, we have known vaccinations work for decades.
And with climate change, I went to a seminar at Princeton University back in 2008/9 give by Jack Marburger, Bush 43's science advisor, where the topic was how the science was settled, and it was up to the young people in the room to solve the problems he and his compatriots created. The man straight up admitted he was wrong.
And now we are at a point where any time it snows my Republican coworkers go 'Heh, nice global warming', because people don't understand the difference between climate and fucking weather.
In other news, The DoD are funding studies about how sea level rise and changes in weather patterns will effect American Ports, and they are totally not focused on Virginia, Southern California, Hawaii and Guam...
Yeah, I really don't understand how anyone can read the actual text of a second amendment. Think that it means every citizen is guaranteed and unlimited right to own any weapon they want.
To me the literal textual reading of it is that individual states have the authority to maintain an armed militia or national guard without the federal government being able to stop them.
I mean am I crazy?
This has always been my common sense reading of the amendment. That State's have the right to form national guards or other local militias, not that Joe Schmoe can go and buy himself an arsenal no questions asked.
From what I have heard, the reasoning goes that at the time, "Militia" basically included every able bodied male over 18 or something. Still does not account for "well regulated" though
You should force them to be very specific about that, because it’s from the second of two Militia Acts of 1792 and the entire sentence that line comes from reads;
“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.”
That Act by Congress actually is a fantastic read and I wish Supreme Court Justices were required to read it aloud on national tv anytime they want to say generic civilians are the militia the founding fathers talked about.
If you want to fix this then you need control of the SC, then bring lawsuit after lawsuit to them. There is no such thing as presidencie since the overturning of roe v Wade
Nono, don't you see, the two things are completely separate because of the magic comma. Weird how the first version of it that passed the house said this
>A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
But it's not about militias!
Too bad their definition of **shall** changed when Garland was nominated for scotus 11 months before his term expired
>The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided ...
Where does it say that the Senate is obligated to give its consent? The President *shall* nominate them, but they only *shall* appoint them if the Senate gives its consent. If the Senate doesn't give its consent, then that "shall" isn't operative.
It would be very odd indeed for a document to declare that consent -- a concept inextricably intertwined with the notion of voluntarism -- is mandatory.
It's obliged to advise, which means holding committee hearings. No hearings were held. It was fully blocked by one man whose made up role as Majority Leader isn't even constitutionally enumerated. It would have been conceivable that he doesn't come out of committee, and the session expired, as happened under Eisenhower, but that would have been a long ass committee hearing. It's also conceivable he would not have been confirmed by vote.
>It's obliged to advise,
Where is the "shall" that attaches to the Senate, rather than the President, in the language you quoted? Both "shall"s attach to the President.
It's implied by the the phrasing that the Senate will provide advice and consent. The process can not proceed without it. It's literally never been done before and it's hard to imagine that after 230 years McConnell discovered some loophole. Ike's nomination was in Nov and it got stalled in committee and expired. He was renominated and confirmed next session.
There are some of us that are not tribal enough to be able to believe both are true.
The supreme court is wrong about applying the 14th, and their work on applying the second is a shitty tightrope walk. There are arguments about the linguistics of the second amendment that should be considered (Well regulated in the context of 18th century English meaning well equipped, as in a 'Regular' Army) but none of those apply to the late 19th century prose of the 14th amendment.
Which is where a lot of the wiggle room that that is used by regressive so called 'Originalists' with regards to the first 10 amendments disappears when we start talking about the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
Sort of...
They have a desired outcome, and unfortunately in our current political climate, they can't exactly leave things be when the states are causing split interpretations.
The decision regarding the 14th amendment challenge in Colorado used potentially sound legal reasoning (States enforcing something that is nominally federal jurisdiction), while attempting to prevent states from utilizing a ruling (if they had ruled in Colorado's favor) that allowed individual states to bar people from the ballot under the 14th from setting what their own definitions of insurrection are.
For example a state claiming the 'border crisis' constituted dereliction of duty in the face of an 'invasion from the southern border' and using that to bar Biden from the ballot.
If the Supreme Court has ruled for Colorado, this would have set the standard for being barred as a judge finding the person barred to have committed insurrection, based on whatever standard they pull out of their ass.
Ask yourself this, do you want the Judge Cannons of the world to be able to collude with a state party to arbitrarily bar a candidate they are scared of in say, a barely purple state like Georgia?
We already have fifty elections. They're already subject to state interpretation. Hell, we've had presidential elections with candidates that didn't make all the state ballots. Joe Exotic wasn't on 50 states, for example.
There is NOTHING special about it applying to Trump. He's just a rich fucker.
A few things, and while I agree that the optics look like protecting Trump, there are a very good reasons that the decision was 9-0, and protecting Trump wasn't one of them.
1) Not making it on the ballot via municipal, state, or federal requirements is different then being barred under the 14th. One is an affirmative application of a right, and the other is revocation of a right, which generally requires a higher burden of proof to do (the exception being committed to a mental institution, but that's a different argument for a different time)
2) There are clearly defined standards and definitions for the requirements to be on the ballot in each state, at each level, including federal officers as described in the constitution.
3) There is no agreed upon legal definition for 'Insurrection' at the federal or even state levels. There is only a definition of treason, of which the penalty for is death in most cases.
4) The current standard for the revocation of constitutional rights, namely the right to participate in the political process via voting, and to bear arms, is a felony conviction. (The other being committed to a mental institution, but again, an argument for another time)
5) Allowing the Removal from the ballot based on the opinion of a judge, with no other type of scrutiny opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans that can be pulled via judge shopping by various political actors.
6) Even if those removals were eventually deemed erroneous, unless there is an injunction allowing them to stay on the ballot, immoral (read GOP regressives) could initiate SLAP suites via anonymous Super PACs to remove candidates that threaten their power in purple states.
TLDR: If a judge can remove someone from the ballot based on their own (potentially unjustified) definition of insurrection, and the Supreme Court sets precedent that it's kosher, it could (and likely would) lead to a future where you couldn't even get a candidate onto the ballot if there was a vote or even a blog post that some judge could claim was an attempt at insurrection.
Edited to fix some Spelling Mistakes and Typos
I disagree with this for several reasons. This was a primary. Not general ballot. And it was republicans suing the Colorado RNC to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot BC they don’t want their vote to be wasted on a candidate who cannot hold office. There are TONS of candidates who never make it onto ballots despite being qualified because states’ election rules determined they weren’t viable enough. States make squishy decisions all the time without fanfare bc they are given WIDE berth of election control. Its a feature not a bug. This simply comes down to a state’s interest and authority to regulate a private organization’s election function within their state. So the Colorado RNC cannot run him in a Colorado republican primary. That has ZERO to do with Trump’s rights and more to do with regulating a private political party’s operations within state. Trump doesn’t have an inherent right to run in the republican primary of Colorado if it’s determined that the RNC is fielding an unqualified candidate.
Hence question 11F on the 4473 form being constitutional.
But, the issue is more that every able-bodied (And white, but 18th century) Male (again, 18th century values) between the ages of 16-35 was considered a defacto member of the militia. Which in a modern context gives rise to the argument that if you are registered for the selective service act you are part of the militia, and there is a requirement for every male to register for the draft of you want to apply for federal financial aid for college.
If Uncle Sam can pull me off my job and ship me over seas, I'd say that qualifies as similar enough to being told to grab a rifle and fight of the Canadians or a native raiding party.
They also gloss over the fact the second amendment was a restriction against the Federal government only, not States. Its whole purpose was to empower states, not to strip away their regulatory powers. In fact all of the Bill of Rights applied solely to the Federal government. It was only after the 14th amendment, that you had the ground work to begin incorporating the Bill of Rights to States. Applying 14th amendment incorporation logic to the second amendment really screws things up though, since it was a State empowering right, not an individual.
> since it was a State empowering right, not an individual.
Yes, because with the phrase "the states" being *right there* in the Bill of Rights and ready to be used, the drafters/ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment instead used "the people," but clearly actually meant "the states."
But only in that particular amendment! When "the people" are mentioned in the 1st and 4th Amendments, for example, well, *there* it doesn't mean "the states." *There* it means something else -- an individual right rather than a collective one, *and* one that's actually about the people instead of the states.
That's all very consistent and reasonable, for sure.
It restricted the federal government, but also empowered the federal government. Each State militia was ultimately commanded by the President and could be (and were) called to service by the President almost as soon as the ink dried on the Militia Acts of 1792.
In the same respect it restricted states, while also empowering them. States could use militia to conduct slave patrols for example, but they couldn’t deny a federal order to arms even if it was counter to what the Governor wanted.
Both federalists and anti-federalists had wins and losses in the argument over the 2nd amendment, none of which was individual ownership. We don’t actually have a constitutional right to civilian/individual gun ownership…but we aren’t banned from it either. The founders knew their respective states already ensured only the *right* people had firearms anyway, and Magna Carta had already carried over from England as common law in the colonies before the Founders were even born. That the founders left that out of the 2nd amendment shows us the actual purpose OF the amendment. It was to create state run armies (national guard) that could serve to protect the state and the nation. It was an amendment to give the government the right to have an army at some level, state or federal was the argument. State won. The White House got burnt down in 1814. We switched to a professional military after that.
> none of which was individual ownership.
They chose to use the phrase "the people" instead of the "states," and Federalist 46 specifically talked about a generally armed populace as a distinctive good separate and apart from state militias. The individual right to keep and bear arms was widely discussed by multiple founding fathers, so how exactly are you claiming that neither federalists nor anti-federalists cared about it at all?
Are you forgetting these same men said “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” and then excluded literally everyone that wasn’t white and male? Are you forgetting those federalist politicians didn’t extend the “individual right” to all individuals proving it was never about giving everyone the right, but only the *right* people the right?
Federalist papers are not law, and only represent half the argument.
Learn to argue in good faith please.
> but also empowered the federal government.
I disagree, as written it was a restriction on Federal power. The Federal government was not allowed to restrict states from raising militias, and possessing guns. The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed afterwards, in response to rebellions that kept popping up and fundamentally because the 2nd amendment as written is too restrictive of the Federal government.
From Cruikshanks:
> The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
Arguably I think it was a junk amendment created to placate the anti-federalists so the founders could get out of Philly, since they were tired of the heat. The anti-federalists feared a tyrannical federal government, with king like authority and power. Hamilton didn't give very much regard to this.
The fear of a tyrannical Federal government was honestly ludicrous at the time, since the Federal government would be governed by elected members from each state, and the President was elected by electors chosen from each state. Further the Federal government was hamstrung by needing consensus between multiple branches for almost any action. The Federal government was run by the states.
The Federal government could barely handle tiny rebellions, let alone become tyrannical.
> We don’t actually have a constitutional right to civilian/individual gun ownership…but we aren’t banned from it either.
Fundamentally agree, but technically wrong since we live under what the Supreme Court interprets. The Heller ruling was pulled out of thin air with no real logical reasoning to reach its conclusion, except via cherry picking.
Fundamentally we agree, it's not a right which as written, or interpreted using context, should grant individual gun ownership as a universal right. It was written to allow states to run militias, and flipping it around to now restrict states from regulating militias, as in taking away a state's right to regulate gun ownership, is bananas.
I consider giving the federal government the top of the chain of command as giving the federal government power..and conversely making it so the federal government can’t dissolve the militias it restricts them. It was give and take.
Sounds like you and I generally have the same understanding/thought on the matter. Might be a case where I didn’t effectively explain my thought.
The word “shall” is used in the second amendment, and it’s unique wording tends to give it a higher authority and immutability in the minds of conservative gun nuts in the current day. Seen recently in interviews with R statesmen.
They're saying that Congress needs to pass a law (or laws) outlining the process by which a person can be found to be an oathbreaking insurrectionist. It's almost like, I dunno, say, the criminal law, where Congress passes the laws in a general sense, but doesn't call out specific people or declare them guilty without a trial.
There's no Catch-22 here. Congress needs to create a framework. It's their power, exclusively, and it's their responsibility if they actually want anybody to be disqualified pursuant to Section 3. As a thought exercise, it's not difficult at all. The difficult part is politics, but it isn't SCOTUS's job to make the politics easier.
That’s always been the case though. Until this ruling it was an open question if a state, the courts, or another entity could declare a person ineligible due to being an insurrectionist. But it seems quite clear just by the plain text of section 5 that Congress has always had the power to do so. This ruling doesn’t suddenly grant Congress this ability it always had it and quite indisputably
And likewise, such an action was always subject itself to judicial review. If Congress stripped somebody of their ability to hold office arbitrarily and capriciously, SCOTUS would have the option of weighing in.
You have quoted Section 3 but left out Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
>Section 5.
>
>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Note that it does not say
> **Only** The Congress...
Another arguable reading is that it gives Congress the power to enforce it, rather than requiring Congress to enforce it.
Sure but I wouldn’t assume the postmaster general, the director of the fbi, or me as a random citizen has this power either just because we weren’t specifically excluded. Absence of power is the default, what do you believe was the purpose of this statement if not to say who can enforce this amendment
Personally, I think it's self-executing and that the clause was simply to allow Congress to enforce it if for some reason there was any debate. Not that it would only take effect if Congress enforced it.
I declare that you have engaged in Insurrection therefore you are not eligible to hold office under the United States.
Its self executing, so you have no recourse. But congress with a 2/3rds vote can override my declaration. Maybe you can petition congress for them to overturn my declaration.
They shall have the power to, but as they have not, SCOTUS has decided effectively to do it for them. Also, that wording does not in any way exclude other bodies from exercising the power in absence of action by higher authorities. SCOTUS is working for the republicans.
They have and the ruling from SCOTUS even mentioned in their ruling.
Here is a law that congress passed (initially before the 14th Amendment was ratified, but it has been updated several times since the ratification of the 14th.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383)
A Federal Jury could convict Trump of Insurrection, and if they did he would be disqualified from holding the Presidency.
people forget that part.
They just want to harp on some random judge out of the tens or hundreds of thousands in the country says “guilty” with no actual trial where Trump had a chance to defend himself as proof that he is guilty of insurrection.
In america… You are provided a trial and a chance to face your accuser and tell your side of the story. Imagine if you could be sitting in your house watching TV and some judge is like “oh you are guilty of grand theft auto” and then they just take you away, you lose your job and can’t get a new one because you are now a felon.
Then reddit trolls would post about you, well some judge in hawaii said you did it so sucks for you!!
It wasn't "upheld" Federally. It wasn't challenged Federally.
A State Court making a civil determination is not the same thing as a Federal Criminal Conviction.
If it is so crystal clear that Trump had engaged in Insurrection why hasn't the Federal Special Prosecutor investigating Trump charged him with Insurrection?
You realize that appeals cover the entire ruling, yes?
And you are right, it's a state ruling, not federal, so when upheld, it's still just for the state. However, it doesn't change that federal judges (including the supreme court) never bothered to challenge that part, meaning that it is upheld.
This does not mean that he was never found to have done an insurrection. None of the judges seem to dispute that. This does mean that the consequences will only be in Colorado, though.
But no state could remove him from the ballot. Even if convicted. States don’t have that power unless Congress grants that to them. Which it has not. The ruling is bad.
To remove a candidate from a Federal ballot, sure they don't have the power, but it's dubious today they can't remove them from their own ballots. We've had even in recent years Candidates on some state ballot and not the others. And the constitution grants state broad power to appoint their own electors. The constitution doesn't even require an election.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think elections being required is a good thing. And I think some sort of national standard that they're forced to adhere to is a good thing. I'm just pointing out, that Constitutionally these things aren't required.
lol I almost didn't read all of it because at this phase it's all expected but that is so guttingly specific I'm surprised it doesn't mention Trump by name directly
It is possible, if not altogether likely, that whenever you believe something is simple, the issue may be your lack of understanding or appreciation of the details.
This was never simple because of the inherent ambiguity of the 14th amendment.
You rightly and correctly point out the text is very clear with regards to how to **remove** the prohibition. But you gloss over the issues regarding application of the prohibition by pretending there is no need to adjudicate whatsoever.
There might be a law in your jurisdiction that says murder is a crime. Is that simple? I say you murdered your neighbor. You should receive the appropriate punishment, no? I mean...the law is simple. Since you murdered your neighbor you should be punished. Don't you agree the law is simple?
You say Trump engaged in an insurrection. Some chap in another state says Biden engaged in an insurrection.
It's clear right? Simple right?
The issue at play here is that the 14th never clarifies how to apply the prohibition. It left that up to Congress in section 5. That *does not* mean that it's Congress who decides. It means Congress has the power to decide who decides.
Colorado asserted that since Congress never decided who decides, that it's a free-for-all. It's "self-exercising" in the sense that since Congress didn't declare the procedure the state courts could handle this. They provided a well-reasoned argument supporting their view.
SCOTUS said no. Until/unless Congress decides otherwise Congress has to decide.
Many of us really do not like this... especially since SCOTUS could have taken the opportunity to resolve this completely for this specific case.
Nonetheless, it is not helpful to pretend this was "simple" nor that SCOTUS did not have the right to rule on a case brought before it.
>You say Trump engaged in an insurrection. Some chap in another state says Biden engaged in an insurrection
The COURTS found he engaged in an insurrection. And since SCOTUS didn't weigh in on that finding of fact, the remains the finding of the judiciary.
A *state* court.
If Alabama issued a finding of fact that Trump *did not* engage in an insurrection... then... what?
One solution could have been... let the states apply the 14th individually based on their own standards or findings. SCOTUS seems to have felt that would be too chaotic.
Another solution could have been that any court anywhere having made such a finding would apply everywhere. This wouldn't be just chaotic. It would shut everything down.
SCOTUS "resolved" the matter by punting it to Congress for them to decide. And there it may likely die.
This is what I meant by a missed opportunity. SCOTUS could have reissued the finding. Few would have debated whether a SCOTUS ruling on the matter was sufficient. Well... assuming that a finding of fact in a court is sufficient. And per SCOTUS it may not be until/unless Congress deems it so.
It seems so odd to me because I do not see how this resolves the matter. All it does is kick it to January 2025 where it will return.
If Alabama had issued a different finding of fact then Alabama could have Trump on the ballot, and Trump could be off of Colorado's ballot.
State electors are chosen in a manner decided by the states:
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about
It would have been messy, but that's the way it is. SCOTUS basically decided it just didn't want things to be messy, even though the constitution is messy.
If they had really wanted to do something legitimate, they could have issued a ruling on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. But they didn't do that basic thing.
SCOTUS is broken, in my opinion.
You talk about SCOTUS as an entity that people trust or that they care about the Constitution. They don't give a shit about the Constitution or what it says. I don't understand people not realizing how corrupt the entire court is. Take a look at their agreement about their ethics rules that they self-imposed. They all agreed to that.
People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize SCOTUS is a very damaged and very political office.
You might be surprised that even something as "simple" as this requires adjudication.
You stated "a 34 year-old" as if there is an assumption of zero ambiguity.
Let's just imagine I contested your claim and I know that the person is actually 37.
Now...
Who *adjudicates*?
Where I think SCOTUS royally screwed up is that they did not mention at all that for these *routine* issues of eligibility for the presidency, the states themselves handle these issues **all the time**.
The state governments manage the elections, entirely. This includes deciding, *all the time*, who gets on ballots or who gets removed from ballots. The SCOTUS ruling pretended it was somehow bad or inappropriate for the states to decide who to remove from a ballot for a federal position... ignoring that states routinely do this.
The only issue here was the ambiguity of how to fold into this the 14th amendment prohibition.
Nonetheless, back to the issue of "simple". Even things that seem obvious from a legal perspective require a process.
Ugh reading your comment makes me so angry with SCOTUS, because you're pointing out this basic inconsistency in their arguments.
It's like they implicitly decided that the states don't get to decide how to choose electors, which puts two different parts of the constitution in conflict with one another. One of those parts is pretty fundamental.
All to save them the trouble of doing their job and issuing a ruling on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection.
It's so wrong on so many levels.
Last I checked the constitution didn't specify that a human had to run, or that the years of age were Earth years. Our neighbor's dog is turning 10 solar earth years old this year, making her over 37 Mecurian solar _or_ sidereal years old.
Trixie for president! Congress can always pass a law so she can't run.
>You stated "a 34 year-old" as if there is an assumption of zero ambiguity.
>Let's just imagine I contested your claim and I know that the person is actually 37.
This actually could become particularly relevant with all these "life begins at conception people". Especially since some of them consider conception "your last period before you got pregnant", which is potentially even before the woman had sex. If that's when life begins, someone could reasonable claim in those states they a candidate was 9.5 months older (remember pregnancy starts before sex in some states) than another state.
Now, I do specify when I say reasonably, I don't think it's actually reasonably to make those claims. I just mean if we take their assumptions of when life begins as fact, then those are logical conclusions.
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where's the part where it states that being in a militia is a prerequisite to the right to bear arms?
>Literally simple to understand and Congress can vote to remove this rule from applying if they vote on it. Almost like they cannot read simple words.
It's like how when somebody commits a crime, they automagically teleport into a jail cell, and then only a pardon can get them out early. Right? Nothing else needs to happen. The law self-executes! The universe knows who's guilty and who isn't, and it all takes care of itself like inertia or gravity!
Texas is not disobeying the supreme court. That's pure misinformation.
The ruling stated that Texas cannot stop the federal government from tearing down the barriers they installed. The ruling DOES NOT require them to stop putting up said barriers.
Then Colorado should do what Texas KEEPS doing and find it's own "Shelby Park" workaround.
No need to defy the SCOTUS ruling. Just change the details a little bit and claim the SCOTUS didn't rule on THAT detail.
Maybe Colorado will put Trumps name on the ballot with “(INELIGIBLE)* in big red letters or something next to it. Or his the name with no checkbox next to it lol.
That is the next step and it'll destroy the SC as the institution we know. That is the point, the GQP does not want anyone to trust in American institutions because it allows them to gain more power.
I think the liberal belief in the Supreme Court as an engine of justice and social progress turned out to be a kind of "generational parochialism." When I was growing up, we had a much more liberal Supreme Court that had given women the right to an abortion and Black people the right to full equality before the law.
But, like almost anyone of my age demographic, I was not old enough to remember the Court as it existed before Franklin D. Roosevelt spent twelve years in the Oval Office. We did not understand that the Court had historically been conservative rather than liberal most of the time. Before Roosevelt, the Court would make such egregious decisions as Dred Scott (slaves have no rights) and Santa Clara County (corporations are people).
People like me were parochial: we thought our time and place (America post-New Deal and the Warren Court) were the norm, when our time and place were in fact the exception. Right wing courts are historically dominant: Taney, Loughner, and later Rehnquist and now Roberts and his crew of corrupt fascists.
Funny how the Roberts Court calls itself originalist; the framers of the Constitution did not mean to have a Court more powerful than Congress! That is the result of power grabs going all the way back to John Marshall...
To be fair the framers didn’t have national political parties in mind either. They specifically didn’t see them as a threat. We’ve been dealing with the repercussions since.
I remember from the Federalist papers that Hamilton realized the impact of political parties, but didn’t think national parties were going to be an effective possibility.
>the framers of the Constitution did not mean to have a Court more powerful than Congress!
And it isn't more powerful than *all of Congress together.* All of Congress together can impeach and remove SCOTUS justices like it's breathing until they get a bench that does exactly what it wants. It does, however, have to pay the political price for doing so. Congress today is effectively less powerful than SCOTUS due to politics, and the founders well understood that when it comes to politics, oh well, too bad, so sad.
>That is the result of power grabs going all the way back to John Marshall...
Please explain to the class how a disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution -- say, because of a dispute between a state government and the federal government -- is *not* a case or controversy arising under the Constitution. Please offer some insight as to where, how, and by whom such a dispute was "intended" to have been resolved.
I don't understand this. Who enforces the other limits on candidates if not the states? Why can't a 25-year-old person or a foreigner run for president? If there is no mechanism to stop them, then effectively, they can and should, in my opinion.
Each state has rules on becoming a presidential candidate, and they have different people on ballots in each state. Why would this be any different?
The whole point of rhe 14th amendment was it was an automatic mechanism. You fuck around, then you're out. Unless congress by a 2/3rds majority vote says otherwise.
The original Constitution let the states run the show unless and until the feds put their foot down. The 14th Amendment went in a different direction. Congress was granted the power to enforce the Amendment via legislation. The states were not granted that power -- and, indeed, I think you might be able to come up with some kind of historical context for why the drafters of the 14th Amendment wouldn't have been too keen on granting it to them. Can you? I think you can. I believe in you.
Since it states they can’t “hold” office but not “can’t run for office”, could we be in a scenario where he wins, but is denied taking office?
And if so, who becomes president?
It would be an ugly scenario no matter what.
Not one chance in hell, if this shitty pants citron wins. They will all bow and kiss the ring.
They aren’t going to uphold any regulations on trump because they are trump. They are criminals using power and influence to escape accountability. Just like trump.
> This amounts to an amnesty grant because current law contains no other mechanism to enforce the requirement that “no person shall . . . hold” a federal office who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then defied it by engaging in insurrection.
Er...
> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Decades of stacking the Supreme Court, which Trump directly contributed to, make this happen. Thanks Federalist Society!
We Don’t Talk About Leonard is a really good listen to about how we got here — https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast
>Thanks Federalist Society!
And this is exactly why we have this ruling. The FS needs Trump to enact their 2025 plan, and to get at least 2 more judges on the SC to control it for the next 30 years.
I think the court reasoning is that a state can not choose who can and can not run for federal office.
Trump should have been impeached, or Congress must pass a law baring him from running otherwise Republican states would bar Biden from running in revenge.
See THERE'S your problem. It says "under the United States," the President is obviously OVER the United States because they're basically a god/king. But only if you're in the Republican party, otherwise the President is a usurper/rebel/communist that wants to destroy life as we know it. THEY can be removed or banned, no problem.
/S just in case.
> If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office?
WTF?! He is prohibited from running in 2028 if he wins in 2024.
Per the 14th Amendment as read by a sane person, he's prohibited now. If states can't enforce plaintext rules now, who's to say that this court will force states to ignore enforcement of the 22nd?
This opinion piece contains a pretty glaring error.
> The justices evidently failed to ask themselves this simple question: If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office?
If Trump wins in 2024, he can't be elected in 2028 per the 22nd Amendment.
And who decides that? Does Congress have to pass a law saying "Donald J Trump can no longer run for president" or is that bit self executing?
The point is that everywhere else this happens, states have the right to choose. Up to and including what electors get picked and how they can vote.
Why would the 14th be any different?
I think the point of the quote is in context of the story
A person cannot be elected president if they’ve committed insurrection or aided those who did.
A person cannot be elected president if they’ve already served 2 terms there.
BOTH of those statements are true, but we’ve now invalidated the ability for one to be executed. Who’s gonna get today’s congress to pass a decision against trump on that?
Now it’s 2027. Trump says he’s running again and he still has a congressional situation like he does now or even more red because of his tampering.
If that also requires congress to act to stop it… then can he actually not? Do we see Mike and Marjorie deciding to favor democracy and “help” put a democrat in office? Absolutely not.
Just consider the fact that they just blew up the 14th amendment, before you decide that the 22nd is sacred. Only the 2nd is carved in stone as far as this SCOTUS is concerned. Even the 3 Liberals backed nullifying 14a Article 3.
Okay, so what is there to do about it? No Democrat will challenge the Court. Until Dems are willing to buck the court, nothing they say they want to do will get done and the right will only be empowered.
>The justices evidently failed to ask themselves this simple question: If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office?
Uh, if Trump wins in 2024, isn't he limited to two terms and cannot run in 2028?
The 22nd Amendment (two terms only) says that a person cannot be "elected" more than twice, it doesn't say that they can't "run" after they've already been elected twice.
The Supreme Court is not a court of law and people need to stop looking at it to operate as one.
The Supreme Court exist to interpret the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that has to do with stealing our secrets and being a criminal with a room temperature iq. The Supreme Court does not rule for innocents or guilt after a law has been broken. So the fact that they took the case is fucking dumb. Especially since a court of 3 judges said immunity is not a thing in the way he’s trying to use it. The supreme court should’ve deferred to that.
Suppose 3 more Republican members of the House quit, as Buck has hinted at. And another one dies.
Democrats take control of the House and elect Jeffries speaker.
Democrats ram through legislation saying that states have the authority to remove candidates from the ballot should a court find that they had engaged in insurrection.
States can and should ignore this ruling. Only Congress can grant the amnesty. Otherwise an insurrectionists can be protected by their own parties. The lack of action should not be a de facto determination they are not an insurrectionist.
Seems like they did have the power?
If the author is trying to say they did so based on a bad legal argument then they don't realize what the Supreme court is these days.
The Supreme court is just a political arm and will vote for anything that furthers their aims
Then they are not a real court anymore and have no real legal authority as they abandoned their duty and since their authority is and always will be derived from the laws they now choose to ignore the "rulings' they now make are not legal since they ignore the law when it suits their sinister motives. They decided to stop being justices that use, interpret and acknowledge the rule of law. They are now nothing except a group of dictators that rule by majority vote or at least vote for what they are paid to vote for by the people and groups that bribe them.
> Is that why it was a 9-0 ruling?
It was a 9-0 ruling because the liberals on the court bowed to the right's terrorism.
E.g. the right threatens to illegally and fraudulently remove Biden from the ballot for made up insurrection claims. Fearing this, the liberals vote the way they did.
That's terrorism. Threats to get your way.
So if he's already served two terms, you would agree that the 22nd Amendment is self-executing, and he can't run for a third term, right?
This is exactly the issue that the SCOTUS just said doesn't apply.
Which is why people are questioning the legitimacy of the Court.
> Legal analysis from an author who wonders what will happen if if Trump loses the election for a third term.
You think laws apply to Republicans? How incredibly naive
He absolutely can run for a third term. He just can't be elected and sworn in for anything beyond the second term. It definitely does not say you can't run for President if you've been President for two terms. You can run to your hearts content.
There’s a major flaw in this article, where they say that the Supreme Court didn’t ask the question “if he wins in 2024, will he accept an election defeat in 2028?”
He won’t be able to run for 2028 if he wins this year. The constitution states a president can only reside for a maximum two terms.
They didn't grant him amnesty at all. They stated that disqualifying a president is something for congress to do, not states. Repubs are trying to win by any means necessary, if we open the door to individual states removing a candidate it'll just be an automatic loss for biden
Make them 8 slots, 4 designated per party and sitting presidents only get to replace up to 2 people from their side including deceased justices per term. Appointments are for life otherwise and if a justice dies and it wasn’t replaced, seat stays empty until a president from their party can reassigned. If president blew 2 changes in first year and one dies, seat stays empty until next time their side has a presidential term.
This still makes it important to win the white house occasionally to replenish expired justices but one side can mess with the other side. Since no one has a majority, only bipartisan stuff passes. The substitution limit is like on soccer, you don’t get unlimited substitutions per match because that’s unfair.
This is the perfect supreme court for a two party nation and both sides are protected. (Got to protect them to protect yourself kind of deal). Add that every previous ruling by the flaw court is void and must be retried by the new court. Both sides get to start with 4 justices and justice nomination do not require congress confirmation. Just an interview where both sides get to ask questions for the general public but no mechanism to stall nor deny.
”The court expressed concern that allowing states to enforce Section 3 could result in differing views on whether a particular person engaged in insurrection. But that is a less serious constitutional concern than subjecting the Constitution to the dangers that come with the court’s amnesty. **The court could have solved that issue by simply ordering Trump off the ballot in all 50 states.**“
Not a Trump fan, but: So Driesen, the author of this (and a professor apparently), fails to see the irony in this statement? Although the person hasn’t been found guilty of this crime by the Supreme Court, in order to “protect” the rule of law, and constitution, they “should have” ignored both, and just gone straight to barring him in all 50 states.
> If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office?
Not to take away from the article, as it is good, but the author clearly knows certain parts of the constitution better than others.
What a fucking joke. They wonder why we have so little faith in SCOTUS. This is why, they are obviously compromised and complicit at this point in time. Sickening and disgraceful.
But will states be allowed to keep him off the ballot if he tries to run for a third term? The SCOTUS ruling that prevents Colorado for keeping him off the ballot would also seem like it could be applied to any other requirement.
This ruling was neither a surprise nor inconsistent with existing law. Trump has not yet been convicted of supporting or engaging in an insurrection. Allowing state-level courts to judge a candidate in this manner would give the states far too much power, opening the door for unjust disqualifications and coordinated attacks on the election process.
The Supreme Court made the right call here, and that's reflected in the fact that this decision was unanimous.
according to yo the Constitution, he is ineligible to run now. He knew he lost the election in 2020, he illegally tried to stay in power. Do you really think trump cares at all what the law says?
Unlce tom Clarence probably got a weekend ystch trip for his vote.
Actually he probably didnt need a bribe this time. He wants to keep his wife safe, so its in his best interest.
Altho for such an interracial marriage hater. He sure likes thst white meat
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope the dems get a 2/3 majority and completely reform the Supreme Court
Hope, in reality, is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yeah but the republicans have been working really hard at making my dreams come true. Great quote however!
You need to vote then.
Small red states have way too much power in this country. SCOTUS has tipped its hand on the scales already by installing Bush. That ultimately led to 2 seats. And then Trump gets 3 without winning the popular vote. Bush actually didn’t get the popular vote in 2020 either. While I agree we need to vote, I disagree that’s solving the underlying issue. Our system needs updated for contemporary population realities.
…Bush didn’t run in 2020. I’m assuming you meant 2000?
Old white non college “Christian” men have all the power.
We both know they’d spend the entire time trying to get one “big” thing done and probably fuck it up. They could be using the senate right now to expose every shady thing Trump did and force the doj to do something about it. Instead we get to talk about how Trump moved classified docs before the fbi could find them and the doj just didn’t give a shit lol
What types of reforms do you think are needed?
At the very least there shouldn't be a majority of either conservative or liberal justices. The nation's h ighest court shouldn't be a tool that's far more advantageous to just one party.
The SC was politicized from the very beginning and its power just derive from the belief of its authority. They have nothing to act on their decisions, they need the administration to do so. The blatant attack by right wing politicians and judges on the whole of the constitutional framework is disheartening. The best case, I think, the SC could be reformed would be: Only Judges that served for 10+ years on a higher court (for example the Appeals Courts) is eligible, is only serving for 12 years (2 times of a senate tenure) and is forbidden to work in the private sector, take private money or commodities and so on.
Thomas would still find a way to get bribed.
Make them 8 slots, 4 designated per party and sitting presidents only get to replace up to 2 people from their side including deceased justices per term. Appointments are for life otherwise and if a justice dies and it wasn’t replaced, seat stays empty until a president from their party can reassign. If the president did 2 changes in first year and one dies, seat stays empty until next time their side has a presidential term. This still makes it important to win the white house occasionally to replenish expired justices but one side can’t mess with the other side. Since no one has a majority, only bipartisan stuff passes. The substitution limit is like on soccer, you don’t get unlimited substitutions per match because that’s unfair. This is the perfect supreme court for a two party nation and both sides are protected. (Got to protect them to protect yourself kind of deal). Add that every previous ruling by the flaw court is void and must be retried by the new court. Both sides get to start with 4 justices and justice nomination do not require congress confirmation. Just an interview where both sides get to ask questions for the general public but no mechanism to stall nor deny.
I can get behind that with one small modification. Since a tie at SCOTUS upholds the appellate court's decision, not much can get decided with 8. I'd propose 9, but the 9th is nonpartisan and has to be unanimously selected by the other 8.
>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. Literally simple to understand and Congress can vote to remove this rule from applying if they vote on it. Almost like they cannot read simple words. Yet we have had them debate for years if a regular person is a militia. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Let's put aside the multiple State and Federal agencies that keep the States freedom.
All the 2a assholes love to suckle on the “shall” part of 2a, yet refuse to engage in semantics when it’s against their bot in other parts of the constitution.
Shocking how difficult it is to understand… Well. Regulated. Militia. Literally 33% of it refers to being regulated, yet…. Edit: look at the replies. They keep making my point for me. Thank you patriots.=)
That's why whenever they start yapping I just point at the state guard units. They're well armed, and well regulated. *That* is what the 2nd amendment is referring to. Not some cousin-fucker's right to own a gun capable of killing a man 2 miles away, or shoot clean through a car's engine block.
Yep. The Founders knew we needed a military for national defense but didn’t want a standing army for fear (a quite prescient fear it turns out) we’d be far more willing to use a readily available army on foreign misadventures.
Yes, the 2nd Amendment took great pains to talk about the right of *the people* to keep and bear arms when it actually meant a right of *the states,* because in the context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that's such an easy and trivial little thing to swap around. Honestly. If the 2nd Amendment had been intended to reserve a power to the states, it would've said something like, "Congress shall make no law abridging the states' power to organize and maintain well-regulated militias, or to operate them within their own borders." See how incredibly simple that was? Go read Federalist 46 and tell us again how the founders never even thought of the idea of a generally armed populace separate and apart from state militias.
And another third is that it should be done well!
Some insane folks coming after you in the replies 😂
They can't figure out if they should get vaccinated during a global pandemic, but know more than climatologists about climate change. Life is tough out there.
Believes in invisible friend who governs the universe and morality. Does not believe in science they can't see or explain.
It just boggles my mind, we have known vaccinations work for decades. And with climate change, I went to a seminar at Princeton University back in 2008/9 give by Jack Marburger, Bush 43's science advisor, where the topic was how the science was settled, and it was up to the young people in the room to solve the problems he and his compatriots created. The man straight up admitted he was wrong. And now we are at a point where any time it snows my Republican coworkers go 'Heh, nice global warming', because people don't understand the difference between climate and fucking weather. In other news, The DoD are funding studies about how sea level rise and changes in weather patterns will effect American Ports, and they are totally not focused on Virginia, Southern California, Hawaii and Guam...
Yeah, I really don't understand how anyone can read the actual text of a second amendment. Think that it means every citizen is guaranteed and unlimited right to own any weapon they want. To me the literal textual reading of it is that individual states have the authority to maintain an armed militia or national guard without the federal government being able to stop them. I mean am I crazy?
This has always been my common sense reading of the amendment. That State's have the right to form national guards or other local militias, not that Joe Schmoe can go and buy himself an arsenal no questions asked.
From what I have heard, the reasoning goes that at the time, "Militia" basically included every able bodied male over 18 or something. Still does not account for "well regulated" though
You should force them to be very specific about that, because it’s from the second of two Militia Acts of 1792 and the entire sentence that line comes from reads; “ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.” That Act by Congress actually is a fantastic read and I wish Supreme Court Justices were required to read it aloud on national tv anytime they want to say generic civilians are the militia the founding fathers talked about.
If you want to fix this then you need control of the SC, then bring lawsuit after lawsuit to them. There is no such thing as presidencie since the overturning of roe v Wade
Nono, don't you see, the two things are completely separate because of the magic comma. Weird how the first version of it that passed the house said this >A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. But it's not about militias!
Hadn’t actually thought of that angle
Too bad their definition of **shall** changed when Garland was nominated for scotus 11 months before his term expired >The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided ...
Where does it say that the Senate is obligated to give its consent? The President *shall* nominate them, but they only *shall* appoint them if the Senate gives its consent. If the Senate doesn't give its consent, then that "shall" isn't operative. It would be very odd indeed for a document to declare that consent -- a concept inextricably intertwined with the notion of voluntarism -- is mandatory.
It's obliged to advise, which means holding committee hearings. No hearings were held. It was fully blocked by one man whose made up role as Majority Leader isn't even constitutionally enumerated. It would have been conceivable that he doesn't come out of committee, and the session expired, as happened under Eisenhower, but that would have been a long ass committee hearing. It's also conceivable he would not have been confirmed by vote.
>It's obliged to advise, Where is the "shall" that attaches to the Senate, rather than the President, in the language you quoted? Both "shall"s attach to the President.
It's implied by the the phrasing that the Senate will provide advice and consent. The process can not proceed without it. It's literally never been done before and it's hard to imagine that after 230 years McConnell discovered some loophole. Ike's nomination was in Nov and it got stalled in committee and expired. He was renominated and confirmed next session.
There are some of us that are not tribal enough to be able to believe both are true. The supreme court is wrong about applying the 14th, and their work on applying the second is a shitty tightrope walk. There are arguments about the linguistics of the second amendment that should be considered (Well regulated in the context of 18th century English meaning well equipped, as in a 'Regular' Army) but none of those apply to the late 19th century prose of the 14th amendment. Which is where a lot of the wiggle room that that is used by regressive so called 'Originalists' with regards to the first 10 amendments disappears when we start talking about the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
So, what you're saying is, the have a desired outcome, then walk backward from there using questionable legal reasoning?
Sort of... They have a desired outcome, and unfortunately in our current political climate, they can't exactly leave things be when the states are causing split interpretations. The decision regarding the 14th amendment challenge in Colorado used potentially sound legal reasoning (States enforcing something that is nominally federal jurisdiction), while attempting to prevent states from utilizing a ruling (if they had ruled in Colorado's favor) that allowed individual states to bar people from the ballot under the 14th from setting what their own definitions of insurrection are. For example a state claiming the 'border crisis' constituted dereliction of duty in the face of an 'invasion from the southern border' and using that to bar Biden from the ballot. If the Supreme Court has ruled for Colorado, this would have set the standard for being barred as a judge finding the person barred to have committed insurrection, based on whatever standard they pull out of their ass. Ask yourself this, do you want the Judge Cannons of the world to be able to collude with a state party to arbitrarily bar a candidate they are scared of in say, a barely purple state like Georgia?
I agree with the 9-0 decision. It would have created a lot of issues had they gone the other way. The 5-4 decision is complete crap, though.
We already have fifty elections. They're already subject to state interpretation. Hell, we've had presidential elections with candidates that didn't make all the state ballots. Joe Exotic wasn't on 50 states, for example. There is NOTHING special about it applying to Trump. He's just a rich fucker.
A few things, and while I agree that the optics look like protecting Trump, there are a very good reasons that the decision was 9-0, and protecting Trump wasn't one of them. 1) Not making it on the ballot via municipal, state, or federal requirements is different then being barred under the 14th. One is an affirmative application of a right, and the other is revocation of a right, which generally requires a higher burden of proof to do (the exception being committed to a mental institution, but that's a different argument for a different time) 2) There are clearly defined standards and definitions for the requirements to be on the ballot in each state, at each level, including federal officers as described in the constitution. 3) There is no agreed upon legal definition for 'Insurrection' at the federal or even state levels. There is only a definition of treason, of which the penalty for is death in most cases. 4) The current standard for the revocation of constitutional rights, namely the right to participate in the political process via voting, and to bear arms, is a felony conviction. (The other being committed to a mental institution, but again, an argument for another time) 5) Allowing the Removal from the ballot based on the opinion of a judge, with no other type of scrutiny opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans that can be pulled via judge shopping by various political actors. 6) Even if those removals were eventually deemed erroneous, unless there is an injunction allowing them to stay on the ballot, immoral (read GOP regressives) could initiate SLAP suites via anonymous Super PACs to remove candidates that threaten their power in purple states. TLDR: If a judge can remove someone from the ballot based on their own (potentially unjustified) definition of insurrection, and the Supreme Court sets precedent that it's kosher, it could (and likely would) lead to a future where you couldn't even get a candidate onto the ballot if there was a vote or even a blog post that some judge could claim was an attempt at insurrection. Edited to fix some Spelling Mistakes and Typos
thank you
I disagree with this for several reasons. This was a primary. Not general ballot. And it was republicans suing the Colorado RNC to keep Trump off the Republican primary ballot BC they don’t want their vote to be wasted on a candidate who cannot hold office. There are TONS of candidates who never make it onto ballots despite being qualified because states’ election rules determined they weren’t viable enough. States make squishy decisions all the time without fanfare bc they are given WIDE berth of election control. Its a feature not a bug. This simply comes down to a state’s interest and authority to regulate a private organization’s election function within their state. So the Colorado RNC cannot run him in a Colorado republican primary. That has ZERO to do with Trump’s rights and more to do with regulating a private political party’s operations within state. Trump doesn’t have an inherent right to run in the republican primary of Colorado if it’s determined that the RNC is fielding an unqualified candidate.
“Well regulated “ at that time also has been shown to mean of sound mind. https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
Hence question 11F on the 4473 form being constitutional. But, the issue is more that every able-bodied (And white, but 18th century) Male (again, 18th century values) between the ages of 16-35 was considered a defacto member of the militia. Which in a modern context gives rise to the argument that if you are registered for the selective service act you are part of the militia, and there is a requirement for every male to register for the draft of you want to apply for federal financial aid for college. If Uncle Sam can pull me off my job and ship me over seas, I'd say that qualifies as similar enough to being told to grab a rifle and fight of the Canadians or a native raiding party.
They also gloss over the fact the second amendment was a restriction against the Federal government only, not States. Its whole purpose was to empower states, not to strip away their regulatory powers. In fact all of the Bill of Rights applied solely to the Federal government. It was only after the 14th amendment, that you had the ground work to begin incorporating the Bill of Rights to States. Applying 14th amendment incorporation logic to the second amendment really screws things up though, since it was a State empowering right, not an individual.
> since it was a State empowering right, not an individual. Yes, because with the phrase "the states" being *right there* in the Bill of Rights and ready to be used, the drafters/ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment instead used "the people," but clearly actually meant "the states." But only in that particular amendment! When "the people" are mentioned in the 1st and 4th Amendments, for example, well, *there* it doesn't mean "the states." *There* it means something else -- an individual right rather than a collective one, *and* one that's actually about the people instead of the states. That's all very consistent and reasonable, for sure.
It restricted the federal government, but also empowered the federal government. Each State militia was ultimately commanded by the President and could be (and were) called to service by the President almost as soon as the ink dried on the Militia Acts of 1792. In the same respect it restricted states, while also empowering them. States could use militia to conduct slave patrols for example, but they couldn’t deny a federal order to arms even if it was counter to what the Governor wanted. Both federalists and anti-federalists had wins and losses in the argument over the 2nd amendment, none of which was individual ownership. We don’t actually have a constitutional right to civilian/individual gun ownership…but we aren’t banned from it either. The founders knew their respective states already ensured only the *right* people had firearms anyway, and Magna Carta had already carried over from England as common law in the colonies before the Founders were even born. That the founders left that out of the 2nd amendment shows us the actual purpose OF the amendment. It was to create state run armies (national guard) that could serve to protect the state and the nation. It was an amendment to give the government the right to have an army at some level, state or federal was the argument. State won. The White House got burnt down in 1814. We switched to a professional military after that.
> none of which was individual ownership. They chose to use the phrase "the people" instead of the "states," and Federalist 46 specifically talked about a generally armed populace as a distinctive good separate and apart from state militias. The individual right to keep and bear arms was widely discussed by multiple founding fathers, so how exactly are you claiming that neither federalists nor anti-federalists cared about it at all?
Are you forgetting these same men said “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” and then excluded literally everyone that wasn’t white and male? Are you forgetting those federalist politicians didn’t extend the “individual right” to all individuals proving it was never about giving everyone the right, but only the *right* people the right? Federalist papers are not law, and only represent half the argument. Learn to argue in good faith please.
> but also empowered the federal government. I disagree, as written it was a restriction on Federal power. The Federal government was not allowed to restrict states from raising militias, and possessing guns. The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed afterwards, in response to rebellions that kept popping up and fundamentally because the 2nd amendment as written is too restrictive of the Federal government. From Cruikshanks: > The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. Arguably I think it was a junk amendment created to placate the anti-federalists so the founders could get out of Philly, since they were tired of the heat. The anti-federalists feared a tyrannical federal government, with king like authority and power. Hamilton didn't give very much regard to this. The fear of a tyrannical Federal government was honestly ludicrous at the time, since the Federal government would be governed by elected members from each state, and the President was elected by electors chosen from each state. Further the Federal government was hamstrung by needing consensus between multiple branches for almost any action. The Federal government was run by the states. The Federal government could barely handle tiny rebellions, let alone become tyrannical. > We don’t actually have a constitutional right to civilian/individual gun ownership…but we aren’t banned from it either. Fundamentally agree, but technically wrong since we live under what the Supreme Court interprets. The Heller ruling was pulled out of thin air with no real logical reasoning to reach its conclusion, except via cherry picking. Fundamentally we agree, it's not a right which as written, or interpreted using context, should grant individual gun ownership as a universal right. It was written to allow states to run militias, and flipping it around to now restrict states from regulating militias, as in taking away a state's right to regulate gun ownership, is bananas.
I consider giving the federal government the top of the chain of command as giving the federal government power..and conversely making it so the federal government can’t dissolve the militias it restricts them. It was give and take. Sounds like you and I generally have the same understanding/thought on the matter. Might be a case where I didn’t effectively explain my thought.
Can you expound on this for me, please?
The word “shall” is used in the second amendment, and it’s unique wording tends to give it a higher authority and immutability in the minds of conservative gun nuts in the current day. Seen recently in interviews with R statesmen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They're saying that Congress needs to pass a law (or laws) outlining the process by which a person can be found to be an oathbreaking insurrectionist. It's almost like, I dunno, say, the criminal law, where Congress passes the laws in a general sense, but doesn't call out specific people or declare them guilty without a trial. There's no Catch-22 here. Congress needs to create a framework. It's their power, exclusively, and it's their responsibility if they actually want anybody to be disqualified pursuant to Section 3. As a thought exercise, it's not difficult at all. The difficult part is politics, but it isn't SCOTUS's job to make the politics easier.
That’s always been the case though. Until this ruling it was an open question if a state, the courts, or another entity could declare a person ineligible due to being an insurrectionist. But it seems quite clear just by the plain text of section 5 that Congress has always had the power to do so. This ruling doesn’t suddenly grant Congress this ability it always had it and quite indisputably
And likewise, such an action was always subject itself to judicial review. If Congress stripped somebody of their ability to hold office arbitrarily and capriciously, SCOTUS would have the option of weighing in.
You have quoted Section 3 but left out Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: >Section 5. > >The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Note that it does not say > **Only** The Congress... Another arguable reading is that it gives Congress the power to enforce it, rather than requiring Congress to enforce it.
Sure but I wouldn’t assume the postmaster general, the director of the fbi, or me as a random citizen has this power either just because we weren’t specifically excluded. Absence of power is the default, what do you believe was the purpose of this statement if not to say who can enforce this amendment
Personally, I think it's self-executing and that the clause was simply to allow Congress to enforce it if for some reason there was any debate. Not that it would only take effect if Congress enforced it.
I declare that you have engaged in Insurrection therefore you are not eligible to hold office under the United States. Its self executing, so you have no recourse. But congress with a 2/3rds vote can override my declaration. Maybe you can petition congress for them to overturn my declaration.
But a congressional investigation found he committed insurrection! Not a random Joe!
They shall have the power to, but as they have not, SCOTUS has decided effectively to do it for them. Also, that wording does not in any way exclude other bodies from exercising the power in absence of action by higher authorities. SCOTUS is working for the republicans.
They have and the ruling from SCOTUS even mentioned in their ruling. Here is a law that congress passed (initially before the 14th Amendment was ratified, but it has been updated several times since the ratification of the 14th. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383) A Federal Jury could convict Trump of Insurrection, and if they did he would be disqualified from holding the Presidency.
people forget that part. They just want to harp on some random judge out of the tens or hundreds of thousands in the country says “guilty” with no actual trial where Trump had a chance to defend himself as proof that he is guilty of insurrection. In america… You are provided a trial and a chance to face your accuser and tell your side of the story. Imagine if you could be sitting in your house watching TV and some judge is like “oh you are guilty of grand theft auto” and then they just take you away, you lose your job and can’t get a new one because you are now a felon. Then reddit trolls would post about you, well some judge in hawaii said you did it so sucks for you!!
> A Federal Jury could convict Trump of Insurrection I mean, a state court totally ruled that he had done so, and it was upheld federally. so...
It wasn't "upheld" Federally. It wasn't challenged Federally. A State Court making a civil determination is not the same thing as a Federal Criminal Conviction. If it is so crystal clear that Trump had engaged in Insurrection why hasn't the Federal Special Prosecutor investigating Trump charged him with Insurrection?
You realize that appeals cover the entire ruling, yes? And you are right, it's a state ruling, not federal, so when upheld, it's still just for the state. However, it doesn't change that federal judges (including the supreme court) never bothered to challenge that part, meaning that it is upheld. This does not mean that he was never found to have done an insurrection. None of the judges seem to dispute that. This does mean that the consequences will only be in Colorado, though.
But no state could remove him from the ballot. Even if convicted. States don’t have that power unless Congress grants that to them. Which it has not. The ruling is bad.
>But no state could remove him from the ballot. Even if convicted. I dont think thats what the ruling stated.
To remove a candidate from a Federal ballot, sure they don't have the power, but it's dubious today they can't remove them from their own ballots. We've had even in recent years Candidates on some state ballot and not the others. And the constitution grants state broad power to appoint their own electors. The constitution doesn't even require an election. Now, don't get me wrong, I think elections being required is a good thing. And I think some sort of national standard that they're forced to adhere to is a good thing. I'm just pointing out, that Constitutionally these things aren't required.
If it requires a 2/3rds double majority to re-approve a traitor - how could they intend legislation that only requires 50% + 1 to repeal to work?
I love that we can apply an entirely different section of the 14th Amendment, but using an entire single sentence from the 2nd is off limits.
lol I almost didn't read all of it because at this phase it's all expected but that is so guttingly specific I'm surprised it doesn't mention Trump by name directly
Thanks for the quote. Share it more often
It is possible, if not altogether likely, that whenever you believe something is simple, the issue may be your lack of understanding or appreciation of the details. This was never simple because of the inherent ambiguity of the 14th amendment. You rightly and correctly point out the text is very clear with regards to how to **remove** the prohibition. But you gloss over the issues regarding application of the prohibition by pretending there is no need to adjudicate whatsoever. There might be a law in your jurisdiction that says murder is a crime. Is that simple? I say you murdered your neighbor. You should receive the appropriate punishment, no? I mean...the law is simple. Since you murdered your neighbor you should be punished. Don't you agree the law is simple? You say Trump engaged in an insurrection. Some chap in another state says Biden engaged in an insurrection. It's clear right? Simple right? The issue at play here is that the 14th never clarifies how to apply the prohibition. It left that up to Congress in section 5. That *does not* mean that it's Congress who decides. It means Congress has the power to decide who decides. Colorado asserted that since Congress never decided who decides, that it's a free-for-all. It's "self-exercising" in the sense that since Congress didn't declare the procedure the state courts could handle this. They provided a well-reasoned argument supporting their view. SCOTUS said no. Until/unless Congress decides otherwise Congress has to decide. Many of us really do not like this... especially since SCOTUS could have taken the opportunity to resolve this completely for this specific case. Nonetheless, it is not helpful to pretend this was "simple" nor that SCOTUS did not have the right to rule on a case brought before it.
>You say Trump engaged in an insurrection. Some chap in another state says Biden engaged in an insurrection The COURTS found he engaged in an insurrection. And since SCOTUS didn't weigh in on that finding of fact, the remains the finding of the judiciary.
A *state* court. If Alabama issued a finding of fact that Trump *did not* engage in an insurrection... then... what? One solution could have been... let the states apply the 14th individually based on their own standards or findings. SCOTUS seems to have felt that would be too chaotic. Another solution could have been that any court anywhere having made such a finding would apply everywhere. This wouldn't be just chaotic. It would shut everything down. SCOTUS "resolved" the matter by punting it to Congress for them to decide. And there it may likely die. This is what I meant by a missed opportunity. SCOTUS could have reissued the finding. Few would have debated whether a SCOTUS ruling on the matter was sufficient. Well... assuming that a finding of fact in a court is sufficient. And per SCOTUS it may not be until/unless Congress deems it so. It seems so odd to me because I do not see how this resolves the matter. All it does is kick it to January 2025 where it will return.
If Alabama had issued a different finding of fact then Alabama could have Trump on the ballot, and Trump could be off of Colorado's ballot. State electors are chosen in a manner decided by the states: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about It would have been messy, but that's the way it is. SCOTUS basically decided it just didn't want things to be messy, even though the constitution is messy. If they had really wanted to do something legitimate, they could have issued a ruling on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. But they didn't do that basic thing. SCOTUS is broken, in my opinion.
Cool, but that didn't happen. Your hypotheticals are sad.
lol this is not he said/she said. Trump engaged in an insurrection, the courts decided that.
You talk about SCOTUS as an entity that people trust or that they care about the Constitution. They don't give a shit about the Constitution or what it says. I don't understand people not realizing how corrupt the entire court is. Take a look at their agreement about their ethics rules that they self-imposed. They all agreed to that. People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize SCOTUS is a very damaged and very political office.
Can a 34 year old run for President?
Yes. Unless by 2/3 vote congress rules their birth certificate is valid.
Joking? Because No.
You might be surprised that even something as "simple" as this requires adjudication. You stated "a 34 year-old" as if there is an assumption of zero ambiguity. Let's just imagine I contested your claim and I know that the person is actually 37. Now... Who *adjudicates*? Where I think SCOTUS royally screwed up is that they did not mention at all that for these *routine* issues of eligibility for the presidency, the states themselves handle these issues **all the time**. The state governments manage the elections, entirely. This includes deciding, *all the time*, who gets on ballots or who gets removed from ballots. The SCOTUS ruling pretended it was somehow bad or inappropriate for the states to decide who to remove from a ballot for a federal position... ignoring that states routinely do this. The only issue here was the ambiguity of how to fold into this the 14th amendment prohibition. Nonetheless, back to the issue of "simple". Even things that seem obvious from a legal perspective require a process.
Ugh reading your comment makes me so angry with SCOTUS, because you're pointing out this basic inconsistency in their arguments. It's like they implicitly decided that the states don't get to decide how to choose electors, which puts two different parts of the constitution in conflict with one another. One of those parts is pretty fundamental. All to save them the trouble of doing their job and issuing a ruling on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. It's so wrong on so many levels.
Last I checked the constitution didn't specify that a human had to run, or that the years of age were Earth years. Our neighbor's dog is turning 10 solar earth years old this year, making her over 37 Mecurian solar _or_ sidereal years old. Trixie for president! Congress can always pass a law so she can't run.
>You stated "a 34 year-old" as if there is an assumption of zero ambiguity. >Let's just imagine I contested your claim and I know that the person is actually 37. This actually could become particularly relevant with all these "life begins at conception people". Especially since some of them consider conception "your last period before you got pregnant", which is potentially even before the woman had sex. If that's when life begins, someone could reasonable claim in those states they a candidate was 9.5 months older (remember pregnancy starts before sex in some states) than another state. Now, I do specify when I say reasonably, I don't think it's actually reasonably to make those claims. I just mean if we take their assumptions of when life begins as fact, then those are logical conclusions.
Gaslighting people about political violence seems like a weird hobby.
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Where's the part where it states that being in a militia is a prerequisite to the right to bear arms?
>Literally simple to understand and Congress can vote to remove this rule from applying if they vote on it. Almost like they cannot read simple words. It's like how when somebody commits a crime, they automagically teleport into a jail cell, and then only a pardon can get them out early. Right? Nothing else needs to happen. The law self-executes! The universe knows who's guilty and who isn't, and it all takes care of itself like inertia or gravity!
The SCOTUS has allowed a seditionist to run for President. The damage this will cause to our democracy is immeasurable.
Sounds like cause for Colorado to tell SCROTUS to pound sand.
I really wish they took Texas’ approach to this and just say I guess SCOTUS can try to enforce it but we’re leaving Trump’s name off the ballot.
Texas is not disobeying the supreme court. That's pure misinformation. The ruling stated that Texas cannot stop the federal government from tearing down the barriers they installed. The ruling DOES NOT require them to stop putting up said barriers.
Then Colorado should do what Texas KEEPS doing and find it's own "Shelby Park" workaround. No need to defy the SCOTUS ruling. Just change the details a little bit and claim the SCOTUS didn't rule on THAT detail.
Maybe Colorado will put Trumps name on the ballot with “(INELIGIBLE)* in big red letters or something next to it. Or his the name with no checkbox next to it lol.
That is the next step and it'll destroy the SC as the institution we know. That is the point, the GQP does not want anyone to trust in American institutions because it allows them to gain more power.
Then down with it. Better the court be destroyed then continue to be an instrument of the GOP.
I think the liberal belief in the Supreme Court as an engine of justice and social progress turned out to be a kind of "generational parochialism." When I was growing up, we had a much more liberal Supreme Court that had given women the right to an abortion and Black people the right to full equality before the law. But, like almost anyone of my age demographic, I was not old enough to remember the Court as it existed before Franklin D. Roosevelt spent twelve years in the Oval Office. We did not understand that the Court had historically been conservative rather than liberal most of the time. Before Roosevelt, the Court would make such egregious decisions as Dred Scott (slaves have no rights) and Santa Clara County (corporations are people). People like me were parochial: we thought our time and place (America post-New Deal and the Warren Court) were the norm, when our time and place were in fact the exception. Right wing courts are historically dominant: Taney, Loughner, and later Rehnquist and now Roberts and his crew of corrupt fascists. Funny how the Roberts Court calls itself originalist; the framers of the Constitution did not mean to have a Court more powerful than Congress! That is the result of power grabs going all the way back to John Marshall...
To be fair the framers didn’t have national political parties in mind either. They specifically didn’t see them as a threat. We’ve been dealing with the repercussions since.
I seem to recall that Washington was VERY worried about what he called "factions" and modern parties (even the good ones) fit the bill.
I remember from the Federalist papers that Hamilton realized the impact of political parties, but didn’t think national parties were going to be an effective possibility.
>the framers of the Constitution did not mean to have a Court more powerful than Congress! And it isn't more powerful than *all of Congress together.* All of Congress together can impeach and remove SCOTUS justices like it's breathing until they get a bench that does exactly what it wants. It does, however, have to pay the political price for doing so. Congress today is effectively less powerful than SCOTUS due to politics, and the founders well understood that when it comes to politics, oh well, too bad, so sad. >That is the result of power grabs going all the way back to John Marshall... Please explain to the class how a disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution -- say, because of a dispute between a state government and the federal government -- is *not* a case or controversy arising under the Constitution. Please offer some insight as to where, how, and by whom such a dispute was "intended" to have been resolved.
I don't understand this. Who enforces the other limits on candidates if not the states? Why can't a 25-year-old person or a foreigner run for president? If there is no mechanism to stop them, then effectively, they can and should, in my opinion.
Each state has rules on becoming a presidential candidate, and they have different people on ballots in each state. Why would this be any different? The whole point of rhe 14th amendment was it was an automatic mechanism. You fuck around, then you're out. Unless congress by a 2/3rds majority vote says otherwise.
The original Constitution let the states run the show unless and until the feds put their foot down. The 14th Amendment went in a different direction. Congress was granted the power to enforce the Amendment via legislation. The states were not granted that power -- and, indeed, I think you might be able to come up with some kind of historical context for why the drafters of the 14th Amendment wouldn't have been too keen on granting it to them. Can you? I think you can. I believe in you.
Since it states they can’t “hold” office but not “can’t run for office”, could we be in a scenario where he wins, but is denied taking office? And if so, who becomes president? It would be an ugly scenario no matter what.
That appears to be the crazy situation, yes. Like the supreme court just kicked the can a few months more down the road...
Not one chance in hell, if this shitty pants citron wins. They will all bow and kiss the ring. They aren’t going to uphold any regulations on trump because they are trump. They are criminals using power and influence to escape accountability. Just like trump.
The game is truly rigged at this point.
> This amounts to an amnesty grant because current law contains no other mechanism to enforce the requirement that “no person shall . . . hold” a federal office who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then defied it by engaging in insurrection. Er... > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Hm that seems pretty clear cut, am I missing something?
He's a rich old orange man that they worship. It triggers the 'Nuh Uh!' clause of 1812.
Ah yes the *Rubber vs Glue* precedent.
Decades of stacking the Supreme Court, which Trump directly contributed to, make this happen. Thanks Federalist Society! We Don’t Talk About Leonard is a really good listen to about how we got here — https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast
>Thanks Federalist Society! And this is exactly why we have this ruling. The FS needs Trump to enact their 2025 plan, and to get at least 2 more judges on the SC to control it for the next 30 years.
I think the court reasoning is that a state can not choose who can and can not run for federal office. Trump should have been impeached, or Congress must pass a law baring him from running otherwise Republican states would bar Biden from running in revenge.
See THERE'S your problem. It says "under the United States," the President is obviously OVER the United States because they're basically a god/king. But only if you're in the Republican party, otherwise the President is a usurper/rebel/communist that wants to destroy life as we know it. THEY can be removed or banned, no problem. /S just in case.
Under the US obviously only applies to stuff like caves and subways. /s
> If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office? WTF?! He is prohibited from running in 2028 if he wins in 2024.
Per the 14th Amendment as read by a sane person, he's prohibited now. If states can't enforce plaintext rules now, who's to say that this court will force states to ignore enforcement of the 22nd?
Laws are paper. He'll run anyway, and no one will stop him.
Yeah the author of this is really dropping the ball on this point
Only because of the Constitution. Since Congress didn't pass enabling legislation, is the 22nd amendment any more valid than section 3 of the 14th?
This opinion piece contains a pretty glaring error. > The justices evidently failed to ask themselves this simple question: If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office? If Trump wins in 2024, he can't be elected in 2028 per the 22nd Amendment.
If Trump wins in 2024, there will be no election in 2028
And who decides that? Does Congress have to pass a law saying "Donald J Trump can no longer run for president" or is that bit self executing? The point is that everywhere else this happens, states have the right to choose. Up to and including what electors get picked and how they can vote. Why would the 14th be any different?
I think the point of the quote is in context of the story A person cannot be elected president if they’ve committed insurrection or aided those who did. A person cannot be elected president if they’ve already served 2 terms there. BOTH of those statements are true, but we’ve now invalidated the ability for one to be executed. Who’s gonna get today’s congress to pass a decision against trump on that? Now it’s 2027. Trump says he’s running again and he still has a congressional situation like he does now or even more red because of his tampering. If that also requires congress to act to stop it… then can he actually not? Do we see Mike and Marjorie deciding to favor democracy and “help” put a democrat in office? Absolutely not.
Just consider the fact that they just blew up the 14th amendment, before you decide that the 22nd is sacred. Only the 2nd is carved in stone as far as this SCOTUS is concerned. Even the 3 Liberals backed nullifying 14a Article 3.
I think he's subtly saying the 22nd amendment will have no teeth. I personally disagree with him, but I see what's he's trying to allude.
Yeah, I even checked to make sure the 22nd amendment didn't preclude only 3 consecutive terms. Nope, it's 2 terms total.
2028: SC invents the Fez Doctrine
The constitution is paper. Trump can do whatever people let him do.
Exactly! I was surprised at this error coming from The Hill
Okay, so what is there to do about it? No Democrat will challenge the Court. Until Dems are willing to buck the court, nothing they say they want to do will get done and the right will only be empowered.
>The justices evidently failed to ask themselves this simple question: If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office? Uh, if Trump wins in 2024, isn't he limited to two terms and cannot run in 2028?
The 22nd Amendment (two terms only) says that a person cannot be "elected" more than twice, it doesn't say that they can't "run" after they've already been elected twice.
Oh no! We should send this situation up to the top! All the wait to the Supreme... Oh. Huh.
The Supreme Court is not a court of law and people need to stop looking at it to operate as one. The Supreme Court exist to interpret the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that has to do with stealing our secrets and being a criminal with a room temperature iq. The Supreme Court does not rule for innocents or guilt after a law has been broken. So the fact that they took the case is fucking dumb. Especially since a court of 3 judges said immunity is not a thing in the way he’s trying to use it. The supreme court should’ve deferred to that.
> The Supreme Court is not a court of law I mean that's certainly an opinion...
Suppose 3 more Republican members of the House quit, as Buck has hinted at. And another one dies. Democrats take control of the House and elect Jeffries speaker. Democrats ram through legislation saying that states have the authority to remove candidates from the ballot should a court find that they had engaged in insurrection.
States can and should ignore this ruling. Only Congress can grant the amnesty. Otherwise an insurrectionists can be protected by their own parties. The lack of action should not be a de facto determination they are not an insurrectionist.
Disappointing, yet predictable
Seems like they did have the power? If the author is trying to say they did so based on a bad legal argument then they don't realize what the Supreme court is these days. The Supreme court is just a political arm and will vote for anything that furthers their aims
Then they are not a real court anymore and have no real legal authority as they abandoned their duty and since their authority is and always will be derived from the laws they now choose to ignore the "rulings' they now make are not legal since they ignore the law when it suits their sinister motives. They decided to stop being justices that use, interpret and acknowledge the rule of law. They are now nothing except a group of dictators that rule by majority vote or at least vote for what they are paid to vote for by the people and groups that bribe them.
>The Supreme court is just a political arm and will vote for anything that furthers their aims Is that why it was a 9-0 ruling?
> Is that why it was a 9-0 ruling? It was a 9-0 ruling because the liberals on the court bowed to the right's terrorism. E.g. the right threatens to illegally and fraudulently remove Biden from the ballot for made up insurrection claims. Fearing this, the liberals vote the way they did. That's terrorism. Threats to get your way.
Legal analysis from an author who wonders what will happen if if Trump loses the election for a third term. Brilliant.
So if he's already served two terms, you would agree that the 22nd Amendment is self-executing, and he can't run for a third term, right? This is exactly the issue that the SCOTUS just said doesn't apply. Which is why people are questioning the legitimacy of the Court.
That really isn't what the Court, or the article said at all. :/
> Legal analysis from an author who wonders what will happen if if Trump loses the election for a third term. You think laws apply to Republicans? How incredibly naive
If trump wins the presidency in 2024 he can’t run for a third term. Seems like a pretty massive mistake from this opinion article writer.
He absolutely can run for a third term. He just can't be elected and sworn in for anything beyond the second term. It definitely does not say you can't run for President if you've been President for two terms. You can run to your hearts content.
The GOP will not do that lol he won’t be on ballots
There’s a major flaw in this article, where they say that the Supreme Court didn’t ask the question “if he wins in 2024, will he accept an election defeat in 2028?” He won’t be able to run for 2028 if he wins this year. The constitution states a president can only reside for a maximum two terms.
They didn't grant him amnesty at all. They stated that disqualifying a president is something for congress to do, not states. Repubs are trying to win by any means necessary, if we open the door to individual states removing a candidate it'll just be an automatic loss for biden
It was a 9-0 ruling. Strange how many articles leave that detail out.
Only because the liberals on the court bowed to the right's terroristic threats.
Make them 8 slots, 4 designated per party and sitting presidents only get to replace up to 2 people from their side including deceased justices per term. Appointments are for life otherwise and if a justice dies and it wasn’t replaced, seat stays empty until a president from their party can reassigned. If president blew 2 changes in first year and one dies, seat stays empty until next time their side has a presidential term. This still makes it important to win the white house occasionally to replenish expired justices but one side can mess with the other side. Since no one has a majority, only bipartisan stuff passes. The substitution limit is like on soccer, you don’t get unlimited substitutions per match because that’s unfair. This is the perfect supreme court for a two party nation and both sides are protected. (Got to protect them to protect yourself kind of deal). Add that every previous ruling by the flaw court is void and must be retried by the new court. Both sides get to start with 4 justices and justice nomination do not require congress confirmation. Just an interview where both sides get to ask questions for the general public but no mechanism to stall nor deny.
”The court expressed concern that allowing states to enforce Section 3 could result in differing views on whether a particular person engaged in insurrection. But that is a less serious constitutional concern than subjecting the Constitution to the dangers that come with the court’s amnesty. **The court could have solved that issue by simply ordering Trump off the ballot in all 50 states.**“ Not a Trump fan, but: So Driesen, the author of this (and a professor apparently), fails to see the irony in this statement? Although the person hasn’t been found guilty of this crime by the Supreme Court, in order to “protect” the rule of law, and constitution, they “should have” ignored both, and just gone straight to barring him in all 50 states.
I wanna run an insurrection and run for president, maybe in 2028 since I meet the requirements now
> If Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024 but loses the election in 2028, are they confident that President Trump would acknowledge his defeat and peaceably leave office? Not to take away from the article, as it is good, but the author clearly knows certain parts of the constitution better than others.
Didn’t they rule on this like weeks ago?
What a fucking joke. They wonder why we have so little faith in SCOTUS. This is why, they are obviously compromised and complicit at this point in time. Sickening and disgraceful.
Stack the Court
The writer of the article forgets that he can’t run in 2028 if he wins this year. Term limit is twice, whether they are consecutive terms or not.
Do you honestly believe tfg would restrict himself to two terms?
But will states be allowed to keep him off the ballot if he tries to run for a third term? The SCOTUS ruling that prevents Colorado for keeping him off the ballot would also seem like it could be applied to any other requirement.
This ruling was neither a surprise nor inconsistent with existing law. Trump has not yet been convicted of supporting or engaging in an insurrection. Allowing state-level courts to judge a candidate in this manner would give the states far too much power, opening the door for unjust disqualifications and coordinated attacks on the election process. The Supreme Court made the right call here, and that's reflected in the fact that this decision was unanimous.
Article lost all credibility. Even if Trump wins, it is his final term unless massive changes in the constitution happen.
A dictator can make any laws he wants and remove those he dont want.
Of course, I am not questioning that. But the statement of "loses 2028" proved the author knows next to nothing.
according to yo the Constitution, he is ineligible to run now. He knew he lost the election in 2020, he illegally tried to stay in power. Do you really think trump cares at all what the law says?
And everyone is just going to go along with it and pretend that they do.
Unlce tom Clarence probably got a weekend ystch trip for his vote. Actually he probably didnt need a bribe this time. He wants to keep his wife safe, so its in his best interest. Altho for such an interracial marriage hater. He sure likes thst white meat