a majority of the justices indicated that individual states may not disqualify candidates in a national election unless Congress first enacts legislation.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a series of questions reflecting what seemed to be an emerging consensus: that the 14th Amendment was not meant to permit states to determine whether a candidate was an ineligible insurrectionist.

“The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power, right?” he asked, adding that the challengers’ contrary argument was “a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts noted that the challengers’ position would have empowered the former Confederate states to determine whether candidates were disqualified from holding federal office. The 14th Amendment was adopted to constrain states’ rights and empower the federal government, the chief justice said, and it is “the last place you’d look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce the presidential election process.”

This has always seemed to be the strongest argument against President Trump’s disqualification. That being the Civil War historical application of what the Insurrection Clause was simply does not apply, fit, to the specific actions of President Trump.

I listened to pretty much the entire hearing. Even the most liberal of Biden appointed justices seemed troubled with the case.

Perhaps there is hope that not everything is viewed through a partisan prism.

But States are free to ignore the Supreme Court now aren't they?

Texas established that precedent.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
But States are free to ignore the Supreme Court now aren't they?

Texas established that precedent.

It seems the feds are ignoring the SCOTUS. They won the barb wire case, just chose not to enforce it.

I listened to some of it on NPR working in the shop. I thought Jackson-Brown asked some good questions, she kind of ripped Colorado's council a new one a time or two.

If the feds hold up this ridiculous claim from Colorado.... Then I guess the lefties will be fine with keeping slo joe off our ballots for his treasonous actions regarding protecting our borders????

Kinda like the nuclear option on judicial appointments????

Kinda like the Biden rule on SCOTUS appointments????


.

President Biden supports a bill passed by HOP Senate Conservatives opposed by Progressives.

It was the MAGA, Christian Nationalist in the House at the behest of President Trump that killed it.

Never let anyone say GOP far right wants to resolve the border issue.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President Biden supports a bill passed by HOP Senate Conservatives opposed by Progressives.

It was the MAGA, Christian Nationalist in the House at the behest of President Trump that killed it.

Never let anyone say GOP far right wants to resolve the border issue.

It was a shit bill, plain and simple. Slo-Joe reversed XO's that had significantly slowed illegal immigration...but you knew that already.

Wrong:

Written by a conservative OK Senator that had no provision for dreamers and restricted asylum claims with mandatory set of migrants.

You are just wrong.

Good piece of legislation killed by MAGA for taking points.

I wonder how SCOTUS would view using the 14th part 3 to remove him if he should get elected.

Since you and those like you have never read the bill, here is a summary among w a PDF to the bill.

I have king advocated here for such.

https://www.americanimmigratio...s-senate-border-bill

ANTELOPEDUNDEE some Justices questions were along the lines of the issue not being ripe until he is actually elected. That was a position advanced out of Michigan. However, I believe now more than ever that you will see a majority opinion that unequivocally prevents states from using the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate from seeking election on state ballots for president. The issue of post election success will not be entertained by a majority.

This is the exact argument I made here about allowing a patch work approach embraced by both ideological sides of the Court:


Conservative Justice Samuel Alito was among those who called states reaching differing conclusions on the issue an "unmanageable situation."

Roberts predicted that if the Colorado ruling was upheld, some states would then kick other presidential candidates off the ballot, both Republicans and Democrats, and sow chaos in presidential elections.

"That's a pretty daunting consequence," he said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the liberals, appeared to agree, asking why the authors of the 14th Amendment “would have designed a system that could result in interim dis-uniformity in this way, where we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying, ‘You are eligible, you’re not.’”

Are those nine sons and daughters of bitches going to say it's up to Congress to establish a procedure for enforcing Sec. C?

What a cop out that would be. Might as well just read it out of the Constitution--that would be more honest.

That was suggested. President Trump and amicus curiae filed by members of Congress and the Colorado GOP raised that point. I note from Sen Cruz’s brief:

That the enforcement legislation “is not an empty formality” and disqualification under the section is an “extraordinarily harsh result.” This brief was joined by 178 members of Congress.

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s own text confirms that Congress, representing the Nation’s various interests and constituencies, is the best judge of when to authorize Section 3’s affirmative enforcement.”

This brief was joined by 178 members of Congress.


True to form, it was Justice Thomas who chased this rabbit.

The courts have never needed Congress to enforce the remainder of the 14th Amendment. Why should Sec. 3 be different?

I agree. It is odd. However, the argument was made, and usually quit Justice Thomas advanced it.

The other Justices, to my reading, seem to be skeptical that the Insurrection Clause gave any power to states. With the states lacking power to enforce, Congress (or at least the Federal Government) has to be the entity to enforce the Institution Clause. See CJ Roberts and Justice Barrett.


To my squirrelly mind the states not being able to enforce does not mean Congress has to pass a law to give effect to a provision of the Constitution. States cannot enter into treaties with nations, we do not need an “authorization statute” to make treaty, or keep a state from entering a treaty.

There is apparently a post Civil War case that did address some scope of the clause. I’ll try to find it this weekend.

Like o always said, pushing this to this majority was just asking for bad law to be made strangling the Insurrection Clause in the crib, and setting precedent to be applied to other constitutional issues.

And first of all, there was no insurrection

Yeah, no one on the bench said that. They are not going to address that element.

Second of all 170 something felony convictions says it was.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
And first of all, there was no insurrection

I guess they were confused and thought it was insert erection?

Whatever you want to call it, it was unbecoming action on the part of a sitting president. Pretty sure the evidence will show trump had prior knowledge of it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The courts have never needed Congress to enforce the remainder of the 14th Amendment. Why should Sec. 3 be different?

If it can be rescinded by Congress it seems logical that it need not to be enacted by Congress. Makes no sense that Congress would boot him, and then turn around and re-instate him.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President Biden supports a bill passed by HOP Senate Conservatives opposed by Progressives.

It was the MAGA, Christian Nationalist in the House at the behest of President Trump that killed it.

Never let anyone say GOP far right wants to resolve the border issue.

It was a shit bill, plain and simple. Slo-Joe reversed XO's that had significantly slowed illegal immigration...but you knew that already.

Exactly! No new immigration laws until we enforce the laws already passed.

Well, asylum is on the books and this bill would have made asylum application more strict and address backlog.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Well, asylum is on the books and this bill would have made asylum application more strict and address backlog.

Seems like I have read that those seeking asylum need to apply in the first country they pass into......also economic asylum isn't a thing......

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Well, asylum is on the books and this bill would have made asylum application more strict and address backlog.

Seems like I have read that those seeking asylum need to apply in the first country they pass into......also economic asylum isn't a thing......

I did not say anything about economic asylum.

Nothing written above negates the need for this bill.

posted 10 February 2024 05:20 Hide Post
"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."

Plain reading to me the elements of
Officer,
Oath,
And Insurrectionist or having engaged in rebellion.

Have to be met and adjudicated (in some manner) before there is a disability for Congress to remove.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I listened to some of it on NPR working in the shop. I thought Jackson-Brown asked some good questions, she kind of ripped Colorado's council a new one a time or two.

I listened to the whole thing too.

I was really surprised at her questioning and middle of the road position where she acted like her interest was truly in following the constitution... as intended,, and not as interpreted by adam Schiff.

the president is not an officer of.
he holds the office of.
a distinction of two different things entirely.

so the president is not constrained by article three of the 14th., nor any part of the 24th.

Execute he is Commander and Chief. Of all the off rams, the officer angle is the weakest in my mind. The oath argument is stronger.

Hey, if the Supreme Court majority takes the officer approach, so be it.

It is clear that those who sought this constitutional battle have caught the tiger and are about to be eaten.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Execute he is Commander and Chief. Of all the off rams, the officer angle is the weakest in my mind. The oath argument is stronger.

Hey, if the Supreme Court majority takes the officer approach, so be it.

It is clear that those who sought this constitutional battle have caught the tiger and are about to be eaten.

Then Biden is a traitor......you okay with that?

why?
because he broke his oath to support and defend the constitution?
or because he broke the border?
or because he took bribe money to make foreign policy?

quote:

Chief Justice Robert’s focuses on the historical application of insurrection clause

As is correct to be so applied

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Execute he is Commander and Chief. Of all the off rams, the officer angle is the weakest in my mind. The oath argument is stronger.

Hey, if the Supreme Court majority takes the officer approach, so be it.

It is clear that those who sought this constitutional battle have caught the tiger and are about to be eaten.

Then Biden is a traitor......you okay with that?

We have had this conversation.

1) The border is the prerogative of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has rejected your nonsense. If you do not like what the Chief Executive does at the border a) Pass a law, and b) do not vote for him.

2) There has been no credible or non-credible evidence President Biden took a bribe. If the House half way believe as such, they would impeach him.

okay percentage of a bribe then.

I lay blame for the southern border at the feet of Congress as much as Biden. Congress has plenary power over immigration and could close the border later today if it had any shred of integrity which it does not.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Chief Justice Robert’s focuses on the historical application of insurrection clause

As is correct to be so applied

The real issue is should an insurrectionist, and all the associated lies of a serial liar be given the power of POTUS?

We all know what that means and what will happen should Trump occupy the WH again, because he and others have told us in many ways.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d6413fe0028551&ei=17

Waning McConnell Is Last GOP Bulwark Against Trump Isolationism
Story by Steven T. Dennis • 6h

ME assumes, for IC purposes, that President Trump’s actions equate to insurrection and rebellion. He also assumes the other two elements are satisfied. Many agree with him.

The Court appears certain to make ME’s position purely political allowing the voters to decide and remove the courts from the debate. At least until President Trump is actually elected.

As Chief Justice Thomas explained, “ Elections have consequences.” I infer from those words, “We get what we vote for, and the Courts will not always save us.”

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Chief Justice Robert’s focuses on the historical application of insurrection clause

As is correct to be so applied

The real issue is should an insurrectionist, and all the associated lies of a serial liar be given the power of POTUS?

say, could you cite the court case where trump was tried and found guilty of insurrection?

I was looking for it too and couldn’t find it.

In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact “engage in insurrection” on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys’ arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech.

https://whyy.org/articles/colo...idential%20candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ges-have-come-close/

A judge says Trump incited insurrection. Other judges have come close.
A Colorado judge is the first to rule specifically on incitement, but she is not the first to lay blame at Trump’s feet for Jan.

https://apnews.com/article/tru...af450558378c65fd79a2

Colorado Supreme Court declares Donald Trump is ineligible for the White House

DENVER (AP) — A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot

“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.

============================================

If SCOTUS allows Trump to be on the ballots, I figure it won't be because they will say he's not an insurrectionist, but for some other made-up reason. Probably they will say it's a federal matter, but the insurrection finding will stand.

oh, sorry, well, i didn't think it needed saying, but a court with JURISDICTION..

Per you link, Judge Wallace said

quote:

but she said she couldn’t do so for a presidential candidate.

because she didn't have jurisdiction. This really isn't so hard, trump hasn't been tried for insurrection in a court with jurisdiction -

You know how some liberals get all in a tither over states enforcing federal law ... yeah, it's kinda like that (i get the irony)