Mr. Trump back on the ballot.
-
Basically.
@Horace if you had taken the time to actually read the decision like a dedicated American, you would've clearly seen on Page 18, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said:
Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of twothirds of each House, remove such disability.”
@89th said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
Basically.
@Horace if you had taken the time to actually read the decision like a dedicated American, you would've clearly seen on Page 18, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said:
Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of twothirds of each House, remove such disability.”
I’m sorry my friend but your reading comprehension in this case is regrettable. That describes a process by which an insurrectionist can be allowed to be president. It does not describe the process by which one can be blocked from the presidency.
-
I guess it’s the same process by which a 5 year old would be barred from the presidency. Which is…
-
From SCOTUS' opinion:
Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the states, ... The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
@Axtremus said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
From SCOTUS' opinion:
Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the states, ... The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
still not exactly clear. Congress would pass a law barring a specific insurrectionist from holding office? I know they can impeach, but that would be after the insurrectionist takes office.
-
it is therefore necessary o “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are insurrectionists".
“[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.”
For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.”
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course
to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.So there you have it, congress has to pass legislation barring certain individuals or groups, who have been found to be insurrectionists by some formal process. Congressional hearings and whatnot. Maybe the Jan 6 committee and its excellently formal proceedings would come into play here.
Anyway, anybody on the "he's an insurrectionist" bandwagon is bound to conclude that congress must do its job here, and keep him from the presidency. Most of those who enjoy calling him an insurrectionist would gladly conclude that, but some incoherent few would not.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
Evidently, he is so upset about this, he’s lost control of his bladder.
-
@George-K said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
Evidently, he is so upset about this, he’s lost control of his bladder.
@LuFins-Dad said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
Evidently, he is so upset about this, he’s lost control of his bladder.
Someone commented that Keith Olbermann's career arc over the last 20 years is really something to behold.
-
So, by what process would an insurrectionist be barred from federal office? If a state can't take it upon itself to remove an insurrectionist from a federal election ballot, at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked from the presidency?
@Horace said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
So, by what process would an insurrectionist be barred from federal office? If a state can't take it upon itself to remove an insurrectionist from a federal election ballot, at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked from the presidency?
First, we have to find an insurrectionist.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
Evidently, he is so upset about this, he’s lost control of his bladder.
Someone commented that Keith Olbermann's career arc over the last 20 years is really something to behold.
He is compelled by his virtue to let everybody know how wrong they all are. Silence would be a cowardly betrayal of his very soul. A few outlier rolls of the genetic dice, as they have to do with one's psychology, and there goes anybody, I suppose.
-
@Horace said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
So, by what process would an insurrectionist be barred from federal office? If a state can't take it upon itself to remove an insurrectionist from a federal election ballot, at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked from the presidency?
First, we have to find an insurrectionist.
@Jolly said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
@Horace said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
So, by what process would an insurrectionist be barred from federal office? If a state can't take it upon itself to remove an insurrectionist from a federal election ballot, at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked from the presidency?
First, we have to find an insurrectionist.
It would be an interesting conversation, and formal process, to decide whether he was or was not an insurrectionist.
The claim that he is, has so far been entirely about cathartic screaming from TDS sufferers. So let's put the definition to the test and see if a formal process will agree with the tantrum throwers.
-
It's a bit frightening to me that some state Supreme Courts pursued this course of action, essentially defining what constituted an Insurrection and who was responsible. If someone were convicted of a crime of insurrection, that would be different.
-
It's a bit frightening to me that some state Supreme Courts pursued this course of action, essentially defining what constituted an Insurrection and who was responsible. If someone were convicted of a crime of insurrection, that would be different.
@kluurs said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
It's a bit frightening to me that some state Supreme Courts pursued this course of action, essentially defining what constituted an Insurrection and who was responsible. If someone were convicted of a crime of insurrection, that would be different.
According to the ruling, it doesn't need to be a criminal offence. Just something congress agrees, by majority, is insurrection.
So if Trump is elected, this'll be a slam dunk impeachment if the Dems can get a majority. I mean, assuming they'd all vote that he's an insurrectionist.
-
@kluurs said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:
It's a bit frightening to me that some state Supreme Courts pursued this course of action, essentially defining what constituted an Insurrection and who was responsible. If someone were convicted of a crime of insurrection, that would be different.
According to the ruling, it doesn't need to be a criminal offence. Just something congress agrees, by majority, is insurrection.
So if Trump is elected, this'll be a slam dunk impeachment if the Dems can get a majority. I mean, assuming they'd all vote that he's an insurrectionist.
