“Help me SCOTUS! They followed the Constitution, and that’s not democratic!"
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
93 points (93.5% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4076 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to ensure he can appear on primary ballots across the country this spring by invalidating a ruling from Colorado’s top court that said Trump is ineligible to serve as president again,” the Washington Post reports.
“Trump, the 2024 GOP frontrunner, has said it is undemocratic for a court or state official to keep him from running. He would have no way to win if other states followed the lead of Maine and Colorado and tried to bar him from their ballots.”
As usual the Right wants states rights except not like that.
"States rights" only means one thing for the right wing: persecuting and enslaving people they don't like. It meant that during the civil war and it still does today.
Not even that. The Confederacy was against states' right to outlaw slavery within their borders. Turns out conservatives have been lying about everything all along.
He would have no way to win if other states followed the lead of Maine and Colorado and tried to bar him from their ballots.
And?
Funny he believes in the winning part, but the losing part is always corruption/election interference/Flying Spaghetti Monster hates him. Also he did try and overthrow the results last time so...
You can thank Norman Vincent Peale for that.
My favorite part of the word salad that is their argument is that the Supreme Court of Colorado erred but a lower District Court that found that Trump took a different oath was correct.
But the district court ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath “as an officer of the United States.” App. 282a (¶ 313) (“[T]he Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States.”)
Because we literally have the minutes of the discussion when the 39th Congress discussed the 14th Amendment and indicated that Section 3 would "obviously apply to the President" and that the explicit mentions in Section 3 were to alleviate confusion.
Why did you omit to exclude them [The office of the President and Vice President]?
— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-MD)
Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'
— Sen. Lot Morrill (R-MA)
Senator Morrill shut down outright the notion that section three could ever be considered as "not applying to the President". That's how obvious it was to the people who wrote the Amendment that the entire point was that "we had a civil war, but just because we won did not mean the Confederates nor their rebellion would cease to exist".
More to the point.
This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood
— Sen. Peter G. Van Winkle (R-WV)
So let's be entirely clear here. Section 3 absolutely applies to the President and it absolutely applies to ANY insurrection. There are zero other ways to read this. We literally have the minutes of the discussion at that time. This isn't like we don't know what they intended, they were very clear that future people would try this shit and they absolutely wanted that eventuality covered. And Congressional record is acceptable evidence into the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS today ignores this record, I mean fuck, there's not a slicing it any other way than they're attempting to play favorites.
And on that, I highly doubt they'll buy this argument that Section 3 doesn't apply. Now they may find something else, but that it doesn't apply to the President, oh hell no. There was nobody in the Senate or House who questioned if Section 3 applied to the President during the 39th Congress. It did and saying it doesn't is some revisionist bullshit.
Now they do mention "Rucho v. Common Cause" in the argument. In this they're trying to portray that "is someone disqualified" as a political question rather a legal one. Courts aren't allowed to weigh in on political questions.
They also mention roles of Congress via the 20th Amendment, Article II, and section 5 of the 14th Amendment. And via these they indicate that it's implied that Congress is the one who disqualifies. However, they fail to mention the 10th Amendment where if the Constitution is silent on the matter and Congress has passed no law, then the law falls onto the States and the people thereafter. So the question that can be raised is Colorado's 10th Amendment right superseded by this "implied" Congressional consent?
It would give the SCOTUS a get out of jail free card by basically saying "well it's not up to SCOTUS, it's up to Congress" and calling it done. However, it would weaken one of their favorite things, State's Rights. Because the ability to determine disqualification on things like citizenship and age are very clearly at the State level, that's even a question. So it would make things this weird thing where if it's age or natural born status that's the States but someone with intent to hand the US over to Russia, nope that's Congress.
And above all else, why the fuck would we have an electoral college if some of the biggest issues on qualification are up to the whims of Congress? Like that does even make sense. But I think the electoral college should go away anyway, but that's a me thing.
At any point. There's wiggle room for SCOTUS to massively disappoint yet again! But on the question of does this apply to the President or not. HELL FUCKING YES IT DOES. Every record we have points to that conclusion. If Colorado's Supreme Court can err, so can the court that Trump is relying on to be correct on this issue.
They also mention roles of Congress via the 20th Amendment, Article II, and section 5 of the 14th Amendment. And via these they indicate that it's implied that Congress is the one who disqualifies.
With regard to the 14th Amendment Section Three, a person who has sworn an oath, and then engages in insurrection, is disqualified. Congress is given the power to "remove such disability;" this is wholly different from Congress being "the one who disqualifies."
This still leaves SCOTUS a perfect out: read the law, apply the law. SCOTUS should rule that Trump meets the characterization for someone disqualified from the ballot via 14S3, and that States, having the sole responsibility for operating elections, should disqualify him from their ballots - while making it very clear that this disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote from each House of Congress.
SCOTUS does not want to be responsible for disqualifying Trump; they don't have to be. In actual fact, he has disqualified himself, through the actions he took of his own free will. SCOTUS also does not want to be the last word on the subject; they don't have to be. Congress, and their vote (or lack thereof), would be the last word on the subject.
With regard to the 14th Amendment Section Three, a person who has sworn an oath, and then engages in insurrection, is disqualified. Congress is given the power to "remove such disability;" this is wholly different from Congress being "the one who disqualifies."
I couldn't agree more here. The notion that the one that removes the disability indicates that someone added it. Being silent on the who isn't an oversight by those who carefully framed the 14th. There's a realization outright that calling out traitors and ensuring that they cannot attempt rebellion was a role for anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution. To vest the power in a single branch is just inviting those seeking a rebellion to overtake that branch and call it mission complete.
SCOTUS has an even better out: they have appellate jurisdiction on this issue, not original jurisdiction. They can decline to hear the case.
Didn't courts in Texas just say the feds weren't allowed to tell states that their doctors were required to perform abortions if it saved women's lives?
If they didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all.
Here's a gift link you can edit into the post so everybody has access
Edit: gave wrong link; here's a corrected one
The crooked clown court of corruption? Who wants to bet they are insurrectionists too.
Ones married to one at least. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of many more ties
Can't blame the guy for trying!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Last month the Colorado Supreme Court concluded Trump engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and as a result could not appear on the state’s primary ballot.
It marked the first time a court has said a candidate could be removed from the ballot based on a post-Civil War provision of the U.S. Constitution that bars insurrectionists from holding office.
The court has already said it will examine the validity of a law used to charge people, including Trump, in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election results or the Jan. 6 attack.
The amendment provided citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States and guaranteed equal protection of the law to all, including those who had been enslaved.
But Trump’s opponents cited it as a reason the former president — false claims of election fraud inspired many rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — could not run for office again.
Trump alone is responsible for sidelining himself from another presidential run, they say, because he summoned his supporters to Washington and told them to march to the U.S. Capitol and “fight like hell” just as Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden’s election victory.
The original article contains 991 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They should delay the hearing that until after the 2024 election just like Trump begs for with every other trial and hearing.