Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack.
You're viewing a single thread.
Naturally
Correct. States simply don't have this power. The decision was unanimous for a reason.
States rights*
*terms and conditions apply
*terms and conditions apply
Always has been. States have never had free reign to do anything they want. This is one of the things they cannot do.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Pretty much how it goes. Laws affect peons: oh well. Laws affect wealthy politicians: off to SCOTUS for them to overturn it!
For anyone wondering if the wording of the Constitution is unclear, this is the provision that constitutionally bars trump from office:
"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."
Here is Article 2 section 1, referring to the office of the President of the United States:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,..."
Trump engaged in insurrection, violating the oath of office he took. As such, he is constitutionally ineligible to run for office.
Supreme Cowards
What is the text of the last section of Amendment 14?
Why?
There is no "why". I asked a question.
For no reason? Helpful of you.
My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
This is why I added that context to my original comment.
All I had to do was add the literal quotes from the constitution to render the supreme court obviously incorrect.
No.
The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions you cited are not "self executing". It needs to be enforced by an Act of Congress. You assumed that because it says that, therefore it works on its own without the need for anything else. That's not how the law works in the US.
The text of Amendment 14 §5 which are you so reluctant to post:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now tell me, is it not a reasonable interpretation of this clause that the terms of Amendment 14 may only be enforced by Congress and not anyone else.
Don't cite Amendment 10 here. It doesn't apply. This power is explicitly delegated to Congress.
So your contention is that the meanings of the phrase "congress shall have power to enforce" are:
-
this constitutional amendment "may only be enforced by congress and not by anyone else" even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
-
"needs to be enforced by congress", even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
-
"this power is explicitly delegated to Congress", even though this is an implicit permission rather than an explicit designation?
You'll want to reference what is written and is not, in the Constitution, rather than your imagining of my assumptions.
-
Fwiw i got it