politics
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
view the rest of the comments
It does apply to the President. Colorado's judge erred here because they did not have access to Federal documents.
We have the minutes from the 39th Congress that literally indicates that it applies to the President.
— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-MD)
— Sen. Lot Morrill (R-MA)
It was a very specific question that was answered by the Senate while they were discussing it. So Judge Wallace's determination is incorrect on the merits. Judges can be wrong sometimes, that's why we have appeals.
You assume that the originalists on the court care what the framers of the amendment thought, when it goes against the decision they want to render.
Do you think the judge on Colorado was an originalist who made their ruling in bad faith, or that they are just evade responsibility for the ruling?
Cool, I want to read it, which session and pages was it?
Awesome, thanks for sharing
Here's the relevant page for anyone to lazy too click through. He even goes on to say "perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion of the presidency, no doubt I am."
There was also some interesting debate on if it should expire after 1870, and the response was a pretty resounding no, it should be the law of the land forever. Some people recently have also pointed out the phrase about giving congress the power to enact laws to these effect, suggesting it doesn't do anything unless congress makes a specific law enforcing it. That didn't seem to be the view when they added it in to the amendment though, they wanted to say congress explicitly had that power so that it could override state law if states were in conflict with the constitution here. There was a concern that if they didn't add that, then only states would have the power by definition (any powers not explicitly given to the federal government are devolved to the states), and confederate states might choose not to enforce all the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. This would let congress explicitly over ride state laws in respect to equal protection and other parts of the amendment including the insurrection part. Obligatory IANAL disclaimer, but it was very interesting to read through. Some of the things I'm referencing were from an earlier day, may 23rd, there were a number of days where the amendment was brought up.
Oh they actually talked to each other and weren't forced to direct their questions to the chair?
Senate not House.
I thought the insurrection clause was a hard reach, but it feels really buttoned up when you take into account the discussions. Like I don't even see any maneuvering room. Which kinda sucks because I had emotionally accepted he was going to be the nominee and now I have hope.
What's really interesting is, what if he stays off the ballot in CO but wins the race? He's be the President of the US but ineligible to be President in CO. Seems like an actual constitutional crisis unless the SCOTUS ruling automatically removes him from every state.
If SCOTUS rules that trump can be removed from the Colorado ballot there will be a domino effect that will see him removed from a large number of other states.
There's zero chance of a 2nd trump term if SCOTUS rules that way.
That's not exactly true. Unless some battleground states remove him from the ballot it doesn't matter what the states who were going to vote blue do. He wasn't going to win there anyway. As a Colorado voter I would put us in that category. Trump's not winning CO no matter what happens in this case.
Surely if the supreme court ruled that if he wasn't eligible in one state then any single person in other states could use that ruling to have him removed from any state they live in?
That would depend on which interpretation of eligible we end up with. We might see a ban on removing him from ballots, individual states being left to decide, removal from all ballots, or some other other weird scenario. Nothing is straightforward with that man and I don't expect this situation to turn out any different.
Based on what I read from discussions of the amendment passing at the time in the documents above, it sounds odd but it might be the case. Again IANAL, but they added a clause in the amendment that specifically says something to the effect of congress can make laws to enforce this. The idea being if they didn't have that clause the power would be assumed to automatically devolve to the states, because of the part of the constitution that says any powers not delegated specifically to the federal government go to state governments. So basically there's at least one interpretation here where unless congress makes a specific law enforcing the provision, it would be up to specific states to implement as they saw fit. I think it's most likely the supreme court weasels out of this whole thing somehow still, but there might be a chance something like that could happen.
It could end up with SCOTUS deciding states have the full right to decide what candidates they allow (has historical backing) but they would probably also need to argue that invalidation as a candidate in a minority of states doesn't invalidate their power as an elected president, or else it gets very very complicated fast.
Congress can vote to forgive him, so there's a path to him legally becoming president against (although obviously they shouldn't)
Congress can barely vote to keep the lights on. I'd get out the popcorn for that one.
Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were some of the few that were barred from holding office until like, the 70's, when it was reversed posthumously. As with all things Trump, entertaining the question to begin with is pretty fucking stupid.
The supreme Court reversed saying as much, however even with all Democrat judges the decision was 4-3. Dissenting judges were concerned about the lack of due process, basically Trump hasn't been convicted. This is despite the fact that Trump's legal representation did defend against the plaintiffs claims.
None of the confederates were tried as well so the due process concerns would be a change in the usage of the statute. All you had to do was prove somebody was a confederate and the statute would apply.
Likely the supreme court will say its like a sparkling coup because it doesn't come from the Insurrection region of france and they will bend over backwards for Their Guy (tm)