I liked the idea of having Biden exercise Presidential immunity to force a challenge that has to be taken to SCOTUS. Say something election related thats detrimental to Trump so SCOTUS has no choice but to rule on it quickly.
Liberals still believing they'll get points for going along with Republicans on some things.I'm not surprised at the ruling, but I am surprised that it was unanimous
And way worse than leaving them off the ballot before the nomination is even made.I saw some blurb about how congress could reject electoral votes for insurrectionists, but then we're back to self-made constitutional crisis (and basically giving flimsy justifications that Republicans might try in their next attempted coup).
Funny how for SCOTUS Democrats always guess wrong about if states or the feds are supposed to govern elections and Republicans always guess right!
Remember when Congress tried to last enforce parts of the 14th amendment and SCOTUS said "not like that"?
Obama should run for a third term. States can't stop him from being on the ballot, even though we have the 22nd amendment.
Specifically, Obama should throw his hat in for the Republican primaries. Every single vote he received would enrage Trump.Obama should run for a third term. States can't stop him from being on the ballot, even though we have the 22nd amendment.
I agree with the idea that this way is easier and cleaner for federal elections. The main drawbacks are that it ignores the plain meaning of the 14th amendment and flies in the face of their other rulings like with the VRA.So how does Congress go about disqualifying someone? The 14th says nothing about it. I agree with the Justices that we can't have states taking people of the ballots in some and not others. If the person should be disqualified it should be nationwide. The path should be though the federal courts, not Congress.
Yep. It’s now a dead part of the constitution.What it means is that the 14th will never be invoked when it comes to federal offices.
Yep. It’s now a dead part of the constitution.
Damn! I can feel your pain, fskimo. One of these days you'll be right. Keep on trying champ.M
Yes, the only question here was how they were going to Calvinball to this decision and ignore the plain text of the Constitution, not if they would.
So how does Congress go about disqualifying someone? The 14th says nothing about it. I agree with the Justices that we can't have states taking people of the ballots in some and not others. If the person should be disqualified it should be nationwide. The path should be though the federal courts, not Congress.
lol - I was right in this case you ridiculous moron.Damn! I can feel your pain, fskimo. One of these days you'll be right. Keep on trying champ.
Do you need a wellness check? Too bad, none of us give a shit.Damn! I can feel your pain, fskimo. One of these days you'll be right. Keep on trying champ.
Which is opposit of what the constitution states. It says that congress can only remove the disability, not put it in place. Why would it state that congress is the only entity who can remove it if they are the ones who have to put it in place to begin with? that langauge dictates that either it's automatic, or up to the states to enforce it, as the constitution specificly states that authority not specified in the constitution autmoatically fall to the states. So, since the language says that Congress is the only entitity that can remove the disability, and nothing about who has the authority to apply the disability, implies it's automatic or a state power.Does the ruling make distinction between running and actually holding office? But they'll probably say only Congress can disqualify someone.
Yep. It’s now a dead part of the constitution.
It’s certainly a novel legal idea that SCOTUS thinks the people who drafted the 14th amendment thought it would still be okay for Jefferson Davis to be president if Congress didn’t explicitly bar him.Which is opposit of what the constitution states. It says that congress can only remove the disability, not put it in place. Why would it state that congress is the only entity who can remove it if they are the ones who have to put it in place to begin with? that langauge dictates that either it's automatic, or up to the states to enforce it, as the constitution specificly states that authority not specified in the constitution autmoatically fall to the states. So, since the language says that Congress is the only entitity that can remove the disability, and nothing about who has the authority to apply the disability, implies it's automatic or a state power.
lol those are literally not part of the Constitution.Soon to be joined by life, liberty and pursuit of happiness!
lol those are literally not part of the Constitution.
I guess originalism was just bull shit all along. LOLYep. It’s now a dead part of the constitution.
That's because you don't possess the magical Founding Fathers Crystal Ball™ that comes with every SCOTUS robe and grants the power of twisted perception. Silly poster, thinking that words have plain and obvious meanings. /sWhich is opposit of what the constitution states. It says that congress can only remove the disability, not put it in place. Why would it state that congress is the only entity who can remove it if they are the ones who have to put it in place to begin with? that langauge dictates that either it's automatic, or up to the states to enforce it, as the constitution specificly states that authority not specified in the constitution autmoatically fall to the states. So, since the language says that Congress is the only entitity that can remove the disability, and nothing about who has the authority to apply the disability, implies it's automatic or a state power.