4 ms·

Trump wins Supreme Court ballot case – and calls for presidential immunity

3 points by LittleCat38 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago
States having no legal jurisdiction over Federal matters is easy enough to understand, but I was intrigued by how SCOTUS insisted that it's Congress who gets to decide if someone is guilty of the 14th. A subsequent re-reading of the legalese earned an "Oooooooohhh, that's why." from me: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."[1] Logic can certainly argue that if Congress can decide when the 14th doesn't apply, they certainly can (and should) decide when it does apply. Otherwise, we could have an awkward situation where the Judiciary might find someone guilty but the Legislative could overturn it, a clear breach of separation of powers. A very memorable lesson on how words matter and we should choose our words carefully. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y ago
  Yep, it raises the bar for being barred from office due to the 14th incredibly high. Even if Trump is convicted in a federal court of participating in insurrection, Congress would need to pass legislation to keep him off the ballot. Good luck with that.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  I can't tell if you are being partisan or I'm being dumb, but the obvious reading of what you've said suggests the exact opposite of your conclusion to me. Having a clause where Congress can vote overwhelmingly to negate something suggests to me the person who wrote that though that someone outside of Congress got the first take.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    No, I'm not being partisan. This ruling will affect everyone running for any political office going forward, regardless their political positions and affiliations, if someone decides to cite the 14th against them. To properly understand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment you first need to understand the historical context it was written under: The Civil War. Section 3's purpose is to bar present and former enemies of the United States who broke their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution from holding any political office. In other words, its purpose is to bar former Confederate politicians and soldiers who broke away from and acted against the Union from holding political office. Congress subsequently pardoned all former Confederates, and Section 5 also makes it clear it is Congress who enforces the 14th Amendment via legislations. I actually wasn't entirely aware of Section 5 until I re-re-read the whole Amendment again as I was writing this comment (thanks for giving me a reason!), so SCOTUS's reasoning becomes even simpler. TL;DR, SCOTUS from what I can tell clarified two things: 1. Federal matters such as Federal political offices are the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government, not State governments. 2. Congress's sole authority to enforce the 14th as they and only they see fit.
defrost 3y ago
[flagged]

3 points by LittleCat38 3y ago

States having no legal jurisdiction over Federal matters is easy enough to understand, but I was intrigued by how SCOTUS insisted that it's Congress who gets to decide if someone is guilty of the 14th. A subsequent re-reading of the legalese earned an "Oooooooohhh, that's why." from me: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."[1] Logic can certainly argue that if Congress can decide when the 14th doesn't apply, they certainly can (and should) decide when it does apply. Otherwise, we could have an awkward situation where the Judiciary might find someone guilty but the Legislative could overturn it, a clear breach of separation of powers. A very memorable lesson on how words matter and we should choose our words carefully. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...

ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y ago
Yep, it raises the bar for being barred from office due to the 14th incredibly high. Even if Trump is convicted in a federal court of participating in insurrection, Congress would need to pass legislation to keep him off the ballot. Good luck with that.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
I can't tell if you are being partisan or I'm being dumb, but the obvious reading of what you've said suggests the exact opposite of your conclusion to me. Having a clause where Congress can vote overwhelmingly to negate something suggests to me the person who wrote that though that someone outside of Congress got the first take.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  No, I'm not being partisan. This ruling will affect everyone running for any political office going forward, regardless their political positions and affiliations, if someone decides to cite the 14th against them. To properly understand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment you first need to understand the historical context it was written under: The Civil War. Section 3's purpose is to bar present and former enemies of the United States who broke their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution from holding any political office. In other words, its purpose is to bar former Confederate politicians and soldiers who broke away from and acted against the Union from holding political office. Congress subsequently pardoned all former Confederates, and Section 5 also makes it clear it is Congress who enforces the 14th Amendment via legislations. I actually wasn't entirely aware of Section 5 until I re-re-read the whole Amendment again as I was writing this comment (thanks for giving me a reason!), so SCOTUS's reasoning becomes even simpler. TL;DR, SCOTUS from what I can tell clarified two things: 1. Federal matters such as Federal political offices are the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government, not State governments. 2. Congress's sole authority to enforce the 14th as they and only they see fit.

defrost 3y ago

[flagged]