Hm. So I’m guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don’t seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.
That’s certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren’t laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.
No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn’t a new precedent by any stretch.
Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So does XIII, section 2
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
And XV, section 2
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So there it is right there.
Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don’t know what I don’t know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But “unprecedented” isn’t one of them, it seems.
It should be a more fundamental question than that. The first issue with regard to any statutory authority regarding Section 3 must address whether the section itself is self executing.
Trump’s lawyer made sure to argue that. But the text is clearly self executing. Congress can act like a pardon board to restore eligibility. It does not get powers to determine it in the first place. The intention was clearly that would be candidates with a bar would go hat in hand to Congress before campaigning.
In fact this just reminded me that any SCOTUS decision on this is another massive electoral over reach. They are again usurping Congress’ power. Trump should be having friendly politicians advance a bill there to get the bar removed.
Mostly because it’s not SCOTUS’ job to make laws … they’re simply there to interpret what Congress has passed. Which is pretty much how high courts operate everywhere, including Canada, the UK, etc
Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.
The problem is SCOTUS rules with original intent as the prime basis, so any in-depth ruling would take a long time for them to deliver. Kavanaugh said as much when he questioned what the word “insurrection” actually means.
Hm. So I’m guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don’t seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.
That’s certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren’t laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.
No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn’t a new precedent by any stretch.
Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.
So does XIII, section 2
And XV, section 2
And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.
So there it is right there.
Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don’t know what I don’t know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But “unprecedented” isn’t one of them, it seems.
There are mountains of case history on the other amendments. This one is truly new.
That doesn’t mean Congress needs to define it before it’s actionable.
Well, yeah, he’s on team Naz…er Republican and can keep the tax breaks flowing to the top.
It should be a more fundamental question than that. The first issue with regard to any statutory authority regarding Section 3 must address whether the section itself is self executing.
Trump’s lawyer made sure to argue that. But the text is clearly self executing. Congress can act like a pardon board to restore eligibility. It does not get powers to determine it in the first place. The intention was clearly that would be candidates with a bar would go hat in hand to Congress before campaigning.
In fact this just reminded me that any SCOTUS decision on this is another massive electoral over reach. They are again usurping Congress’ power. Trump should be having friendly politicians advance a bill there to get the bar removed.
No mention of that being discussed in the summaries I’ve seen.
They’ll touch on it in the decision, I’m sure.
Cool, then let’s put Ariana Greenblatt on the ballot and make them make a law on how to disqualify children.
Mostly because it’s not SCOTUS’ job to make laws … they’re simply there to interpret what Congress has passed. Which is pretty much how high courts operate everywhere, including Canada, the UK, etc
Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.
The problem is SCOTUS rules with original intent as the prime basis, so any in-depth ruling would take a long time for them to deliver. Kavanaugh said as much when he questioned what the word “insurrection” actually means.
Which is stupid since the original Colorado ruling went into the definition of insurrection in excruciating, originalist-style detail.
Well Bret, it’s nothing like playing quarters.