When the Supreme Court reviews Colorado’s decision to exclude President Trump from the state’s ballot, it will be delving into wholly uncharted territory.

The Supreme Court has never interpreted the constitutional provision prohibiting former office-holding insurrectionists from holding future office. Several leading constitutional scholars argue that, in part for this reason, the constitutional ban cannot be enforced without prior congressional enactment of guiding directives. The high court may consider this option to provide a welcome off-ramp.

But the position that the constitutional ban on insurrectionist office holders is not activated absent congressional legislation is not only incorrect, it also threatens the very foundations of America’s constitutional system.

14 points

Brett Kavanaugh: “Hey, you, hold my beer!”

permalink
report
reply
10 points

beer(s)

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

They’ll probably “punt” it on principal then. We’ve seen how much they care about the constitution.

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

I highly doubt the supreme court will care about breaking apart the way we think the legal system works. They’ll just take another case that would have its handling changed, and declare that ‘this particular instance works the old way, but that other one works the new way, (stick fingers in their ears) la la la la’

permalink
report
reply
12 points

They will rule he wasn’t given due process (not convicted of insurrection) and therefore can be on the ballot. It is the most straightforward path.

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

But that’s clearly not how the 14th Amendment is worded, none of the officers or politicians in the Confederacy were convicted of Insurrection & claiming that the 14th Amendment wasn’t supposed to cover that group would be some serious mental acrobatics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I suspect that the SCOTUS will say the 14th Amendment is unclear and then fall back on the concept of due process. I don’t like it, but I do think that is what will happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

And that will lay bare their partisanship. The 14th Amendment contains some of the plainest language in the entire Constitution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

The wild thing is that it was two very conservative Federalist lawyers who wrote the initial article (based on originalism) putting out the theory that Trump should be disqualified.

Further, the amendment specifically lays out Congress’s role: they can, with 2/3rds vote, remove the imposed disqualification disability.

Ezra Klein had a great podcast on this awhile back.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 441K

    Comments