Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Requirement for President have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Section 5 of the 14th is only about enforcing the 14th amendment, not other parts of the constitution.

 

Link

Section Five “enables Congress, in case the State shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment.”

 

The 22nd amendment.

No they didn’t. They ruled narrowly on the 14th amendment and it was unanimous.

 

The controversial aspect was the 5-4 decision (3 liberals + Barrett). It wasn't a narrow decision. ALL insurrectionists, even those explicitly mentioned in section 3, are now de facto qualified. I was hoping for a near-unanimous vote, but this is pretty bad. Looks like an activist and political court.

 

Narrow, in that the ruling only applies to section 3 of the 14th amendment. I doesn't apply generally to all eligibility requirements as @No Worries stated.

I agree with the liberal minority that the judgement wasn't narrow enough. It seems to leave the door open for someone convicted of insurrection still being eligible since that will be determined by congress somehow in the future and not the courts.

If I was a congressman, I would immediately introduce a bill that simply stated anyone convicted of insurrection is ineligible to run for office under the 14th amendment and watch the insurrection party and the conservatives on the Supreme Court squirm.

Another problem is this is a slow moving coup. When the 14th was enacted the Civil War was done. Here you have authoritarians and insurrectionists currently in congress in charge of creating a law that defines an insurrectionist.

 

Of course trump was thankful to the maga supreme court. But also of course, trump then resorts to lying... ignoring the reason CO and other states attempted to remove him from the ballots.

trump was correct... this decision, along with the upcoming immunity decision, will be looked at for many years. History will judge trump, and the supreme court.

 

The maga house would never introduce let alone pass such a bill. That's the problem with the ussc decision... if the house of representative is as corrupt as the candidate in question, America has no defense from an insurrectionist as president.

 

You do it to immediately shine a light on the roaches. My guess is it would pass. There are still some serious Republicans. And if it doesn't then you use it as ammo the get those in purple districts / states out of office.

 

I'm going to have to read it more closely to see how it might impact the other sections of the 14th Amendment. As a quick example, I recall that at least a portion of Section 1 of the amendment (due process) is self-executing, and courts have applied that principle directly to protect individuals' rights without the need for additional legislation. That would no longer be the case; Congress must act to guarantee it. Thus, it's not narrow.

BTW, the decision is pretty short, and it's a fairly simple read, so everyone should be able to read it for themselves.

Funny enough (and I still have to read it again more closely instead of a quick glance), I agree less with the liberal decision against the CO ruling than the conservative. The liberal judges were concerned about the impact of one state's decision on the nation as a whole. While that might be true, you can't simply ignore and not rule on the merit of Section 3 of the 14th because of its potential impact by a state executing on it. It's weak IMO. On the other hand, the conservative judges ruled that Section 5 means Section 3 must be enacted by Congress. That is a bit of a stronger case but also weak IMO since it has traditionally meant for Congress to take legislative action to address any violations or challenges to the principles outlined in the 14th Amendment, not to execute on it. This was done with the Civil Rights Act because states passed laws that were against the principles of the 14th Amendment.

The Court didn't decide on the merit of the issue. They simply punt for different reasons. Disappointing.

 

Well, except the good sense of the voters.

 

Having each state decide who's on the ballot over an ambiguous definition would've been bedlam come election time.

I'm hopeful the scrotes will rule Trump is not immune from prosecution, but I'm also hopeful for world peace at this point in time.

 

That "good sense" was sorely lacking in 2016. And appears completely absent in the current republican primary...

 

Biden avoided a tie in 2020 by 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

"Good sense" was still lacking, but not as sore for the rest of us.

So yeah, there's a point that libs are using lawfare to hold back Trump. I'm more of the opinion that he should be held accountable for his crimes than using it to prevent him from being on the ballot.

Reason being that the 50% split is enough to cause civil chaos with or without Trump on the ballot. Might as will give Americans the agency to decide in this potential last round of democracy...

 

The Court ruling on the merits of the case would make it much less ambiguous.

 

Here's congress's chance... We will soon see if it passes. My guess it won't even come up for a vote...

 

Relying on the wisdom of the voters for the enforcement of the Constitution sounds like a great idea.

 

Didn't they though? They went with Congress failing to convict Trump.

I mean I'll believe that as much as I believe SCROTUS didn't hand Bush the election in Bush v Gore, but it's still a ruling and having the current scenario play out in the next 6 months is too chaotic.