• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
I applaud the Supreme Court's decision. This is completely Trump's choice...

...what he does with his own body and how he dresses.

 
DeplorableInfidel said:
laughing dog said:
DeplorableInfidel said:
It was, overall, good to see our SCOTUS unanimously employ common sense.
Click to expand...
It is true that cowardice and cravenness can be consistent with common sense.
Click to expand...
Only in the liberal realm.
Click to expand...
What does "liberal" mean in that sentence?

Did the Republicans on Capitol Hill demand an accounting for the January 6, 2021 episode from the top leaders that instigated it?

Or did common sense cowardice and cravenness rule the proceedings?
Tom
 
DeplorableInfidel said:
TomC said:
DeplorableInfidel said:
The only part I don’t agree with is that Congress is the one that makes such calls in Federal elections. I still think that if a candidate has been convicted in Federal Court of a “insurrection,” that would suffice.
Click to expand...
It's dumbassery from Republicans, per usual.

States rights are important when it's women's reproductive rights. But not when it's state laws concerning election laws. WTF?

Honestly, I think Colorado would have done better announcing that anybody can vote for anyone that they want. But anybody who is, by their standards, ineligible will not get an EC delegates from Colorado.

Of course, all this would be easier if Republicans stopped taking a sledgehammer to basic American institutions. But the party as a whole doesn't have that much integrity.
Tom
Click to expand...
Confusion seems to be clouding your thinking. This case has basically zip zilch nothing and squat to do with “state rights.”
Click to expand...

Of course it is related to states' rights.

The constitution itself says that whatever powers and limits the constitution does not specify is up to the states and to the people. The constitution, then, is the basis for states' rights and it is clear that federal elections have different procedures and features in each state precisely because the constitution doesn't specify some granular details on how to do it. so states took up the burden as per their constitutional prerogative.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
DeplorableInfidel said:
TomC said:
DeplorableInfidel said:
The only part I don’t agree with is that Congress is the one that makes such calls in Federal elections. I still think that if a candidate has been convicted in Federal Court of a “insurrection,” that would suffice.
Click to expand...
It's dumbassery from Republicans, per usual.

States rights are important when it's women's reproductive rights. But not when it's state laws concerning election laws. WTF?

Honestly, I think Colorado would have done better announcing that anybody can vote for anyone that they want. But anybody who is, by their standards, ineligible will not get an EC delegates from Colorado.

Of course, all this would be easier if Republicans stopped taking a sledgehammer to basic American institutions. But the party as a whole doesn't have that much integrity.
Tom
Click to expand...
Confusion seems to be clouding your thinking. This case has basically zip zilch nothing and squat to do with “state rights.”
Click to expand...
Of course it is related to states' rights.
Click to expand...
There is a sticking point, as the 14th Amendment actually retracts state rights because it limits who will be allowed to be seated to represent the state. Effectively, the States agreed to cede the ability to send whomever they elected.
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
The constitution itself says that whatever powers and limits the constitution does not specify is up to the states and to the people. The constitution, then, is the basis for states' rights and it is clear that federal elections have different procedures and features in each state precisely because the constitution doesn't specify some granular details on how to do it. so states took up the burden as per their constitutional prerogative.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't say who gets to say though. Because the 14th Amendment does not forbade elections, only being seated, this creates a question of who chooses who gets seated. In the past, Victor Berger was held by Congress (due to insurrection in the form of speaking out against the Great War).
 
The more I think about it the more this sentence stands out to me:

"It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation."

If the writers of the Amendment believed that Congress should write legislation to apply the disqualification to insurrectionists, why would they write specifically that an act of Congress (a supermajority no less!) would be required to remove the disqualification?

With this logic it seems odd that the writers of that sentence (and the final paragraph I quoted in post #3 above) would agree with the opinion; however, it is quite possible that they were acting politically (along with the rest) and felt that it was necessary to provide no dissents.

Edited to add: thinking on this more I realize that this was them indeed disagreeing with the majority on the part they thought had gone too far. However, if they did agree that the States don’t have the authority but disagreed that only Congress would have the authority I wonder how they imagine the provision would be executed.
 
Last edited:
Shadowy Man said:
The more I think about it the more this sentence stands out to me:

"It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation."

If the writers of the Amendment believed that Congress should write legislation to apply the disqualification to insurrectionists, why would they write specifically that an act of Congress (a supermajority no less!) would be required to remove the disqualification?

With this logic it seems odd that the writers of that sentence (and the final paragraph I quoted in post #3 above) would agree with the opinion; however, it is quite possible that they were acting politically (along with the rest) and felt that it was necessary to provide no dissents.

Edited to add: thinking on this more I realize that this was them indeed disagreeing with the majority on the part they thought had gone too far. However, if they did agree that the States don’t have the authority but disagreed that only Congress would have the authority I wonder how they imagine the provision would be executed.
Click to expand...

Here's my ignorant take that I am basing on knowledge of the Constitution (not any transcripts of discussion on the amendment by legislators of the time) and I am making inferences from that limited knowledge. I think the amendment was intended to be like many other items in the amendments/bill of rights. That it is a thing that could be enforced in multiple ways but one such way was the courts. So, imagine if an insurrectionist ran for office...then a group of people got angry about it and took them to court...the court ordered them removed. It puts a limit on individuals (insurrectionists) and if those persons act out of line, then there are judicial (or other administrative) remedies. So, other persons like those in charge of election procedures* could also deny those individual bad actors the ability to run by simply enforcing the limits written in the Constitution. If the bad actor didn't agree with that procedure, they could sue in court and the court would have to decide. This is like if you have free speech and Congress makes a law counter to that right...it's Congress that is limited by the constitution (like the bad actor) and so you take the US to court and the court finds Congress wrong, i.e. the law unconstitutional, or instead it finds it constitutional.

So far I haven't addressed your question, but I've generally shown a different path to the same conclusion. Here's the meat of your post:
"It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation."
Click to expand...

I make an educated guess that the idea of 2/3 of each house comes from the process of constitutional amendments itself (article V) because 2/3 of each house is a standard there in conjunction with 3/4 of each state legislature. Imagine a hypothetical where they did not include that line to make exceptions. Think of it step by step: imagine a scenario like post-Civil War where all those people were banned from running for office. Now, some years later, people start forgiving Jefferson Davis (or whoever). Article V for amendments would be the only remedy to nullify the ban on him and so they'd have to have all the states vote and get that 3/4 to agree, then 2/3 of each house, but moreover, they'd then have to make an actual amendment to the constitution and put Jefferson Davis's name in there as part of an amendment. For each person in a giant insurrection, that kind of amendment to amendment is not only impractical, it becomes impracticable slowing government down to a halt and making the constitution a giant document of useless people's names. So...instead...including a way to do the process such as only the 2/3 of each house portion (which by the way is still very reflective of people's opinions in the states) streamlines the nullification and keeps the Constitution free of excess baggage.


* So long as the things being done gave the citizens under question due process whatever that might mean.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Shadowy Man said:
The more I think about it the more this sentence stands out to me:

"It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation."

If the writers of the Amendment believed that Congress should write legislation to apply the disqualification to insurrectionists, why would they write specifically that an act of Congress (a supermajority no less!) would be required to remove the disqualification?

With this logic it seems odd that the writers of that sentence (and the final paragraph I quoted in post #3 above) would agree with the opinion; however, it is quite possible that they were acting politically (along with the rest) and felt that it was necessary to provide no dissents.

Edited to add: thinking on this more I realize that this was them indeed disagreeing with the majority on the part they thought had gone too far. However, if they did agree that the States don’t have the authority but disagreed that only Congress would have the authority I wonder how they imagine the provision would be executed.
Click to expand...

Here's my ignorant take that I am basing on knowledge of the Constitution (not any transcripts of discussion on the amendment by legislators of the time) and I am making inferences from that limited knowledge. I think the amendment was intended to be like many other items in the amendments/bill of rights. That it is a thing that could be enforced in multiple ways but one such way was the courts. So, imagine if an insurrectionist ran for office...then a group of people got angry about it and took them to court...the court ordered them removed.
Click to expand...
We don't have to imagine. Victor Berger ran for House, won. He was arrested for "insurrection" for protesting US involvement in The Great War. He was allowed to run, he wasn't allowed to be seated, the first couple of times. Congress was the one that acted. This is where SCOTUS has the leg to stand on. The Federal Government was acting on the Constitution. IE, it isn't the State's job to seat people in the House of Representatives.
 
I wanted to share this as it was a point I raised earlier.
Libs of SCOTUS concurring said:
The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few States could decide the Nation’s next President would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Reconstruction Amendments “were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179(1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I wanted to share this as it was a point I raised earlier.
Libs of SCOTUS concurring said:
The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few States could decide the Nation’s next President would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Reconstruction Amendments “were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179(1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sheesh. States already determine the presidency, reconstruction amendment notwithstanding. If Texas went blue or California went red even by one vote, it would give the presidency to that respective president. If they're concerned with representation, let's have a popular vote, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom