Shadowy Man
Contributor
Yes. Apparently there are provisions of the Constitution that aren’t technically in effect until Congress decides they are. Good thing we have such a productive Congress that will address this oversight posthaste.
-
Features
The Race For 2024
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
But good news for people who hate state's rights, and wish to see power centralized in Washington. They didn't rule on whether an insurrection happened or not, only on procedure. In that light, consider the ruling here: the states do not have right to define who is or is not on their ballots, if the federal government wants someone on it. Do you feel "more free" knowing that your state has lost one of its few remaining avenues of autonomy from the federal government? It won't always be a Republican they're trying to impose on you. You realize that right?
They've also more or less ruled that the Constitutional rule is meaningless, as it cannot be enforced. Unless you got a court to formally charge someone with insurrection, and that charge survives a Supreme Court challenge in court friendly to the accused, all in less than four years. An impossibility, and everyone knows it. We're just throwing out the rule, in short. The states ratified an amendment, but the State accepts no responsibility to enforce it. An unenforced law is no law at all. This is similar to some other abrogations of Constitutional law via strategic inaction. Most of them are small in scope, but they add up. A president can openly refuse to follow the emoluments clause and face no real challenge. The government can't quarter soldiers in your house but they can seize your whole house without consequences. The government cannot seize your property arbitrarily- unless the property is "accused of a crime", in which case you have no legal recourse. Arbitrary search and seizure are illegal, but the police can blockade a road, subject everyone who passes it to tests and investigations supposedly of their sobriety but in effect including any charge they feel like pursuing, and no court can touch them.
Unenforced law is worse than no law at all.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,686
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
link
Anyone that listened to the arguments and thought it'd be anything but 9-0 were mistaken. As I noted the issue was execution of the Amendment and who gets to call out insurrection as insurrection. It seems peculiar that a person can run, but not be seated as per the ruling, but it'd be an internal thing within Congress to settle, either for the House/Senate or in the Electoral College. And the funny is, this ruling does not preclude the electoral college disqualifying Trump under the 14th Amendment.article said:
Hopefully it doesn't get that far and Trump loses again.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,686
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
As I noted they would. There is no way in heck they would have touched the events on 1/6 with a 40 ft pole.
Here is the rub, the 14th Amendment, as Justice Thomas raised, doesn't stop someone from running. Merely being seated. Which seems insane really, because for the White House, why in the heck would you even want to entertain that option of Jefferson Davis being elected President of the US, and then trying to slog through the process of disqualification in the electoral college?! But that is what it is.
No, they ruled it is the job of Congress, which isn't unusual seeing this is a Constitutional thing.
Elixir
Made in America
*Applause*
Bad news for the GQP - guess y'all don't get to ditch the albatross this cycle!
Seeya in 2028? Trumpy still won't be too old; he has declined about as far as is possible. As long as he can still make noise with his mouth, The Faithful will consider those noises divine prophecy.
And they will continue to LOSE, because collectively they're too stupid to realize that the reason they've lost the last four elections is because they are all beholden to a LOSER.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Yes, I know. I'm not surprised that nine justices voted to expand their own powers. I just don't agree that the outcome is worth celebrating, even for someone who favors "conservative values" over the democratic process. The less say you have over your government, the less likely it will be that it does the things you want it to, in the long run. Every time the elected bodies of Congress fails to do their job and presidentially appointed viceroys do it for them, we all lose. "Liberal" and "conservative" alike.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Of course not. I did not expect any other outcome, and no one who understands the history of the Court would have. Though it is not true that any 40 foot poles are involved. Overruling the decision of a lower court is not a neutral act.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
A responsibility that they know the Congress cannot and will not fulfill.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
It would seem that if the Court thinks it is so important that States not have the discretion to run elections for Federal offices according to their own systems that they would desire a uniform voting system be put in place for Federal elections (especially the Presidency). It was this "patchwork" of county level decisions amongst the states that led to the Court needing to rule in the Bush v. Gore decision. In my opinion, the fact that Congress has taken no action to uniformly systematize Federal elections actually demonstrates a desire to use the weaknesses of the patchwork to their advantages.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
I think you will find that people don't want crackpot judges in hicksville making arbitrary decisions about who can run for election.
Not in this case. The ultimate decision will be made by the people who vote in November, not activist judges.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
It still begs the question of why all of those would-be confederate politicians petitioned the federal government to be exempted from the 14th amendment. They apparently felt that it was a self-executing restriction on their right to run for public office. This Supreme Court decision did make new law, and four of the nine justices felt the majority made the ruling unnecessarily broad. If the three Trump-appointed justices had recused themselves, then the 3-3 split would likely have narrowed it somewhat. The way this ruling came down suggests to me that at least five of the justices are likely to help Trump with his other legal woes, especially if he manages to pull off another electoral college victory in November. The court's recent ruling to help Trump delay Chutkin's criminal trial makes more sense.
Derec
Contributor
Welp, told you so.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,686
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
But this wasn't about a state using their own system, they referred to the 14th Amendment, not some portion of the State Constitution. Indeed, this could be an even more interesting question if the State Constitution had such a limitation.
Elixir
Made in America
...nor by judicially and politically impartial judges.
It's nice that they're gong to let us decide if we want fascist authoritarian regime, or if we'd rather endure another violent attempt to overthrow the government because we didn't want a fascist authoritarian regime.
I actually agree with them; it's time to go all in.
If Trump loses, I hope appropriate warnings about the use of lethal force are issued prior to the December and January certification deadlines. And that it is used, if anything like 1/6 is attempted again. And if Trump "wins" (thanks FOX&Uncle Vlad!) I hope Kami refuses to certify his victory, under her oath to protect the Constitution. That won't keep him from ascending to the throne, but it would make one last loud noise on behalf of the majority of Americans.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
No, they want the government officials they elected to make rational decisions about who can run for election.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,460
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
And this part means absolutely nothing unless all candidates agree to abide by the results of the election. Trump's refusal to do so, and willingness to take up arms against the Congress if they refuse to falsify the results on his behalf, is exactly what is at issue here. "Democracy if we win, coup d'etat if we lose" is a concept incoherent with that of "the ultimate decision will be made by the people". The People are the electorate, not a mob of angry Tea Partiers at the Capitol steps.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
only because the do nothing Congress won’t enact legislation to clarify the disqualification rules as the Supreme Court majority says they must do to apply the disqualification.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
"take up arms"
ffs, it was a mostly peaceful protest and the system worked, Biden is president so get over it. Trump will be running.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Dry your eyes fella, Trump is running.