Not restricting the lower authorities because they have no such power. Power to level charges of an insurrection is with Congress and Democrats already tried to impeach President Donald Trump and failed. Judge Kavanaugh starts his multiple questions by asking the definition of insurrection, who determines the fact that insurrection happened? The biggest damning thing is the Democrats allege the bogus insurrection yet, none of the January 6 demonstrators, not a single one has been charged with insurrection? But, President Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection on what basis? I think the US Supreme Court will slap this down hard because it is a total abuse of power and nothing else. Even the lower appeals court judges know it.
14th Amendment Time -- It's long overdue to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Not restricting the lower authorities because they have no such power. Power to level charges of an insurrection is with Congress and Democrats already tried to impeach President Donald Trump and failed. Judge Kavanaugh starts his multiple questions by asking the definition of insurrection, who determines the fact that insurrection happened? The biggest damning thing is the Democrats allege the bogus insurrection yet, none of the January 6 demonstrators, not a single one has been charged with insurrection? But, President Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection on what basis? I think the US Supreme Court will slap this down hard because it is a total abuse of power and nothing else. Even the lower appeals court judges know it.
More cogent argument than the ones being made by the defense and SCOTUS, not gonna lie.
Both chambers voted and deemed the event an insurrection.
The very fact that the authors of the amendment took the time to enumerate Congreff, but didn't take the time to say, "or anyone else", means that Congreff has the sole authority to enforce Section 3.
If true, please provide a link showing such. And then, if you would please, show us evidence where Congreff acted to enforce Section 3 and remove Trump from the ballot. Thank you in advance.----Izzy.
This is of course true. So which interpretation of the Constitution is correct, The Colorado Supreme Court's or our U.S. Supreme Court's -- a question we can not yet answer for ourselves.
Regardless, Colorado is bound by the Constitution, as are the other 49 States. My view is that Colorado's interpretation is correct, viz., an insurrectionist is disqualified from holding Federal Office and therefore, logically, his name should be removed from both primary and general election ballots. I don't see any option the Supreme Court has other than to uphold Colorado's own Supreme Court's decision. If they don't do this, they will create a conflict between what the 14th Amendment plainly and logically says and their own tortured interpretation. If the Court were to say, "Colorado can't remove Trump from its ballot," might that be a clear violation of authority given to the States by Article 2? Regardless, any such a decision would create a conflict between what Colorado believed it must logically do to be in compliance with the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Court's order. Of course we know already what Colorado will do. They will patiently await the U.S. Supreme Courts decision and then abide by it. They should not do this, however, if the U.S.S.C. does not uphold the Colorado decision; sadly, they will.
Should the Court come back and say Trump is not an Officer of the United States and/or he did not engage in or aid and abet an insurrection, then Colorado would have to put Trump on the ballot, assuming other requirements are met. But in this latter case, it's my view that the Court would be just as wrong as they were in Dred Scott, Bush v Gore, Citizens United, and Dobs --- the latter three cases you will never hear a S.C. Justice voluntarily bring up. These three cases are an embarrassment to the Court because the prevailing opinion in all three was heavily colored by politics or religion, or both.
The argument that permitting Colorado to remove Trump from ballots would create a uneven patchwork of ballots throughout the States is a non-starter, or should be, because a patchwork of ballots and of rules for selecting Electors is what we have always had as a consequence of Article 2. Kagan's line of questioning during oral arguments was at best, to my way of thinking, diversionary; at worst it represented hair brain thinking on her part. If the Court is interested in not making our elections any more of a patchwork of rules and regulations than they already are, then the easiest way to achieve that is to uphold the plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, uphold the masterfully-crafted Colorado Supreme Court's decision, and order that all other States fall in line by removing Trump from their Ballots.
Last edited:
Congress having the authority, but NOT the sole authority,* to enforce laws via legislation applies universally throughout the Constitution regardless of whether this authority is specifically mentioned or not, as Congress is the only legislative body! This statement: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, found in Section 5 of the Amendment is superfluous. It is understood to be true whether written here or not.
The word "sole" does not appear in section 5, because courts (State and Federal) also have authority to enforce the Constitution and use that authority on a regular basis. The Colorado case is an example of States exercising that same authority. The Supreme Court may strike down Colorado's decision, but it will have to be on the basis that Colorado misinterpreted Section 3. I have made the point that it is rather difficult, for anyone other than a lawyer, to misinterpret something of such obvious purpose and so clearly written as Section 3. In America's courts you will hear arguments, so often it's become tiresome, that only a lawyer would not be embarrassed to propound.
"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table [and claim the court is 'rigged']" --- Carl Sandburg, with a little help from Donald Trump!
_____________
*Though Congress is not the sole authority with the power to enforce, it is the superior authority. Congress can exercise its power even over the courts, including the Supreme Court!
Last edited:
"Congress in 2021 addressed the very questions of insurrection and eligibility now arising from the states. One week after Jan. 6, a majority of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on the charge of incitement to insurrection. When the Senate held its trial that February, Trump was by then no longer president. The only sanction if convicted was future disqualification from office. Senators voted 57-43 to find Trump guilty, 10 short of the two-thirds required to convict. "
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...cation-clause-could-keep-trump-on-the-ballot/
Conviction is not necessary under the 14th, and as has been pointed out by others here, the Amendment does not require Congress to "enforce".
There will always be folks like you attempting to bastardize The Constitution. We must always fight against this Big League.
There will always be folks like you attempting to bastardize The Constitution. We must always fight against this Big League.