Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Okay, but according to the Constitution, there is nothing that would disqualify President Trump from seeking a second term. Again, I'm not following your logic here.
    The obvious fact that he violated his oath, attempted to overthrow the election in the states and incited and so participated in an insurrection at the Capital in order to obstruct a session of Congress, as well as gave aid and comfort to his insurrectionists by doing nothing to defend the Capital, as well as praising the insurrectionists as patriots after their failed attempt, which being self evident results in a self executing result of disqualification.

    Would Jefferson Davis need be convicted in a Court of law before being allowed to run for President according to section3?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      from the ruling:

      “In our federal system, the National Government pos-
      sesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain
      the remainder.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 854
      (2014). Among those retained powers is the power of a
      State to “order the processes of its own governance.” Alden
      v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 752 (1999). In particular, the
      States enjoy sovereign “power to prescribe the qualifica-
      tions of their own officers” and “the manner of their election
      . . . free from external interference, except so far as plainly
      provided by the Constitution of the United States.” Taylor
      v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 570–571 (1900). Although the
      Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it
      plainly withdraws from the States this traditional author-
      ity. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
      States used this authority to disqualify state officers in ac-
      cordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett,
      63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State
      ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869)
      (state judge).
      Such power over governance, however, does not extend to
      federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal offic-
      ers “ ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice
      of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ ” powers over
      their election and qualifications must be specifically “dele-
      gated to, rather than reserved by, the States.” U. S. Term

      Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995)
      (quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of
      the United States 627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing
      in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to en-
      force Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates
      pp 6-7
      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-719_19m2.pdf

      But it doesn't say that they can do it without conviction. I don't think they even went that far in their ruling. But without a conviction, I don't see how they could legally claim someone was an insurrectionist.

      Especially since the first part of the 14th amendment says that

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      This is a great portion to highlight for someone arguing that the majority opinion is not only incoherent but ridiculously so:

      Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.” ... But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.


      Section Three, if self-executing, explicitly delegates this authority! The majority begs its own question here. And the majority argues that Section Three is self-executing for state officials, somehow avoiding the explicit requirement they propose Section Three's text imposes with regard to Congress for federal officials. But there's nothing in the language of Section Three that does this, nor was there any explicit legislative intent during the making of Section Three to this distinction.

      So the majority simply invents the distinction: the Congressional ability to enforce Section Three through legislation must be a trigger for federal officials because those involve "the united voice of the whole, not a portion of, the people" — despite the fact that we're talking about representatives of a particular district or state — but is not necessary when state courts determine whether to use Section Three to invalidate state senators or congressfolk.

      It's incoherent on its face, which should be apparent to anyone going the next step past block-quoting.

      -Sam
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        No, it's just you pretending to be a great legal scholar who insists everyone else got it wrong and because you don't like the decision it therefore will be regarded as one of the court's worst decisions ever.
        All that "close following" of the case and the farthest you've managed to get in terms of analysis is a headcount?

        Plenty of decisions worse than Bush v Gore, I'd say. Few so plainly and nakedly goal-oriented.

        -Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It wasn't just conservatives. Very few saw this as being legitimate regardless of political stripe.
          In that "Off The Ballot" thread?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            and then she spent the next 4+ years saying it wasn't a fair election. And the democrats started trying to impeach him from day 1. And the democrats rioted in the streets of DC on his inauguration, looting, burning cars, etc. Yeah they accepted the election just fine.
            If that's your way of admitting that Hillary did indeed concede, I'll accept it.

            If only Trump had done the same.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              In that "Off The Ballot" thread?
              It's like "lottery jackpot syndrome" a term I just made up.

              There's a big lottery jackpot, and you buy a ticket KNOWING you aren't going to win. Yet, you daydream about winning. As the drawing comes closer you take those daydreams more to heart until, at the time of drawing you've all but convinced yourself that you ARE going to win that drawing. When that event you KNEW wasn't going to happen doesn't happen, you get upset anyways.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                It's like "lottery jackpot syndrome" a term I just made up.

                There's a big lottery jackpot, and you buy a ticket KNOWING you aren't going to win. Yet, you daydream about winning. As the drawing comes closer you take those daydreams more to heart until, at the time of drawing you've all but convinced yourself that you ARE going to win that drawing. When that event you KNEW wasn't going to happen doesn't happen, you get upset anyways.
                Well, there's at least one on the left here that is and was probably truly surprised.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  It's like "lottery jackpot syndrome" a term I just made up.

                  There's a big lottery jackpot, and you buy a ticket KNOWING you aren't going to win. Yet, you daydream about winning. As the drawing comes closer you take those daydreams more to heart until, at the time of drawing you've all but convinced yourself that you ARE going to win that drawing. When that event you KNEW wasn't going to happen doesn't happen, you get upset anyways.
                  So you're suggesting that Trump had lottery jackpot syndrome and got so upset that he didn't win as he expected that he incited an insurrection?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by View Post

                    The obvious fact that he violated his oath, attempted to overthrow the election in the states and incited and so participated in an insurrection at the Capital in order to obstruct a session of Congress, as well as gave aid and comfort to his insurrectionists by doing nothing to defend the Capital, as well as praising the insurrectionists as patriots after their failed attempt, which being self evident results in a self executing result of disqualification.

                    Would Jefferson Davis need be convicted in a Court of law before being allowed to run for President according to section3?
                    It's not just that President Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, but he was cleared of all charges by the Senate.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post

                      So you're suggesting that Trump had lottery jackpot syndrome and got so upset that he didn't win as he expected that he incited an insurrection?
                      No. I'm saying the liberal fever dream of a 14th Amendment solution followed the same path.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        No. I'm saying the liberal fever dream of a 14th Amendment solution followed the same path.
                        Oh isn't that funny how your analogy fit so perfectly with Trumps certainty of winning and then realizing he lost getting so upset that he tried to overthrow the election and attempted a political coup.
                        I really doubt though that liberals, most of us anyway, believed that the Colorado SC decision would hold up, particularly with the partisan conservative and activist make up of our current SCOTUS.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          While I think the ultimate conclusion, that state courts cannot remove people from federal ballots, I feel I have to join with Kagan/Jackson/Sotomayor/Barrett in agreeing the per curiam decision went too far in claiming it to be the exclusive power of congress, as it was unnecessary to the question and also a bit questionable an interpretation.
                          Last edited by Terraceth; 03-04-2024, 07:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            In that "Off The Ballot" thread?
                            I'm talking about legal experts.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Unanimous!
                              Of course.
                              Colorado's tried to ban Trump from standing for election because 'He engaged in insurrection' but since he was not convicted of such a crime then it was common sense that this action be discarded/ignored.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by eider View Post

                                Of course.
                                Colorado's tried to ban Trump from standing for election because 'He engaged in insurrection' but since he was not convicted of such a crime then it was common sense that this action be discarded/ignored.
                                According to some, no conviction was necessary. Goes back to that lottery jackpot syndrome I was talking about.

                                They KNEW it was a Longshot until they bought thier own con, then were upset when it didn't work.

                                We saw this OVER AND OVER during his presidency, with democrats lurching from silver bullet to silver bullet sure 4hqt this n3xt ginned up Longshot would be 5he one to end Trump.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 09:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                20 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 06:47 AM
                                50 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
                                48 responses
                                279 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
                                11 responses
                                87 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by carpedm9587, 04-13-2024, 07:51 PM
                                31 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X