The fact that this court effectively overturned the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment is mind-blowing. Good thing that won't ever come back to bite us, eh?
Jane, I understand that feeling, but they did not overturn it. In fact, they did not go anywhere near the question. They stayed as far from any comment about that factual, legal finding from Judge Wallace that TFG was an insurrectionist as they could. So, he is still, and very probably always will be, a factual, legal insurrectionist, as well as a rapist, and fraudster. And that list of his good points is not yet complete.
I said they *effectively* overturned the Insurrection Clause. The court added requirements to Section 3 that aren't in the amendment. By doing so, they made it impossible to remove a federal candidate from the ballot in any state by eliding the insurrection part of the Insurrection Clause and instead deciding this was really an issue of state versus federal candidates and claiming that only congress can disqualify a federal candidate.
The court doesn't have the power to actually overturn a constitutional amendment, so they did so effectively, by making it impossible to enforce.
The plain reading of the amendment is that the disqualification exists, and the only role of Congress is to remove, if they wish, the disqualification with a two-thirds majority. The dissent refers to Trump as an "oathbreaking insurrectionist" four times. Clearly the justices did not agree, whether publicly or privately, that Trump was innocent. If it is really true that Section three cannot be enforced except by extra legislation from Congress, then it appears Congress needs to get busy and find all the toothless provisions of the Constitution and give them teeth. Good faith compliance is dead. Trump and MAGA killed it.
Thanks for the clarification of your meaning, and I understand what you are saying. Adding the distinction between state and federal candidates probably will fall under the "originalist" rubric that the Court loves to use when it increases federal power in the way they like. Of course, when it does not please them, they love the "originalist" thought behind States Rights, too. ЁЯШП
Though as a counterpoint, could it be as simple as passing a law to designate someone as an insurrectionist? Almost certainly not what the writers of that amendment had in mind, since they put in that 2/3 over-ride, which is the same thing needed to pass a law without the President. So why put that in there if a passed law was the only way to get it done? Unless of course it means that once an insurrection designation law is passed by 50%+1 and the President, it cannot be undone except by 2/3 of Congress?
The whole thing seems like a muddled mess to me, with the writers just assuming that everyone would know who the insurrectionists were and the current SC ignoring that obvious mistake.
It might be possible to pass a law defining 'insurrection' as it relates to the 14th Amendment, Section 3. It might also be possible to make that definition self-executing, as appears to be the original intent of the authors of Section 3. The 2/3 vote of each house is what the Section 3 calls for to override a disqualification due to participation in an insurrection against the Constitution. That could only be changed by another amendment.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, hundreds of confederates applied to congress for exemption from disqualification from running for office. They'd never been tried, let alone convicted, for insurrection. They didn't seem to think they had to wait until congress passed a law designating what 'insurrection' means. They knew.
But this court, clearly, didn't want to touch the insurrection part of the Insurrection Clause with a 10-foot pole, so they deflected. They pretended the real issue here is who gets to decide which candidates for which offices are the ballots in each state - despite the Constitution giving that authority to the states. [Which is particularly rich considering how Trump argued in many of his post-election cases that only state legislatures could decide issues about elections.]
What we ended up with is a political decision, not a legal one. The muddle here has been created by a supreme court whiffing on deciding the hard part and instead putting out an opinion on an issue nobody even raised - in briefs or in oral argument.
My assumption is that the Justices were internally debating which opinion and dissent(s) to issue, and realized at the weekend that they had run out of time before Super Tuesday and needed to rush something out.
On terms of the liberals, presumably this not-dissent may have started as a lone dissent but later got merged into the 3 justices agreeing on a message.
Why was an opinion originally authored by a lone justice as a partial dissent transformed into a concurrence authored by all three liberals together?
A republican court in trying to look legitimate bungles itself into even more illegitimacy
The fact that this court effectively overturned the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment is mind-blowing. Good thing that won't ever come back to bite us, eh?
Jane, I understand that feeling, but they did not overturn it. In fact, they did not go anywhere near the question. They stayed as far from any comment about that factual, legal finding from Judge Wallace that TFG was an insurrectionist as they could. So, he is still, and very probably always will be, a factual, legal insurrectionist, as well as a rapist, and fraudster. And that list of his good points is not yet complete.
I said they *effectively* overturned the Insurrection Clause. The court added requirements to Section 3 that aren't in the amendment. By doing so, they made it impossible to remove a federal candidate from the ballot in any state by eliding the insurrection part of the Insurrection Clause and instead deciding this was really an issue of state versus federal candidates and claiming that only congress can disqualify a federal candidate.
The court doesn't have the power to actually overturn a constitutional amendment, so they did so effectively, by making it impossible to enforce.
The plain reading of the amendment is that the disqualification exists, and the only role of Congress is to remove, if they wish, the disqualification with a two-thirds majority. The dissent refers to Trump as an "oathbreaking insurrectionist" four times. Clearly the justices did not agree, whether publicly or privately, that Trump was innocent. If it is really true that Section three cannot be enforced except by extra legislation from Congress, then it appears Congress needs to get busy and find all the toothless provisions of the Constitution and give them teeth. Good faith compliance is dead. Trump and MAGA killed it.
You're absolutely right, Terry. Well said.
Thanks for the clarification of your meaning, and I understand what you are saying. Adding the distinction between state and federal candidates probably will fall under the "originalist" rubric that the Court loves to use when it increases federal power in the way they like. Of course, when it does not please them, they love the "originalist" thought behind States Rights, too. ЁЯШП
Well put!
Thanks. One can think of it as "moving the goalposts", too.
Though as a counterpoint, could it be as simple as passing a law to designate someone as an insurrectionist? Almost certainly not what the writers of that amendment had in mind, since they put in that 2/3 over-ride, which is the same thing needed to pass a law without the President. So why put that in there if a passed law was the only way to get it done? Unless of course it means that once an insurrection designation law is passed by 50%+1 and the President, it cannot be undone except by 2/3 of Congress?
The whole thing seems like a muddled mess to me, with the writers just assuming that everyone would know who the insurrectionists were and the current SC ignoring that obvious mistake.
It might be possible to pass a law defining 'insurrection' as it relates to the 14th Amendment, Section 3. It might also be possible to make that definition self-executing, as appears to be the original intent of the authors of Section 3. The 2/3 vote of each house is what the Section 3 calls for to override a disqualification due to participation in an insurrection against the Constitution. That could only be changed by another amendment.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, hundreds of confederates applied to congress for exemption from disqualification from running for office. They'd never been tried, let alone convicted, for insurrection. They didn't seem to think they had to wait until congress passed a law designating what 'insurrection' means. They knew.
But this court, clearly, didn't want to touch the insurrection part of the Insurrection Clause with a 10-foot pole, so they deflected. They pretended the real issue here is who gets to decide which candidates for which offices are the ballots in each state - despite the Constitution giving that authority to the states. [Which is particularly rich considering how Trump argued in many of his post-election cases that only state legislatures could decide issues about elections.]
What we ended up with is a political decision, not a legal one. The muddle here has been created by a supreme court whiffing on deciding the hard part and instead putting out an opinion on an issue nobody even raised - in briefs or in oral argument.
My assumption is that the Justices were internally debating which opinion and dissent(s) to issue, and realized at the weekend that they had run out of time before Super Tuesday and needed to rush something out.
On terms of the liberals, presumably this not-dissent may have started as a lone dissent but later got merged into the 3 justices agreeing on a message.