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 w…
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.
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.