Please be patient and understanding when interacting with others, and avoid getting frustrated or upset if someone does not respond to your posts or if a discussion does not go as you expected. Remember that everyone is entitled to express their own perspectives. Furthermore, even when you don't entirely agree, try to benefit in some way from it.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 1
... ran over me while I was peacefully contemplating the limits of the 14th.
So, 50% of either house can prevent a Section 3, but if a Section 3 happens, it takes 67% of both houses to lift the Section 3 ban?
Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️@tribelaw·3h
More directly stated: Today’s ruling reads the 14th Amendment to mean that 1/2 of EITHER the House OR the Senate can, just by INACTION, permit an oath-breaking insurrectionist to hold office — even though Section 3 says it takes 2/3 of BOTH the House & the Senate to lift that ban
Dorf on Law @dorfonlaw·11h
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general.
No. of Recommendations: 1
More directly stated: Today’s ruling reads the 14th Amendment to mean that 1/2 of EITHER the House OR the Senate can, just by INACTION, permit an oath-breaking insurrectionist to hold office — even though Section 3 says it takes 2/3 of BOTH the House & the Senate to lift that ban -Lapsody
--------------------------
Yes sir, that is the point. It should take the highest level of consensus to prevent an elected president from taking office. It is appropriate that a really high bar is required, surely you agree with that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes sir, that is the point. It should take the highest level of consensus to prevent an elected president from taking office
Trump hasn't been elected, would you like a redo on the above? :)
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Yes sir, that is the point. It should take the highest level of consensus to prevent an elected president from taking office<<
Trump hasn't been elected, would you like a redo on the above? :) = Lapody
================================
Yet, but I will still address your contention.
I will take the hit that I should have phrased it as "prevent a president-elect from taking office".
The wording of section 3 has to with preventing a person from "holding" office, which is different than running for office.
If Trump runs and looses, then it is a moot point. In the case he wins, that is when the 14th amendment kicks in and "could" be used to prevent him from taking office.
I use the word "could" because the SCOTUS opinion did have some disagreement on whether additional legislation is required to implement this provision.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I find it interesting that the people who howl the most about WE MUST DEFEND DEMOCRACY...
...are the ones who want to deny the people the chance to vote for a dude.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I use the word "could" because the SCOTUS opinion did have some disagreement on whether additional legislation is required to implement this provision.
Yes, it looks like the legislation is required now. Fat chance. :)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let's face it, the 14th is poorly written and leaves open too many questions. Much like the 2nd and a few others.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I find it interesting that the people who howl the most about WE MUST DEFEND DEMOCRACY...
...are the ones who want to deny the people the chance to vote for a QUALIFIED dude.
If a dude or dudette disqualifies theirselves by virtue of their own acitons, they are not qualified -by law- from taking office.
