- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142506
71d
@no1marauder saidLOL I tried to tell you in an earlier thread about the 14th
But they can enforce other qualifications like not being born in the US (as Gorsuch wrote in another case and have been applied in others)?
The decision is a joke; the "patchwork" argument made by the concurrence does not rely on any textual basis nor does it explain the cases above. And the Per Curiam is even worse; it doesn't even try to explain why every provision o ...[text shortened]... is is a political decision having nothing to do with Constitutional language or the Framer's intent.
you need to quit trying like you know more than the SCOTUS
you are looking like a babbling fool
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142506
71d
@sonhouse saidthe bottom line is states don’t decide the 14th
@no1marauder
But it would have to be a political decision on both sides the tweed, it was a unanimous vote so representatives of both parties voted it down.
I would have thought a political decision would have been one by one party with objections by the other side but unanimous means libs and conservatives thought alike on this one, probably differing logical paths but le ...[text shortened]... dual from long ago or a plain old murder done by a sitting POTUS, could they invoke section 3 then?
I tried to tell your lawyer boy that several months ago
71d
@mott-the-hoople saidWas Brown v. Board of Education wrongly decided because Congress hadn't passed a law outlawing segregation in the schools?
LOL I tried to tell you in an earlier thread about the 14th
you need to quit trying like you know more than the SCOTUS
you are looking like a babbling fool
71d
@mott-the-hoople saidHere's the full 14th Amendment:
the bottom line is states don’t decide the 14th
I tried to tell your lawyer boy that several months ago
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The SCOTUS has weirdly decided that only Section 3 is limited to a Congressional remedy despite the fact that there is nothing in the Amendment distinguishing it from the other sections as far as the application of Section 5. This is a ridiculous and ahistorical reading.
71d
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou realize that these same Framers allowed slavery to exist, right? And that they didn't see fit to allow women the vote or own property?
So what?
The Framers didn't believe that rights could be created or limited by man made documents.
71d
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou said earlier that SCOTUS rulings should be with the Framer's intent in mind. For the reasons I already stated, that is a mistake. Furthermore, "natural rights" isn't a legal precedent though it should be.
Again, so what?
SCOTUS should instead focus on the spirit of the law. The Framers intended for states to bar insurrectionists from holding office; that would include the president, regardless of whether it's explicitly stated. The spirit of the law could never have resulted in Dredd Scott or the overturning of Roe. v Wade.
None of this matters. The conservative Court doesn't care about the Framer's intent, natural law or the spirit of the law. But accident they happened to prevent a future crisis of states using the "insurrection" laws as a partisan tool instead of as designed.
@vivify saidYou obviously ignored what I said which was:
You said earlier that SCOTUS rulings should be with the Framer's intent in mind. For the reasons I already stated, that is a mistake. Furthermore, "natural rights" isn't a legal precedent though it should be.
SCOTUS should instead focus on the spirit of the law. The Framers intended for states to bar insurrectionists from holding office; that would include the president, ...[text shortened]... t a future crisis of states using the "insurrection" laws as a partisan tool instead of as designed.
"With the exception of issues regarding the inalienable Natural Rights of the People, Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers, not what judges now think is "best"."
So your attempted critique is misplaced.
I'm puzzled by the rest; I said other "Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers" you said "The Framers intended for states to bar insurrectionists from holding office." That's the same thing in this case.
The decision was based on a theory that Section 3 is essentially dormant unless and until Congress passes some enabling legislation. But that premise has never been applied to any other Section of the 14th Amendment despite the fact that Section 5 is applicable to all. In essence, Congress can enforce any and all of the provisions by "appropriate legislation" sure but it has never been held that any part of the Amendment is solely reliant on that remedy.
71d
@no1marauder saidI meant "shouldn't". We shouldn't continue relying on the intent of men from the 18th century.
I'm puzzled by the rest; I said other "Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers" you said "The Framers intended for states to bar insurrectionists from holding office." That's the same thing in this case.
The decision was based on a theory that Section 3 is essentially dormant unless and until Congress passes some enabling legislation. B ...[text shortened]... on" sure but it has never been held that any part of the Amendment is solely reliant on that remedy.
You obviously ignored what I said which was:
"With the exception of issues regarding the inalienable Natural Rights of the People, Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers, not what judges now think is "best"."
So your attempted critique is misplaced.
Seems I misinterpreted your post. Sorry.
@suzianne saidNo small wonder, an attempt by democrats to wrongfully influence a federal election, was smacked down,
One wonders if they have even read the Fourteenth Amendment.
Most incompetent court ever.
But then they did reverse 50 years of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.
and the little d democrats cry foul!!
Colorado, Maine, and whoever else have power greedy democrats that won't allow their citizens to vote for Trump,
which is a huge smack in the face to democracy. but the democrats don't care about that.
@averagejoe1 saidIn America, you are innocent until proven guilty... unless... the subject is Donald Trump!
Your second paragraph I find astounding. He was never charged with nor convicted of insurrection.
Do you still stand by this ludicrous second paragraph.? It is not even worth an analogy. You are so naïve, just consider the ramifications that would occur. If secretaries of state could do what she did all day long, to anyone they pick out of the crowd.
You are poisoning the minds of people like Suzanne and Kev.
71d
@earl-of-trumps saidYou're attacking Dems for removing someone who committed insurrection?
which is a huge smack in the face to democracy. but the democrats don't care about that.
There's a convicted child molester somewhere running for office who'd like your support.