72d
@djj saidYou idiots have said for years that states should be sovereign and pass whatever laws they want.
State level issue's don't have the ability to affect the entire country.
States' rights has always been a thing for you guys until now. And you wonder why we say Republicans have no principles. You drop them like a hot rock for your Orange Jesus.
72d
1 edit
@shavixmir saidNope. Not abortion, apparently.
So, my take away from this is that the US extreme-right want all matters to be decided on a federal level, rather than on a state level?
72d
@no1marauder saidNot only can they, they already do:
No they couldn't; the Constitution sets the qualifications for the Presidency.
18 U.S. Code § 2383
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If Trump were convicted under Section 2383 there would be no question he'd be ineligible for office.
72d
@shavixmir saidFederal level means under federal law or the operation of the federal government. Of course actions within states can affect the rest of the country, but they can't dictate things for the country.
It seems rather unclear what constitutes a federal level and what a State level.
Care to explain?
Example: If Wisconsin says that dairy farmers in Wisconsin may not work more than 30 hours a week, that will affect the price of milk and cheeses throughout the country, because Wisconsin's dairy industry is so important. Nevertheless, they can do so.
However, Wisconsin cannot say something like "no dairy produced in any state can be imported into Wisconsin except from a farm whose laborers work 30 hours a week or less." With the latter, Wisconsin is trying to indirectly govern how things go in the rest of the country. That's too much of an interference with commerce and the courts would not allow it.
72d
@suzianne saidStates Rights are the law of the land, purpose being to not give federal govt 'all' the power, if you will.
We've said this for years, but you "states' rights" fools opposed that at every turn. Until now.
Sue, are you not in favor of States Rights? Only Fools support States Rights? YOu have got to be kidding. You write so acerbically that I never know what you mean, but I do try. We need to nurture all sorts on the Forum.
71d
@sh76 saidThere'd be plenty of question even besides the issue raised in the Colorado litigation as to whether the Presidency is an "office under the United States".
Not only can they, they already do:
18 U.S. Code § 2383
[quote]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under ...[text shortened]... If Trump were convicted under Section 2383 there would be no question he'd be ineligible for office.
First off, you didn't confine yourself to a statute that implicitly mentioned insurrection or rebellion but claimed that Congress could impose disqualification from the office of the Presidency for any crime - X, Y, Z, in your formulation. But Congress already has numerous statutes imposing disqualification from Federal employment for various convictions (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pardon/legacy/2006/11/13/collateral_consequences.pdf Section C, 1). But in dealing with a hypothetical charge against Hillary Clinton in 2015, my favorite libertarian source, Reason, argued:
"Under Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, Congress and the states cannot "add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I." And that reasoning, Seth concluded, would seem to apply to the qualifications for the presidency in Article II. Several courts in the Seventh Circuit, and elsewhere, reached that same conclusion.
But in considering that situation, several legal scholars — including Seth B. Tillman of Maynouth University in Ireland and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles — noted that the Constitution sets eligibility criteria for who can be president, and argued that Supreme Court rulings suggest Congress cannot alter it. The Constitution allows Congress to disqualify people from holding office in impeachment proceedings, but grants no such power for ordinary criminal law."
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/08/no-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-2071-cannot-disqualify-trump-from-the-presidency/
71d
1 edit
@sh76 saidFurthermore, 18 US Code Section 2383 cannot be reasonably considered the type of legislation authorized by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; it is overly broad by placing the disqualification on anyone who "engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof" when Section 3 of the Amendment specifically limits the disqualification to those "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."
Not only can they, they already do:
18 U.S. Code § 2383
[quote]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under ...[text shortened]... If Trump were convicted under Section 2383 there would be no question he'd be ineligible for office.
71d
OK, let's go back to square one. As stated in the Per Curiam at page 10:
"And the Confiscation Act
of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an
additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That
law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among
other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification
from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12
Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the
books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Now let's suppose that Private Johnny Reb decides to run for Congress in 1866. The language of the Confiscation Act would disqualify him from that office, BUT the Constitution does not grant any power to the Congress to add to the qualifications of office of specified elected Federal officials. Thus the law would be unconstitutional if attempted to be applied to candidates for elected Federal offices.
And if the law is unconstitutional prior to the 14th Amendment and if the law goes far beyond any power granted by that Amendment, I do not see how it is constitutional now as regards the officials specified in the Constitution.
71d
@suzianne saidUhhh, did the rogue CO sec of state 'pass a law'?? Ohhh, sue, long months ahead, you best sharpen your wits!!
You idiots have said for years that states should be sovereign and pass whatever laws they want.
States' rights has always been a thing for you guys until now. And you wonder why we say Republicans have no principles. You drop them like a hot rock for your Orange Jesus.
71d
@suzianne saidWere all of the elements of an insurrection met? They were not, yet you continue muck up this thread. You got a game plan? Gonna be a rough road for you erstwhile debaters!
Doesn't apply here. He engaged in insurrection. Period.