@mott-the-hoople saidThat ridiculous interpretation would mean that no one has rights unless the Congress passes laws that specifically say so (see Section 1 of the 14th Amendment). That's not how it works; all the provisions of the 14th Amendment are self-executing.
“ So the Colorado judges had every authority to make such a finding, your ignorance of basic Constitutional principles notwithstanding.”
no, they dont have the authority.
Read ALL the 14 amendment, dont cherry pick the part you want to hear.
14th amendment section 5 explains who can enforce.
“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate l ...[text shortened]... the provisions of this article.”
and yes, the states are bound to follow constitutional law.
Congress can pass laws that enforce the Amendment, so long as they are "appropriate" i.e. in line with the intent of the Amendment's Framers, but even if they don't it is up to the Courts to interpret Constitutional provisions (see Marbury v. Madison).
@AverageJoe1
Are you really that stupid you don't know what was going on Jan 6? When you say 'overthrow' I think you mean a thousand troops come and take over congress and such. It would have been the exact same thing if Pence hadn't been on the right side of history and rejected the electors he KNEW were fake. He couldn't figure a way to do that and keep his integrity, which wasn't a whole lot in the first place but he literally saved our democracy that day.
You are quibbling over semantics. The idea was to LITERALLY overthrow the government in this case by more or less peaceful means.
And it was a tweet that led the crowd to yell HAND MIKE PENCE.
They would not have known the details of that if Trump had not issued a tweet throwing his VP under the bus so don't tell ME about how that was not an attempt to overthrow the government.
Hitler and Mussolini did without a military attack so it has been done without an army.
@mott-the-hoople saidYou do realize that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a disqualification from office in the first place?
14th amendment does not include the president and vice president.
“ Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
You don't need to impeach someone who can't legally be in office in the first place.
@no1marauder saidthat is not an interpretation, it is written in black and white
That ridiculous interpretation would mean that no one has rights unless the Congress passes laws that specifically say so (see Section 1 of the 14th Amendment). That's not how it works; all the provisions of the 14th Amendment are self-executing.
Congress can pass laws that enforce the Amendment, so long as they are "appropriate" i.e. in line with the intent of the Am ...[text shortened]... don't it is up to the Courts to interpret Constitutional provisions (see Marbury v. Madison).
@no1marauder saidsection 3 explicitly excludes the president, vice president and civil officers. They are covered under article 2
You do realize that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a disqualification from office in the first place?
You don't need to impeach someone who can't legally be in office in the first place.
Both the 13th and 15th Amendment also have the provision: "“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
But as the Colorado Supreme Court stated:
"Furthermore, we agree with the Electors that interpreting any of the
Reconstruction Amendments, given their identical structure, as not self-executing
would lead to absurd results. If these Amendments required legislation to make
them operative, then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting
legislation. The result of such inaction would mean that slavery remains legal;
Black citizens would be counted as less than full citizens for reapportionment; nonwhite male voters could be disenfranchised; and any individual who engaged in
insurrection against the government would nonetheless be able to serve in the government, regardless of whether two-thirds of Congress had lifted the
disqualification. Surely that was not the drafters’ intent."
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Pages 54-55
@mott-the-hoople saidIt doesn't "exclude" anyone:
section 3 explicitly excludes the president, vice president and civil officers. They are covered under article 2
"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."
As the OP stated:
""President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.
Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three." (Italics in original) https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at P.87
@mott-the-hoople saidFar from it; it stands in direct contradiction to what the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments meant to achieve.
that is not an interpretation, it is written in black and white
Congress need not, and did not, pass any law outlawing slavery even though that Amendment had a similar provision; the Amendment itself banned it. The same is true for the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
@no1marauder
Don't worry, they are WAY too stupid to understand ANY of that, they believe what their god king tells them and that is that, they liken Trump to Jesus and it is literally a religious movement where Trump IS Jesus and the only one who can 'save' America and there is no amount of logic that will dissuade any of them from their goal to reelect their god king.
@no1marauder saidwhy are you not comprehending what you are reading.
It doesn't "exclude" anyone:
"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 ...[text shortened]... ww.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at P.87
No where in what you posted concerns the president or vice president.
14 section. 3 covers two sections of our govt. The judicial and the congress. It explicitly omits the executive branch.
Article 2 of the constitution covers the president, vice president and their appointments, cabinet officials ect. (civil officers)
@no1marauder saidthe amendment is law dumbass
Far from it; it stands in direct contradiction to what the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments meant to achieve.
Congress need not, and did not, pass any law outlawing slavery even though that Amendment had a similar provision; the Amendment itself banned it. The same is true for the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
@no1marauder said“ Far from it; it stands in direct contradiction to what the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments meant to achieve. ”
Far from it; it stands in direct contradiction to what the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments meant to achieve.
Congress need not, and did not, pass any law outlawing slavery even though that Amendment had a similar provision; the Amendment itself banned it. The same is true for the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
are you suggesting they wrote something they didn’t mean?
“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
@sonhouse saidTrump is not like Jesus.
@no1marauder
Don't worry, they are WAY too stupid to understand ANY of that, they believe what their god king tells them and that is that, they liken Trump to Jesus and it is literally a religious movement where Trump IS Jesus and the only one who can 'save' America and there is no amount of logic that will dissuade any of them from their goal to reelect their god king.
Jesus was convicted of sedition, not Trump.
@sonhouse saidYour wishes, that you wish for (Donald in prison, followed by socialism), will send you and your family to ruin. What else would befall you in such circumstance?
@AverageJoe1
You are quibbling about words. Insurrection, coup attempt, all the same thing. Trying to overthrow the duly elected government because Trump SAYS it is rigged and so forth with 60+ court cases telling him he lost and his own people told him he lost and he knows that fact full well but pushed ahead in his zeal to kill democracy anyway and he is still working on ...[text shortened]... that would explain your slavish devotion to a would be dictator who WILL try to become one for real.
@mott-the-hoople saidIt specifically says "any office, civil or military".
why are you not comprehending what you are reading.
No where in what you posted concerns the president or vice president.
14 section. 3 covers two sections of our govt. The judicial and the congress. It explicitly omits the executive branch.
Article 2 of the constitution covers the president, vice president and their appointments, cabinet officials ect. (civil officers)
That hardly "omits the executive branch".