Legal/scotus thread

Garmel said:
Those seeking Trump’s removal from the ballot say the 14th Amendment automatically disqualifies insurrectionists from holding positions of federal power, which means there is no requirement for an act of Congress to make it happen. States can simply enforce it at their discretion. Under this reading, the insurrection clause is “self-executing,” meaning it's enforceable without an explicit authorizing federal statute.

Trump’s team calls this a recipe for chaos, as each state could level subjective definitions of what constitutes an insurrection — and what it means to “engage” in it. Trump argues that it takes an act of Congress to throw a candidate off the ballot under the insurrection clause — and Congress, of course, has not done so with Trump.
Click to expand...


I dont know that "some states might try frivolous legal action" is a good reason to not enforce the DQ clause. States can make up whatever definition they want but it wouldnt win the legal battle that ensues. So Oklahoma can DQ Biden because he took a large **** and they classify that as an insurrection but it would be overturned by the courts.


I think the best argument made by one of the justices is that the intent would not likely be to give southern states that just rebelled the ability to exercise the DQ clause.
 
Garmel said:
A leftist judge said this.

[tw]1755648551659372704[/tw]
Click to expand...

It is a good point that this is a federal question that should be litigated in federal courts.

I think Kavanaugh also raised a good point which is Congress has passed a statute that provides for the prosecution of the crime of insurrection. The fact that Trump is charged with other crimes but not insurrection has bearing on the disqualification clause. If he had been charged and convicted under the insurrection statute that would have triggered the disqualification clause.
 
zitothebrave said:
What a Wild world we live in, where Right Wingers are attacking cops for inciting a riot. Not even a year after they defended people doing it during the George FLoyd protests.
Click to expand...


Yeah, a whole lot of the violence from the Floyd protests were started AFTER cops escalated to violence. And that wasnt a good excuse to these people then.
 
thethe said:
It also brings up the concept of presidential immunity. When Trump crushes it in November they should throw Biden in jail for facilitating an invasion of our country.
Click to expand...


No court in this world would recognize people who try to immigrate to this country is an invasion.
 
mqt said:
Kagan is right here and this whole case is just immensely dumb. Unless Donald Trump is convicted of insurrection (which he also shouldn’t be) then there should be no legal basis for removing him from the ballot for it.
Click to expand...


You mean besides all the precedent for people disqualified without being convicted of insurrection? Precedent that included the years after the civil war when the people who enacted the 14th amendment were alive and able to speak on the intent?
 
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh tossed an important question to Trump’s attorney about a 19th century decision dealing with the same issue the court is wrestling with now.

Known as “Griffin’s case,” the 1869 decision found that the insurrection ban could not be enforced without some action first from Congress. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase. It was not a Supreme Court decision but it's one of the closest things the Supreme Court has to a precedent.""

The reason it's honored is because without it chaos would ensue like we're seeing now.

On top of that anybody who isn't a retard knows that J6 was a riot, not an insurrection.


Another snippet:

"Chief Judge Chase's later ruling in Griffin's Case that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-executing"

These are what we have to go with.
 
Last edited:
If it is not self executing it is the only provision in the 14th amendment that is not self executing and the only disqualification for office that is not self executing in the constitution. If Obama wanted to run for a third term it wouldnt take an act of Congress to DQ him. If an 18 year old wanted to run for President it doesnt require an act of Congress to DQ him. If Vladimir Putin wanted to run for President it wouldnt take an act of Congress to DQ him. Griffins case didnt tackle the issue head on in that it didnt seek to DQ the Judge in the case only to overturn a murder conviction on the reasoning that the Judge couldnt constitutionally be a Judge. I would argue that the section 3 provision of the 14th amendment shouldnt be self executing as in a Secretary of State can just decide to enact in on whoever they want but rather that it be executed via lawsuit by a citizen as was done in Colorado. The provision does not state that a conviction is required so it should be for the court to decide. I do think that the state court is the appropriate venue for a state election and that the federal court should be the venue for federal elections. One person can not be DQ'd in one state and not the other. So in that sense I dont think the Colorado ruling should stand, any DQ for federal elections should be handeled in federal court and be binding for all states.
 
Why would the drafters of the 14th amendment have intended to leave the enforcement of the insurrection clause up to the states? States that were just recently in rebellion. That would make the provision self defeating.

You could argue that if it is self executing then the only method of enforcing it would be to file suit in federal court. But I think the argument that state courts have zero authority to enforce it is pretty strong.
 
striker42 said:
Why would the drafters of the 14th amendment have intended to leave the enforcement of the insurrection clause up to the states? States that were just recently in rebellion. That would make the provision self defeating.

You could argue that if it is self executing then the only method of enforcing it would be to file suit in federal court. But I think the argument that state courts have zero authority to enforce it is pretty strong.
Click to expand...

Yep. When something is written in black and white it's pretty difficult to argue it means something else.
 
striker42 said:
Why would the drafters of the 14th amendment have intended to leave the enforcement of the insurrection clause up to the states? States that were just recently in rebellion. That would make the provision self defeating.

You could argue that if it is self executing then the only method of enforcing it would be to file suit in federal court. But I think the argument that state courts have zero authority to enforce it is pretty strong.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think states have the right for state elections but it should be done via federal court for federal elections. I disagree that the only menthod to execute the clause is by act of Congress because that in theory allow representatives of states that supported the insurrection to vote. The 14th amendment itself never would have passed if the insurrectionists were allowed to vote on it. If it requires 2/3rds of Congress that means any insurrection supported by 1/3rd of the states cant be held accountable via the DQ clause. There are people in Congress now who lament that the insurrection failed and would get to vote on the DQ. That cant be the intent of the clause.
 
Garmel said:
Yep. When something is written in black and white it's pretty difficult to argue it means something else.
Click to expand...


You mean like the VP being required to count the legal electoral votes sent to him? If you people want to say that specifically saying the VP cant do something means he can do it that opens up a whole big can of worms for everything else in the constitution.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I agree. I think states have the right for state elections but it should be done via federal court for federal elections. I disagree that the only menthod to execute the clause is by act of Congress because that in theory allow representatives of states that supported the insurrection to vote. The 14th amendment itself never would have passed if the insurrectionists were allowed to vote on it. If it requires 2/3rds of Congress that means any insurrection supported by 1/3rd of the states cant be held accountable via the DQ clause. There are people in Congress now who lament that the insurrection failed and would get to vote on the DQ. That cant be the intent of the clause.
Click to expand...

As it stands I think it has to default to the Federal Courts. Basically you'd be using to have the government's act of placing someone on the ballot be declared unconstitutional. If that had been the route taken in this case you might see a different result.

But I don't think there's any way to keep Congress out of it if they wanted to pass a law laying out the method of enforcement. The amendment itself doesn't vest the power to determine the enforcement method in any one branch. Generally this means Congress can regulate it.

If Congress wanted to pass a law saying only the Justice Dept can sue to have someone removed from the ballot (or from office) and it has to be done in the DC circuit, I don't think there's anything there to stop them. Congress can limit standing and jurisdiction in federal court.

You'd only need a simple majority to pass such a law so existing rebels might find a sufficiently motivated Congress difficult to stop.
 
cajunrevenge said:
You mean like the VP being required to count the legal electoral votes sent to him? If you people want to say that specifically saying the VP cant do something means he can do it that opens up a whole big can of worms for everything else in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Ask the democrats who used alternate electors every time they lost. If you had an understanding of law you would understand why it's vague.

Since 1869 the SCOUS has said the 14th amendment section isn't self-executing.

One uses plain language the other one isn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top