Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

It says shall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

It says shall.

“Shall have power to pass” is not “shall pass” or “must pass”. It means Congress has the authority to pass legislation aka may pass. It does not mean that the 14th amendment is unenforceable without it. And Section 5 applies to the whole 14th amendment not just the insurrection language. SCOTUS has a long history of enforcing the 14th amendment based on the language in the amendment, not requiring new Congressional legislation. They made up a new requirement by intentionally misreading Section 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

It says shall.

“Shall have power to pass” is not “shall pass” or “must pass”. It means Congress has the authority to pass legislation aka may pass. It does not mean that the 14th amendment is unenforceable without it. And Section 5 applies to the whole 14th amendment not just the insurrection language. SCOTUS has a long history of enforcing the 14th amendment based on the language in the amendment, not requiring new Congressional legislation. They made up a new requirement by intentionally misreading Section 5.

“It doesn’t say shall or must.” Well actually it does. Now who is it that “obviously cannot read” - you or the 5 SCOTUS judges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

It says shall.

“Shall have power to pass” is not “shall pass” or “must pass”. It means Congress has the authority to pass legislation aka may pass. It does not mean that the 14th amendment is unenforceable without it. And Section 5 applies to the whole 14th amendment not just the insurrection language. SCOTUS has a long history of enforcing the 14th amendment based on the language in the amendment, not requiring new Congressional legislation. They made up a new requirement by intentionally misreading Section 5.

“It doesn’t say shall or must.” Well actually it does. Now who is it that “obviously cannot read” - you or the 5 SCOTUS judges?

DP. You were wrong. Quit your arguing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

Which they obviously cannot read. Section 5 says Congress may enact legislation. It doesn’t say shall or must. The provision has been enforced without Congressional legislation for other offices. Nothing in the Constitution or precedents says that Congress must pass legislation for the 14th amendment to be enforceable. It is enforceable by the appropriate government officials, with judicial review, as with any other provision of the Constitution.

It says shall.

“Shall have power to pass” is not “shall pass” or “must pass”. It means Congress has the authority to pass legislation aka may pass. It does not mean that the 14th amendment is unenforceable without it. And Section 5 applies to the whole 14th amendment not just the insurrection language. SCOTUS has a long history of enforcing the 14th amendment based on the language in the amendment, not requiring new Congressional legislation. They made up a new requirement by intentionally misreading Section 5.

“It doesn’t say shall or must.” Well actually it does. Now who is it that “obviously cannot read” - you or the 5 SCOTUS judges?

I said that it says Congress may enact legislation, not shall or must. I assumed readers were literate and would recognize that “enact” is implied after “shall” and “must” since they are presented as alternatives to “may”.

It doesn’t say “shall enact” and the Court has not required legislation to make the 14th amendment enforceable before yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Find votes, toss votes, what's the difference?

[Anonymous]

Here is the thing I don't get....the SCOTUS is throwing this to the Congress. But in this particular case, a majority of both the House and Senate already voted, in a bi-partisan manner, that Trump had "been engaged" in an insurrection.

So now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing I don't get....the SCOTUS is throwing this to the Congress. But in this particular case, a majority of both the House and Senate already voted, in a bi-partisan manner, that Trump had "been engaged" in an insurrection.

So now what?

Well the constitution needs to be rewritten and edited to reflect SCOTUS. Otherwise the constitution is a meaningless document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing I don't get....the SCOTUS is throwing this to the Congress. But in this particular case, a majority of both the House and Senate already voted, in a bi-partisan manner, that Trump had "been engaged" in an insurrection.

No, the impeachment was for inciting insurrection. This is not the same as being engaged in insurrection, which Congress noted when they held hearings against people in the 1870s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing I don't get....the SCOTUS is throwing this to the Congress. But in this particular case, a majority of both the House and Senate already voted, in a bi-partisan manner, that Trump had "been engaged" in an insurrection.

So now what?

Well the constitution needs to be rewritten and edited to reflect SCOTUS. Otherwise the constitution is a meaningless document.

"The constitution is a meaningless document". Wow, just wow. Please leave the country if this is how you feel.