Reply to Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.[/quote]

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office.  [b]Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment.[/b]  What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?  [/quote]

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.  [/quote]

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.[/quote]

Yes, and what’s the mechanism, your honor?[/quote]

In the past, it has been self-executing.

The Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this in the next couple years.  When this election is over, someone, possibly that county commissioner that was DQd in New Mexico, possibly someone else, will sue and it will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court.  They will have to address the issue of January 6 and what exactly it means to have engaged in insurrection.  Is a conviction required?  Or not?  Etc.[/quote]

It’s pretty clear from the opinions that the state can DQ an insurrectionist running for state office, House, or Senate seat.

The practical effect is that the POTUS and VP candidates - the only truly national offices - [b]cannot [/b]be DQ’d by the individual states.

I think the more likely issue that SCOTUS will face is whether an insurrectionist can be appointed as a military officer or to Cabinet by a Trump 47. Or, even more problematic, an appointment to the judiciary or SC (how could SCOTUS rule on itself???)[/quote]

Edit.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics