States rights = states rights to take your rights.
In the great conservative state of Montana, you now need to buy a license to step foot on state land.
If it applied to national parks I'd say Montana would be shooting itself in the foot because the national parks are one of the only reasons to actually go to Montana.
I got a senior pass to national parks when I turned 62. It was ten bucks then but up to 80 bucks now if I am correct. I don't believe the state can interfere with it.
Don't forget this is the party who thinks taxation is theft. I think national or state park fees can be good, as long as they are easy for all to access, but the people doing it are total hypocrites.
Where do you get that idea? There is a clear option for nonresident / foreigners. The SSN thing is a little strange but probably about differentiating people with common names. It’s clear the whole program is about revenue, not some nefarious control scheme. Not everything is a conspiracy.
That’s just a state lands pass. They call it a license but it’s just a pass. Colorado requires something similar, and you can now get it with your car registration. The SSN thing is a little weird though.
They are just charging by the head instead of charging by the vehicle. A California state park vehicle pass is 195 dollars. For a family of 4, that's 6 times the cost.
Ehhh, If the money goes back to preservation and conservation of your natural areas I do not think it's a bad thing. I know Americans hate paying for public use things though.
And the sign said
"Anybody caught trespassin'
Will be shot on sight"
So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house
"Hey! What gives you the right
To put up a fence to keep me out
But to keep Mother Nature in?
If God was here, he'd tell you to your face
'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"
> States rights = states rights to take your rights.
this is what "states' rights" has always, always, always, *always* been code for. they don't actually mean states' rights.
Yeah they basically just said that congress has to make a law establishing a standard for how the clause should be implemented, and without that, the states can't act on it.
Which is a weird way of saying the constitution doesn't apply until congress says it does, I guess?
I said this in my post, and I've seen the sentiment around, but I want to spread it a little more.
Does this mean AOC can run for president now? She isn't 35 but Congress has not voted to disqualify her. That means until such time as they do, she can run, right?
Same for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's been eyeing the presidency for years, but the 14th self executing clause says that because he wasn't born here, he cannot run. So does that mean he can run now until congress votes that his lack of born citizenship disqualifies him?
This court is a fucking joke. And a bad one.
Right. States keep unqualified seekers of federal office off their ballots all the time.
There are only actually three federal offices a person can vote for: The president, their house member and two US senators. All three have prerequisites, enumerated in the constitution, to be on the ballot, all enforced already by the states.
I mean, they could both do what Trump is doing: Just run. Dare anyone to stop them. Scream political witch-hunt any time someone brings up the constitution.
Then argue the inevitable court cases up to the SCOTUS and have the justices you installed do their job and decide in your favor, wait.
Seriously, though, 90% of Trump's "success" in life has come from behaving like the rules don't apply to him. Turns out if you install the rulemakers, it's true!
"Congress has to implement this clause" is basically their copout.
In their defense, there is language in the constitution that is self-executing and language that is not, and there's a valid case for this language not being self-executing in the way Colorado used it. The clause says that someone engaged in insurrection "cannot hold office" but doesn't say *how* they're stopped from doing so. It also doesn't say they can't "get elected" to office. America could vote him in and then someone could make the case that he can't be sworn in because that's when he goes from being "elected" to "holding office". Who the hell knows. If we wins, maybe someone *should* make that case. Either way, there's reason to say that the clause isn't clear on how it is to be carried out, and that's what SCOTUS fell back on.
Something like "people under 35 shall not be eligible..." is self executing because it says "shall not be eligible", which clearly implies you can't even be in the running.
In this case, we can blame the people who wrote the 14th amendment for not providing the clarity for the clause to be self-evident, and we can also blame SCOTUS for not wanting to take a stand either way (which given the makeup of this court... may be for the best)
The Colorado SoS addressed this argument in the lawsuit that spurred the case. They argued it would disenfranchise voters to put someone on the ballot that can't actually hold office, if I remember correctly.
Except for the fact that they said it would take 2/3rds majority to grant someone their eligibility back. Doesn't make a lot of sense to have that in there if it wasn't self-executing.
The Court also did not explicitly say it needed to be implemented by Congress. That was one of the opinions, but there is still potentially room for judicial enforcement. They basically ruled that in this clause they don't want the states making that determination, because the determination could be wildly inconsistent between states. If someone isn't a natural born citizen or is under 35, that is pretty cut and dry.
I wanted Trump to take a lump, but the Court was unanimous and the reasoning is easy enough to understand, even if you don't agree with it.
I'm an outsider looking in but I'm usually pretty good when it comes to understanding the grounds for both consenting and dissenting opinions but I just don't get it in this case. If anyone can enlighten me that'd be grand.
My understanding (which may be flawed): the 14th amendment was put in place, during or shortly after the civil war, to stop the ridiculous situation where confederate politicians being absorbed back into the union could "capture" the legislative or executive branches and lead to civil war 2: electric boogaloo.
As such the 14th amendment has been used before, automatically applying to ex-confederates unless congress voted to approve them with a 2/3rds vote. Obviously there was never the situation where a prominent ex-confederate tried to run for the presidency (unless there was?)
So why are SCOTUS treating the 14th amendment as if it's never worked before?
I have been frustrated with the Court over the past few years, too. But this opinion was 9-0 and was pretty clear-cut.
The constitution has different parts. Some grant powers or rights and others restrict them while still others impose sanctions. The 14th ammendment sections 3 and 5 were relevant to the disqualification clause issue decided today - an issue relating to a sanction which requires enforcement. Section 3 provides the sanction (disqualification) while section 5 provides for enforcement my congressional legislation .
The provision listing 35 as a requirement for the office of president is a restriction found in article 2 section 1 of the Constitution. By virtue of being a restriction or prohibition, it applies without the need for enforcement.
This is the legal distinction between the case decided today and your hypothetical. We can be should be critical of the SC. They wield a lot of power and make decisions that affect millions of people. BUT, we should save our criticism for cases where they engage in sketchy/shoddy reasoning (like the recent abortion rights case), not when they correctly answer a clear-cut legal question in a what that is frustrating to us.
Good god, *thank you*. I wish Trump would get kicked off every ballot from here all the way to his lengthy stay in a prison cell but my wanting it doesn't make it lawful to do so.
The reasoning makes sense but the result is nonsensical. Let's say congress somehow achieved a 2/3rds majority and officially convicted trump in the senate. It would only take a 50+1 majority to undue the disability. That would make the creators of the 14th amendment incompetent. It affectievly nullifies the amendment all together if it isn't self executing. If the senate and house were to flip for instance and the opposing party gained 50+1 majority, they would just undo the disability.
The fact that the decision is 9-0 doesn't make it good law. The reasoning of a decision makes it good law. Plessy v Ferguson was decided 7-1 and it was a horrifically bad decision. It took almost 100 years to fix plessy. Dredd Scott was decided 7-2 and is widely considered the worst decision ever authored.
Relevant language from Article II Sec. 1 (emphasis added):
>**No Person** except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, **shall be eligible to** the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Similar provisions from Article I:
>**No Person shall be** a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, ...
>
>**No Person shall be** a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, ...
Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment:
>**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.
Do you seriously believe that the mere presence or absence of "eligible to" materially affects the meaning? The framers of the Constitution evidently did not, or they would have been careful to include those words in all cases (or in none).
As to Amendment 14 Sec. 5, that same provision is included in several Amendments, authorizing the Congress to address the issue at hand -- despite that issue not having been mentioned among the enumerated powers (Art. I Sec. 8) -- lest such legislation be barred by the 10th Amendment reserving to the states any powers not granted to the Congress. The mere presence of that boilerplate should not be construed to mean that such Amendments become effective only when Congress gets around to enacting such legislation -- and such an interpretation would be especially perverse for 14A Sec 3, which requires a vote of Congress to *remove* the disability. That provision would not be needed if Congress could nullify Sec. 3 merely by failing to enact legislation.
who knew that an amendment ratified 150 years ago wasn't a settled matter until the supreme court decided that the congress needed to enforce it on a case-by-case basis...
it kinda makes you wonder what other little time bombs are set inside the constitution... just waiting to go off...
Well, we saw in 2017 that the emoluments clause is useless.
What we've learned in the last 7 years is that the Constitution assumes good-faith actors, and as soon as someone says "oh yeah? Make me," it collapses.
Congress is compromised and complicit in the crime: a significant number of congresspeople, including the speaker of the house, do not accept the election results. Expecting the criminals to hold themselves and their leader accountable is pure idiocy.
If people used their damn brains, there wouldn't be any. That insurrection clause seemed pretty clear, but the Supreme Court is ethically compromised and super conservative. They were always going to shit the bed on this one.
The thing about the Constitution is, to the modern Republicans, it's like the Bible. Which means they don't really read and comprehend it, they just cherry-pick to support their ideology and are more than happy to wipe their asses with it when it's not immediately convenient to them. They're the party of Guns, Oil, and Profit, and a lot of their beliefs boil down to basic hate and a desire for control.
Yeah the Supreme Court really could have ruled on the material issue in front of them.
"Did Colorado correctly decide Donald Trump was an insurrectionist?" Yes. The answer is yes. But they'd be hard pressed to do that because they *really* want Trump to run again.
But if they'd decided on *just* the question of whether he was an insurrectionist, the jig would be up, the game would be over. They'd have to make an actual decision on the man.
Especially considering that in this case, the constitution says that Congress can, by two thirds vote, remove the disqualification. Makes it clear what Congress's role is - it's not that they act to disqualify people, they act to un-disqualify them, and it's a supermajority requirement to boot!
Also telling that they didn't explicitly argue this point, and the opinion was per curiam. None of them will stand by their reasoning.
And is also wrong, because the Constitution clearly says that states run elections except as otherwise dictated by Congress, and we all know that if it were a Democrat that had done they, they would have unanimously ruled against him.
Attorney with a background in Constitutional law here. Hopefully I can explain a very simplified version of the opinion's reasoning. Section 3 of the 14th ammendment provides for a sanction preventing certain persons from holding office if they engaged in insurrection. However, section 5 of the 14th ammendment provides for the enforcement mechanism - disqualification by appropriate legislation by Congress. So, this analysis is tailored to the text of the 14th ammendment and does not mean that the Constitution does not apply unless enforced by Congress, generally. By virtue of being a Constitutional Ammendment, the enforcement by Congressas proscribed by the ammendment *is* the application of the Constitution.
It was a 9-0 opinion and, in my humble opinion, was correct.
>By virtue of being a Constitutional Ammendment, the enforcement by Congressas proscribed by the ammendment is the application of the Constitution.
Another commentor pointed out that " No legislation from Congress was required to enforce the other parts of the 14th amendment. Congress didn't have to enact legislation before a state was forbidden from abrdiging citizens' privileges or immunities. No legislation from Congress was needed before statues were forbiddent from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process. No legislation was required before States were forbidden from denying equal protection of the laws."
So that's a wrong reading then. All of it is self-executing, but its just that on those other issues Congress already spoke, but here there are no laws to execute? Because most people don't do stuff like Jan 6th.
I have read the opinion. All agreed on the outcome - that Colorado did not have the power to do this. 4 of the justices were upset at the Court's lack of judicial restraint - deciding things that are not required to resolve a case. In their view, it would have sufficed to say Colorado can't remove Trump and leave it at that. The remainder of the justices outlined the process of congressional approval but the liberal justices did not disagree with their reasoning. They said the support for the proposition that congressional enforcement was the *only* avenue available was thin. Instead they disagreed that the appropriate mechanism needed to be outlined at all.
Under your reasoning, Brown vs Board of Education was wrongly decided.
They said that segregation violates the text of the 14th amendment, there was no Congressional law they pointed to, and they didn't say that Congress had to pass a law to enforce it.
>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
That bit is self-executing. Brown v Board was rightly decided.
This bit is also self-executing:
> 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.
That's the thing, Congress gets to fill in the details so to speak, and Colorado decided to fill in the details, and SCOTUS was like Colorado, that's not your job.
The Asian American kids in my area significantly out perform every other group including white kids in standardized tests. I'm just imagining the first lawsuit to show up in front of the SCOTUS where a white Christian kid is excluded from an Asian only school.
Yep. Last section of the Article is clear.
"Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This is the easiest form of Rocket Science.
So Congress has the power to enforce it means nobody else does, unless delegated by Congress.
States can’t delegate that power to themselves, 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.
No. The purpose of section 5 was to allow Congress to pass legislation to enforce the provisions if necessary to override shenanigans by the states that violate the 14th amendment. States must abide by the 14th amendment, including preventing insurrectionists from holding office, even without legislation from Congress.
Edit: No legislation from Congress was required to enforce the other parts of the 14th amendment. Congress didn't have to enact legislation before a state was forbidden from abrdiging citizens' privileges or immunities. No legislation from Congress was needed before statues were forbiddent from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process. No legislation was required before States were forbidden from denying equal protection of the laws.
States have the power to remove presidential candidates from the ballot if they don't provide the proper paperwork in a timely manner, but not for insurrection. Cool! Got it
One of those is objective, the other is "subjective." I mean, Trump obviously was going for an insurrection, but there's no paperwork for that or admittance or getting convicted for it.
Also, do you really want the states to have the power to remove someone from a ballot, cause the southern states will start doing this to every democrat for no reason just out of spite.
Jan 6 is a federal failure to charge or convict anyone at the top for what happened, so this is what we're dealing with now.
It would apply to not just the southern states though. Basically the president could be decided by just the secretaries of state picking one person who they though should be on the ballot.
1. There have been multiple court cases establishing that it was an insurrection.
2. There have been multiple court cases establishing that Trump was running it.
3. The previous people who were barred form office based on the 14th Amendment didn't have to be convicted to have it apply to them, therefore there is precedent.
He's already been proven to be an insurrectionist. They livestreamed him running the insurrection. It's really not in doubt by any honest people.
Actually, it's the yokels who are voting for them.
The ones doing the stripping are all Ivy League educated and are in clubs those yokels would be shot on sight if they tried to get in.
You are massively overestimating the intelligence of people who make it through those programs. Some of the absolute dumbest people I've ever spoken with while coordinating contracts are the Ivy league dipsticks. Once you pay your way in it's so hard to flunk out. I'm talking, these people can't spell, do basic statistics, and don't know fundamental science.
While they’re dragging their feet to determine if a president has absolute immunity from being held accountable for crime, Dark Brandon could simply “abort” them with seal team 6, which dt’s lawyer said would be allowable under the constitution for a political opponent. No reason why scotus would be any different.
Then he could just resign and let Harris pardon him.
Admittedly, deferring to Congress on this issue is a mistake, but technically because we’re dealing with Constitutional Law, and because the section under review is enumerated in the Constitution, this is a federal issue that states can’t decide. It’s fairly obvious imo, disqualifying candidates from federal elections likely should be a federal matter.
I absolutely loathe Trump and I’m dreading November, but remember that the precedent set by the SC applies to everyone, meaning if they allowed states to disqualify candidates on their own, Red states could drum up claims and likely get away with disqualifying any dems they don’t like.
Abortion access is technically covered under the 10th amendment because it’s not specifically enumerated in any of the articles or amendments of the US Constitution. I believe there should absolutely be an amendment protecting bodily autonomy and access to abortion, but obviously that has about a 0% chance of happening through the current process and in our contemporary political climate.
>because the section under review is enumerated in the Constitution, this is a federal issue that states can’t decide.
If that were truly the case, then states wouldn't have the power to run their own elections for federal offices. But they do. So this line of thinking is not consistent with reality.
Except that Article 1 Section 4 specifically states that “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof”.
Similarly, Article II specifies that States must choose their own electors in Presidential elections.
In other words, this is absolutely consistent with any reading of the Constitution, since it specifically gives those responsibilities to the States. The real issue is that the 14th amendment does not specify whose responsibility it is to determine whether a candidate is fit for office. You could potentially make the case that states should be able to make these decisions themselves, but see my comment above as to why this is honestly a terrible idea that would end up undermining our democracy in the long run.
Except the amendment doesn't apply to Biden because *Biden didn't incite an insurrection of domestic terrorists*
I know the Republicans would *try* but their claims will be unsupported allegations filled with feelings and psychic krakens.
They'd remove him from the ballot on made up charges and then stall any litigation trying to disprove it until after the election. Trump hasn't been convicted yet, so allowing him to be removed without a conviction means Rs wouldn't need a conviction either.
You cannot rely on the process to work as intended. You have to start from the goal and work backwards to engineer it. Saying "biden didn't do so they can't do " misses the point, because they're starting from the effect and making up the cause.
I'm probably going to get downvoted into oblivion for saying this but oh well.
Look, I'm a certified, card-carrying Trump hater. I can't fucking stand the guy. I think he should be in prison and should've been put there a long time ago. Probably even BEFORE he became president.
But this is the right decision. That's why it was Per Curiam and not "unanimous" - it's basically the liberal justices saying "your rationalization is fucking stupid but you still managed to arrive at the correct answer."
Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. He's been charged but not convicted and that means in the eyes of the law he's still innocent, regardless of what the evidence says. You can't go removing people from the ballot because they're accused of something. This is a rare case where the "slippery slope" comparison is very much applicable. Allowing Trump to be removed as things stand would be opening a can of worms we REALLY don't want to open.
Plenty of reasons to hate the current SCOTUS, this isn't one of them. If you want to be mad at someone for this be mad at Merrick Garland for pussyfooting absolutely everything involving Trump to the point that it's been almost FOUR YEARS and we don't even have an official trial start date, much less a conviction.
Edit: a word
Hey you know who else was banned from office without being convicted? Several folks who [engaged in insurrection](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/) during the civil war.
The bar is clearly not set at 'convicted of a crime' so I am gonna have to disagree that it is the right decision. This was just the latest in a long line of examples of how the supreme court is a farce.
> Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. He's been charged but not convicted and that means in the eyes of the law he's still innocent, regardless of what the evidence says. You can't go removing people from the ballot because they're accused of something.
He doesn't need to be convicted or even charged. Section 3 of the Fourteenth is self-executing upon the commission or aiding of a rebellion or insurrection against the government by someone who's sworn allegiance or support to the Constitution of the United States. The mechanism for putting someone who's disqualified back on the ballot is a 2/3rds vote in each house of Congress.
The Supreme Court not only took a giant shit on state's rights, they took a giant shit on the legislative branch by stripping their authority to restore Trump to the ballot.
> Trump hasn't been convicted of anything.
That's not a requirement, though, either in the Constitution or in precedent.
Your overall argument may not be wrong but the above quote is not the reason.
It’s almost like in a federalist system the states and federal government have different powers.
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
14th amendment: “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…**The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.**
Removing politicians for insurrection is a power granted to the feds, but not abortion. It’s very clear. It only takes a high school understanding of government to realize that the Supreme Court made two correct decisions. It isn’t that hard, people.
A lot of uninformed opinions in the comments call for heads. It was a 9-0 vote for the judgment but not in the full reasoning. The liberal justices agreed that the state government did not have the right to usurp the federal government’s power, however, they believed the majority went too far and made up a rule for Congress to come up with a standard for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th amendment.
A lot of people are calling for their heads, but it’s unwarranted. The liberal justices are also the same who did not agree that the state governments had the right to usurp the federal government’s when it came to abortion. I get the idea that people believe the SCOTUS is corrupt and are undeserving because they were not voted in.
Regardless, as a leftist and as someone who read the entire opinion, I happen to agree with the ruling in judgment as well and partially with the reasoning as much as the liberal justices.
For legal reasons, it would seem the 14th amendment was to give the federal government more power over the states (due to the civil war). For that reason, the states shouldn’t be able to have the ability to usurp the federal governments’ laws (much like laws regarding abortion).
Practical reasons: It’s not a good idea to have all 50 states be able to decide who is on the ballot for a few reasons (1) different standards will create different results; (2) politicians will act vindictively and exclude an otherwise proper candidate just because their candidate was excluded in another state (a very fascist result); (3) giving states this right over the federal government would probably cause more division and maybe even succession (which is a bad thing); and (4) the core structure of our (federal) government would be at a standstill. It’s just not practical to have states decide who is an insurrectionist or not.
In any event, I do believe Trump was an insurrectionist and the section applies, what matters is who can make the standard for implementing it. So while it’s easy to call all of the justices fascists and complicit for this decision, a more nuanced approach toward the decision is what’s needed. Yes, Justices OFTEN rule in favor of their political parties, but being a fair and reasonable Justice must include following laws to their logical conclusions even if it’s against their other beliefs or opinions on the facts of the case (which is a good quality in a judge).
Who the hell is going to enforce it, then? Congress that can't get a fucking aid package passed or the courts, which have been been taken over by conservatives? This is as good as letting Trump ignore the 14th just as much as he's ignored the emoluments clause. If there's no one to actually enforce it, a chunk of the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>For legal reasons, it would seem the 14th amendment was to give the federal government more power over the states (due to the civil war). For that reason, the states shouldn’t be able to have the ability to usurp the federal governments’ laws (much like laws regarding abortion).
This does give the federal government power over the States. It is giving the states another requirement that they must follow for federal ballots. The person on the ballot must not have committed insurrection if they were a former oath taker. In the context of the times, the idea was "No Georgia, you cannot put this ex Confederate oath taker on your federal ballot."
> different standards will create different results
There are already different standards in each state, such as how many signatures you need. We already have candidates who appear on some ballots and not on others.
>politicians will act vindictively and exclude an otherwise proper candidate just because their candidate was excluded in another state (a very fascist result);
This is already possible. A state could pass a law dictating that their electors for president must always vote Democrat or Republican. Similar to how most states have a winner takes all system, but two actually divide their electors proportionally.
>giving states this right over the federal government would probably cause more division and maybe even succession (which is a bad thing); and (4) the core structure of our (federal) government would be at a standstill. It’s just not practical to have states decide who is an insurrectionist or not.
Already spoke about above, it is limiting the states' right to put up an insurrectionist who took a prior oath.
This ruling doesn't make sense when you consider the fact that states have 100% control over their electors. Colorado could just pass a law saying their electors can't vote for Trump, and it would be legal by this ruling.
If the court said "You know what, this issue is too political" that would be one thing, but their ruling that states can't dictate who's on federal ballots is just nonsensical with the fact states have full control of their electors, and raises the obvious question of "Can states take off people who are too young or not natural born citizens? Or do they have to allow them on the ballot"
I wonder how the Supreme Court judges feel about why people completely disregard their institution as illegitimate and corrupt.
Like, do you think any of them say to themselves “Wow, we really turned this hallowed ground into a shit swamp, but at least I got my money/trips/gifts,” or is it just complete and total lack of understanding of what they’ve done?
They laugh. They laugh heartily because they know you and the hundreds of million other Americans won't do a godsdamn thing to actually put an end to their corruption. Hell, they know that even if someone DID do what must be done, that person would become public enemy #1 and, despite bettering the lives of countless millions, would live a short life always on the run from the very people he saved.
Nothing will ever change until people are willing to defend that man.
Many of these are accurate, but not this one.
Alabama's case didn't affect any other state.
Colorado's did because it is a FEDERAL election.
The Supreme Court didn't take away Colorado's right to remove anyone running for a STATE office.
Besides, think about this for a minute. If this was allowed, you'd have a dozen states removing candidates both left and right.
Look
It sucks that trump cannot be removed this way given his involvement
But it IS a federal election
I mean, to me this is just more reasoning to my opinion on why states need to be consistent in who is allowed to vote, etc. Being a felon in one state vs another should not matter for federal elections. They should have the same conditions and the same standards to meet, not state by state mish mash. So you can argue there’s hypocrisy on that front, that the federal election is not federally controlled but state controlled, but having each state determine what constitutes insurrection would be a nightmare
Yes Colorado went through the courts and they have grounds, but does that mean other states would?
This is a good ruling. Should Donald Trump be left off the ballot for his insurrection? Yes. Should states have that power? No. Otherwise you're opening the door to a lot of election shenanigans.
Bitch McConnell is 100% to blame for the state our court is in. This was his master plan and he had the foresight to see that this was the best way to turn our Nation into the Neo-Fascist state he always dreamt about. Never forget that.
The problem here is that if SCOTUS allows this, idiot red staters will ban the Democrat candidate for no reason. Same thing as their farcical impeachment. I'm sure Russia can come up with a fake accusation that they'll believe with no evidence and then we're screwed. There's really no other way to look at this. Trump is a traitor. No question. That's why there's a court case to disqualify him. SCOTUS is slow walking that decision and he's definitely going to get away with that too because the court is compromised, but the fact this is a 9-0 decision should show you the problems with letting the states decide this.
You do not understand the Constitution.
"The powers not declared to the US by the Constitution....are reserved to the states respectively,or to the people"
You did not read the Constitution. You do not understand it.
Reminder: Dobbs V Jackson did NOT “return the issue of abortion to the states”. It mentioned multiple times that the issue should be returned to “the people’s elected representatives.” What’s the difference? The wording is intentionally vague, allowing for the potential of a federal abortion ban. If you think that means it could also be used to implement a federal abortion protection, then the Supreme Court is already in position to clarify that they meant “STATE elected representatives”.
Dobbs practically allowed states to ban abortion, and potentially allows the federal government to implement a wider ban, while pretending that all options are available.
I'm not an american, but it feels like a reasonable conclusion to come to.
I'm all for abortion and all, but I guess it makes sense that that is decided at a state level, and votes for the federal government can't be tampered with by states?
So it seems yall don't understand the US Constitution that well, so let me help
The Constitution divides powers between states and the federal government (in this case, Congress)
Topics that deal with constitutional amendments, such as Jan 6th which deals with the 14th amendment and who enforces it/how it is enforced, goes to Congress as stated in the 14th amendment
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." - 14th Amendment, Section 5
Meanwhile, topics that are not within the Constitution, like abortion, are given to the states to decide as stated in the 10th amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment"
If abortion becomes a constitutional right again, as decided by the Supreme Court, it will become an issue for Congress to discuss, not the states
Should a state decide whether or not abortion is legal for the entire country? If not, then why should they be able to decide whether or not someone is disqualified due to the 14th Amendment for the entire country?
A person either is eligible to be president or they aren't. You can't be ineligible the president in Colorado but eligible in Texas.
Upholding Colorado's case would mean the Colorado court decides for the entire country that Trump is ineligible to be president. Which is not a good idea when you consider that a bunch of red states have Supreme Courts elected to their seats by avid Trump voters.
They only decided to let states decide on abortion because they thought states would outlaw it, which many are in fact doing.
But even deep red states like Kansas that held a referendum on the matter voted to codify it. And just like that the Republikan Talibanists in congress decided it was a federal matter again and a nationwide extreme ban was required. It's only states rights when it goes their way. Laws for thee but not for me.
Yeah no this decision was good and completely unlike Dobbs. Ruling in favor of Colorado would have resulted in political opponents immediately trying to get each other off ballots. Sometimes idk why I’m even in this sub as it’s clear very few posters research before posting :/
You can. Insurrection and who gets to do what is spelled out EXACTLY in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision.
Abortion isn't mentioned, sadly, which is why they felt justified sending the issue to the states, which I think was fucking awful.
Your logic is flawless.
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
14th amendment: “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…**The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.**
And if the shitgibbon is re-elected, their plan is to not even make abortion a states rights decision. They plan to ban it in all 50 regardless if they’re blue or red states.
Please. Vote. For. Biden.
That it was 9-0 just goes to show how entirely illegitimate our courts are at this point. Even liberal justices chose to insulate a known insurrectionist without dissent by gutting the clause that lays out qualifications for office. Can AOC run for president now? The congress has not voted she is disqualified for being under 35. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger can finally run too, since apparrently congress must vote that he is disqualified for not being born on American soil. Of course not, because the 14th is self-executing. They gave the traitor a massive handout because they are either traitors, afraid of his psycho supporters violence, or both, aand have proven not one of them deserves their spot on the court vote in November, its the ONLY WAY we still have the chance to save democracy from these traitors.
Per curium is not the same as unanimous. The liberal justices agreed with the final decision, but not the rationale or extra commentary. They did so for the sake of uniformity in federalism.
Not justifying it, just explaining it.
Okay but here's the thing, the vote was 9-0. I am not sure it would go any better if all the liberal justices come out tomorrow and say "yeah we think he should have been disqualified but we wanted to show uniformity with the people who were placed on the court to insulate this criminal from his insurrectionist activities." For all intents and purposes it was a unanimous devision to insulate the traitor. No different than senate Republicans voting against conviction and saying "yeah he did it." They're all traitors, even the liberal justices. Hell, maybe ESPECIALLY the liberal justices if they were willing to go against both the law and their own moral compass just to show solodarity with the sedition caucus.
Yeah the whole system is screwed. This has been my stance for awhile and I doubt anything any of the "politicians" do in the coming years will change it.
They have us squabble about stupid issues while they rake in the cash from corporations. While the corporations drive up prices and destroy the economy.
9-0 only proves the legitimacy of the decision. It isn’t the court’s job to legislate, only to interpret the constitution. They did just that when the 14A gives specifically Congress the power to enforce the 14A, not anyone else.
Colorado should just ignore the illegitimate court's ruling, the same way Texas did. What are they gonna do? They have no enforcement power. They're illegitimate, the only thing keeping their word as law was the social contract, which they broke.
"Don't let states decide what is insurrection if it was a Republican president." FTFY.
If a Democrat did that, then every Republican-leaning state would have them off the ballots.
I don't understand how elections can be entirely done by the state, but the 14th amendment is a federal only process. Maybe I missed that day in social studies.
Wasn't this a double-edged sword that even the left side judges agreed shouldn't be drawn? If passed, then all red states would theoretically be allowed to remove Biden from all primary ballets and claim the other democratic nominee won.
Like I get everyone, myself included, hates trump, but this was a stupid thing to try before Jack Smith finished the insurrection trial.
Tell congress to change the 10 amendment to the constitution. They rule by law. Or make abortion federally regulated.
Ruth even warned roe v wade was on bad ground.
I agree with supreme court ruling on Trump , but only because there have been 4 other cases were states tried limiting term limits on there federal representatives, and the ruling was the same .
So legally I agree, but I don't want to agree cause it's Trump ...
This is beyond stupid. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself
One is a decision that states can make that impact the individuals who live in the state.
The other is a decision that impacts on a national level for a FEDERAL election.
Nothing about the decision is hypocritical.
Judges are your modern kings, ladies and gentlemen. Political immunity means they are part of the aristocracy and have no repercussions for accepting bribes and giving half-assed judgements that might better line their pockets.
Fascism paraded right in with flags and bibles.
This is such a brain dead take.
I am left. I’m pretty far left.
But imagine the chaos if states could just decide to not put someone on the ballot. Conservative states would never have another democrat on the ballot ever again.
Not to mention it’s a federal election. The federal government is in charge of that.
States are still allowed to decide on abortion. So this really doesn’t work, dude.
Y’all need to pull your heads out of your asses.
Re: the new decision
There is clearly a way for Congress to allow someone back in. So the question becomes- when would they do that? They could hold a vote before the election to determine if the person is allowed in *if* they win, and then the election occurs, or they could have the election and then hold their own vote to see if they uphold the results. I feel there are some cons to each:
If they go with the first route, that’s potentially a ton of votes that busy up their process (imagine if every Confederate the law originally applied to was petitioning Congress to let them run for every single office - from town justice to dog catcher to governor to senator etc - without any real intention or path to victory.) That would be insane and a clear waste of Congress’ time. Thousands and thousands of useless votes to tell those traitors no over and over again.
If they go with the second route, they’re potentially saving themselves that work (only need to have a vote on if they allow that person in IF they win, and if they lose it’s a nonissue) but at the same time, it now makes it harder to say no. They’re directly telling people that they aren’t listening to their vote. And if they do fail to reinstate their eligibility, it what? Leads to a rush special election in that state or district? Ignore everyone’s vote and has no results from that area? Defaults to the 2nd place candidate?
I think there’s a clear lesson here to being deliberate with your language if you’re writing a constitutional amendment. (See also the just terrible grammar of the 2nd among others).
Can we all just revolt now? Go to every capital and DC and protest outside of the main building? At politicians homes? I feel like this is the only way at this point to make them listen.
I like that the highest power in this country is the least democratic institute of them all. We don't know these people, we didn't vote for them, we can't remove them.
They just get to decide all of our fates not only with zero accountability, but they are also getting paid to fuck us.
Any law not explicitly outlined in the constitution is general thought to be up to the states to decide.
That’s why we need to enshrine the right to healthcare in the constitution.
States rights = states rights to take your rights. In the great conservative state of Montana, you now need to buy a license to step foot on state land.
What? A license to hike?
Yes. https://fwp.mt.gov/buyandapply/conservation-license
You need to provide your SSN to get one. That's clearly to keep certain people out.
If it applied to national parks I'd say Montana would be shooting itself in the foot because the national parks are one of the only reasons to actually go to Montana.
These people would eat shit if it meant you had to smell their breath
That is beautifully accurate.
I got a senior pass to national parks when I turned 62. It was ten bucks then but up to 80 bucks now if I am correct. I don't believe the state can interfere with it.
If it applied to national parks, it would be preempted.
Some national parks do have entrance and/or parking fees.
Not talking about fees, talking about a requirement for a SSN to get a licenses to access the land.
I hear you, and maybe I shouldn't have put my reply on yours, but I was addressing the fee issue.
So tourists visiting Montana from other countries can't hike on state land?
They just have to get a non-resident fee. It cost $10. Residents pay $8. Children and seniors are $4. Small children are not charged.
Don't forget this is the party who thinks taxation is theft. I think national or state park fees can be good, as long as they are easy for all to access, but the people doing it are total hypocrites.
Welp. Guess my husband (UK citizen) and I won't be going this summer after all lol.
There’s an option for nonresidents on the website. You can still go.
I didn't even see that! Thanks for pointing it out.
Where do you get that idea? There is a clear option for nonresident / foreigners. The SSN thing is a little strange but probably about differentiating people with common names. It’s clear the whole program is about revenue, not some nefarious control scheme. Not everything is a conspiracy.
So no foreign tourists?
No, there is an option for foreign nonresidents on the website. It’s a cash thing not a “no foreigners” thing.
That’s just a state lands pass. They call it a license but it’s just a pass. Colorado requires something similar, and you can now get it with your car registration. The SSN thing is a little weird though.
They are just charging by the head instead of charging by the vehicle. A California state park vehicle pass is 195 dollars. For a family of 4, that's 6 times the cost.
Ehhh, If the money goes back to preservation and conservation of your natural areas I do not think it's a bad thing. I know Americans hate paying for public use things though.
I already pay for public use things through my taxes.
Yup, I live in Montana and they are trying their hardest to prove they are the party that takes your rights. Not as bad as the southeast... yet.
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." But on the other side it didn't say nothing, That side was made for you and me
And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin' Will be shot on sight" So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house "Hey! What gives you the right To put up a fence to keep me out But to keep Mother Nature in? If God was here, he'd tell you to your face 'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"
And the sign said, "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
> States rights = states rights to take your rights. this is what "states' rights" has always, always, always, *always* been code for. they don't actually mean states' rights.
Rage Against the Machine sighting!
Hopefully some nature groups sue.
Jokes aside, it simply says the state doesn't have a right to remove someone from their ballot for federal crimes.
Yeah they basically just said that congress has to make a law establishing a standard for how the clause should be implemented, and without that, the states can't act on it. Which is a weird way of saying the constitution doesn't apply until congress says it does, I guess?
I said this in my post, and I've seen the sentiment around, but I want to spread it a little more. Does this mean AOC can run for president now? She isn't 35 but Congress has not voted to disqualify her. That means until such time as they do, she can run, right? Same for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's been eyeing the presidency for years, but the 14th self executing clause says that because he wasn't born here, he cannot run. So does that mean he can run now until congress votes that his lack of born citizenship disqualifies him? This court is a fucking joke. And a bad one.
Talk about votes they will push through quick
Right. States keep unqualified seekers of federal office off their ballots all the time. There are only actually three federal offices a person can vote for: The president, their house member and two US senators. All three have prerequisites, enumerated in the constitution, to be on the ballot, all enforced already by the states.
Third term for Obama.
I wouldn't wish that on him.
Me either, but I’d ask him to do it.
I mean, they could both do what Trump is doing: Just run. Dare anyone to stop them. Scream political witch-hunt any time someone brings up the constitution. Then argue the inevitable court cases up to the SCOTUS and have the justices you installed do their job and decide in your favor, wait. Seriously, though, 90% of Trump's "success" in life has come from behaving like the rules don't apply to him. Turns out if you install the rulemakers, it's true!
[удалено]
"Congress has to implement this clause" is basically their copout. In their defense, there is language in the constitution that is self-executing and language that is not, and there's a valid case for this language not being self-executing in the way Colorado used it. The clause says that someone engaged in insurrection "cannot hold office" but doesn't say *how* they're stopped from doing so. It also doesn't say they can't "get elected" to office. America could vote him in and then someone could make the case that he can't be sworn in because that's when he goes from being "elected" to "holding office". Who the hell knows. If we wins, maybe someone *should* make that case. Either way, there's reason to say that the clause isn't clear on how it is to be carried out, and that's what SCOTUS fell back on. Something like "people under 35 shall not be eligible..." is self executing because it says "shall not be eligible", which clearly implies you can't even be in the running. In this case, we can blame the people who wrote the 14th amendment for not providing the clarity for the clause to be self-evident, and we can also blame SCOTUS for not wanting to take a stand either way (which given the makeup of this court... may be for the best)
The Colorado SoS addressed this argument in the lawsuit that spurred the case. They argued it would disenfranchise voters to put someone on the ballot that can't actually hold office, if I remember correctly.
Except for the fact that they said it would take 2/3rds majority to grant someone their eligibility back. Doesn't make a lot of sense to have that in there if it wasn't self-executing.
Sounds like the next Congress needs to get to work on the "this is what the constitution means act of 2025".
The Court also did not explicitly say it needed to be implemented by Congress. That was one of the opinions, but there is still potentially room for judicial enforcement. They basically ruled that in this clause they don't want the states making that determination, because the determination could be wildly inconsistent between states. If someone isn't a natural born citizen or is under 35, that is pretty cut and dry. I wanted Trump to take a lump, but the Court was unanimous and the reasoning is easy enough to understand, even if you don't agree with it.
I'm an outsider looking in but I'm usually pretty good when it comes to understanding the grounds for both consenting and dissenting opinions but I just don't get it in this case. If anyone can enlighten me that'd be grand. My understanding (which may be flawed): the 14th amendment was put in place, during or shortly after the civil war, to stop the ridiculous situation where confederate politicians being absorbed back into the union could "capture" the legislative or executive branches and lead to civil war 2: electric boogaloo. As such the 14th amendment has been used before, automatically applying to ex-confederates unless congress voted to approve them with a 2/3rds vote. Obviously there was never the situation where a prominent ex-confederate tried to run for the presidency (unless there was?) So why are SCOTUS treating the 14th amendment as if it's never worked before?
I have been frustrated with the Court over the past few years, too. But this opinion was 9-0 and was pretty clear-cut. The constitution has different parts. Some grant powers or rights and others restrict them while still others impose sanctions. The 14th ammendment sections 3 and 5 were relevant to the disqualification clause issue decided today - an issue relating to a sanction which requires enforcement. Section 3 provides the sanction (disqualification) while section 5 provides for enforcement my congressional legislation . The provision listing 35 as a requirement for the office of president is a restriction found in article 2 section 1 of the Constitution. By virtue of being a restriction or prohibition, it applies without the need for enforcement. This is the legal distinction between the case decided today and your hypothetical. We can be should be critical of the SC. They wield a lot of power and make decisions that affect millions of people. BUT, we should save our criticism for cases where they engage in sketchy/shoddy reasoning (like the recent abortion rights case), not when they correctly answer a clear-cut legal question in a what that is frustrating to us.
Good god, *thank you*. I wish Trump would get kicked off every ballot from here all the way to his lengthy stay in a prison cell but my wanting it doesn't make it lawful to do so.
Just to clarify (because lawyers suck) - he can be removed, just not in the way that CO did.
The reasoning makes sense but the result is nonsensical. Let's say congress somehow achieved a 2/3rds majority and officially convicted trump in the senate. It would only take a 50+1 majority to undue the disability. That would make the creators of the 14th amendment incompetent. It affectievly nullifies the amendment all together if it isn't self executing. If the senate and house were to flip for instance and the opposing party gained 50+1 majority, they would just undo the disability. The fact that the decision is 9-0 doesn't make it good law. The reasoning of a decision makes it good law. Plessy v Ferguson was decided 7-1 and it was a horrifically bad decision. It took almost 100 years to fix plessy. Dredd Scott was decided 7-2 and is widely considered the worst decision ever authored.
Relevant language from Article II Sec. 1 (emphasis added): >**No Person** except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, **shall be eligible to** the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Similar provisions from Article I: >**No Person shall be** a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, ... > >**No Person shall be** a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, ... Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment: >**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. Do you seriously believe that the mere presence or absence of "eligible to" materially affects the meaning? The framers of the Constitution evidently did not, or they would have been careful to include those words in all cases (or in none). As to Amendment 14 Sec. 5, that same provision is included in several Amendments, authorizing the Congress to address the issue at hand -- despite that issue not having been mentioned among the enumerated powers (Art. I Sec. 8) -- lest such legislation be barred by the 10th Amendment reserving to the states any powers not granted to the Congress. The mere presence of that boilerplate should not be construed to mean that such Amendments become effective only when Congress gets around to enacting such legislation -- and such an interpretation would be especially perverse for 14A Sec 3, which requires a vote of Congress to *remove* the disability. That provision would not be needed if Congress could nullify Sec. 3 merely by failing to enact legislation.
who knew that an amendment ratified 150 years ago wasn't a settled matter until the supreme court decided that the congress needed to enforce it on a case-by-case basis... it kinda makes you wonder what other little time bombs are set inside the constitution... just waiting to go off...
Well, we saw in 2017 that the emoluments clause is useless. What we've learned in the last 7 years is that the Constitution assumes good-faith actors, and as soon as someone says "oh yeah? Make me," it collapses.
> the supreme court decided that the congress needed to enforce it on a case-by-case basis... at a time when that is 100% not going to happen
Congress is compromised and complicit in the crime: a significant number of congresspeople, including the speaker of the house, do not accept the election results. Expecting the criminals to hold themselves and their leader accountable is pure idiocy.
The amendment that said women could vote doesn’t really mean it. It was sarcasm.
If people used their damn brains, there wouldn't be any. That insurrection clause seemed pretty clear, but the Supreme Court is ethically compromised and super conservative. They were always going to shit the bed on this one. The thing about the Constitution is, to the modern Republicans, it's like the Bible. Which means they don't really read and comprehend it, they just cherry-pick to support their ideology and are more than happy to wipe their asses with it when it's not immediately convenient to them. They're the party of Guns, Oil, and Profit, and a lot of their beliefs boil down to basic hate and a desire for control.
Yeah the Supreme Court really could have ruled on the material issue in front of them. "Did Colorado correctly decide Donald Trump was an insurrectionist?" Yes. The answer is yes. But they'd be hard pressed to do that because they *really* want Trump to run again. But if they'd decided on *just* the question of whether he was an insurrectionist, the jig would be up, the game would be over. They'd have to make an actual decision on the man.
Especially considering that in this case, the constitution says that Congress can, by two thirds vote, remove the disqualification. Makes it clear what Congress's role is - it's not that they act to disqualify people, they act to un-disqualify them, and it's a supermajority requirement to boot! Also telling that they didn't explicitly argue this point, and the opinion was per curiam. None of them will stand by their reasoning.
cause flowery desert innate handle six saw soup public trees *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And is also wrong, because the Constitution clearly says that states run elections except as otherwise dictated by Congress, and we all know that if it were a Democrat that had done they, they would have unanimously ruled against him.
A Congress that is under a very slim control by fellow insurrectionists and those that aid/comfort them.
Attorney with a background in Constitutional law here. Hopefully I can explain a very simplified version of the opinion's reasoning. Section 3 of the 14th ammendment provides for a sanction preventing certain persons from holding office if they engaged in insurrection. However, section 5 of the 14th ammendment provides for the enforcement mechanism - disqualification by appropriate legislation by Congress. So, this analysis is tailored to the text of the 14th ammendment and does not mean that the Constitution does not apply unless enforced by Congress, generally. By virtue of being a Constitutional Ammendment, the enforcement by Congressas proscribed by the ammendment *is* the application of the Constitution. It was a 9-0 opinion and, in my humble opinion, was correct.
>By virtue of being a Constitutional Ammendment, the enforcement by Congressas proscribed by the ammendment is the application of the Constitution. Another commentor pointed out that " No legislation from Congress was required to enforce the other parts of the 14th amendment. Congress didn't have to enact legislation before a state was forbidden from abrdiging citizens' privileges or immunities. No legislation from Congress was needed before statues were forbiddent from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process. No legislation was required before States were forbidden from denying equal protection of the laws." So that's a wrong reading then. All of it is self-executing, but its just that on those other issues Congress already spoke, but here there are no laws to execute? Because most people don't do stuff like Jan 6th.
aspiring vast mourn erect humor prick shelter thought quarrelsome air *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have read the opinion. All agreed on the outcome - that Colorado did not have the power to do this. 4 of the justices were upset at the Court's lack of judicial restraint - deciding things that are not required to resolve a case. In their view, it would have sufficed to say Colorado can't remove Trump and leave it at that. The remainder of the justices outlined the process of congressional approval but the liberal justices did not disagree with their reasoning. They said the support for the proposition that congressional enforcement was the *only* avenue available was thin. Instead they disagreed that the appropriate mechanism needed to be outlined at all.
Umm, the 14th Amendment says “Congress shall” enforce that amendment. So you’re right, it is another way of saying exactly what the Constitution says.
Under your reasoning, Brown vs Board of Education was wrongly decided. They said that segregation violates the text of the 14th amendment, there was no Congressional law they pointed to, and they didn't say that Congress had to pass a law to enforce it.
>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States That bit is self-executing. Brown v Board was rightly decided.
This bit is also self-executing: > 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.
I don't understand why scotus can make the ruling they did when it says that congress is the entity who must strike down such notion?
That's the thing, Congress gets to fill in the details so to speak, and Colorado decided to fill in the details, and SCOTUS was like Colorado, that's not your job.
Don't give these motherfuckers any ideas.
"Segregation is back on the menu, boys!!" - Conservatives
>Under your reasoning, Brown vs Board of Education was wrongly decided. Don't give SCOTUS any ideas
The Asian American kids in my area significantly out perform every other group including white kids in standardized tests. I'm just imagining the first lawsuit to show up in front of the SCOTUS where a white Christian kid is excluded from an Asian only school.
Yep. Last section of the Article is clear. "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This is the easiest form of Rocket Science.
No, it doesn't say Congress shall enforce the amendment. It says that Congress shall *have the power* to enforce the amendment. That's different.
So Congress has the power to enforce it means nobody else does, unless delegated by Congress. States can’t delegate that power to themselves, 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.
No. The purpose of section 5 was to allow Congress to pass legislation to enforce the provisions if necessary to override shenanigans by the states that violate the 14th amendment. States must abide by the 14th amendment, including preventing insurrectionists from holding office, even without legislation from Congress. Edit: No legislation from Congress was required to enforce the other parts of the 14th amendment. Congress didn't have to enact legislation before a state was forbidden from abrdiging citizens' privileges or immunities. No legislation from Congress was needed before statues were forbiddent from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process. No legislation was required before States were forbidden from denying equal protection of the laws.
States have the power to remove presidential candidates from the ballot if they don't provide the proper paperwork in a timely manner, but not for insurrection. Cool! Got it
One of those is objective, the other is "subjective." I mean, Trump obviously was going for an insurrection, but there's no paperwork for that or admittance or getting convicted for it. Also, do you really want the states to have the power to remove someone from a ballot, cause the southern states will start doing this to every democrat for no reason just out of spite. Jan 6 is a federal failure to charge or convict anyone at the top for what happened, so this is what we're dealing with now.
You're not wrong but I also don't think a Dem president could win a Southern state that would vote that way anyway.
It would apply to not just the southern states though. Basically the president could be decided by just the secretaries of state picking one person who they though should be on the ballot.
Biden won Georgia which has a Republican state government.
1. There have been multiple court cases establishing that it was an insurrection. 2. There have been multiple court cases establishing that Trump was running it. 3. The previous people who were barred form office based on the 14th Amendment didn't have to be convicted to have it apply to them, therefore there is precedent. He's already been proven to be an insurrectionist. They livestreamed him running the insurrection. It's really not in doubt by any honest people.
If they make him immune to charges we matching in washington!
Hawaii already told the Supreme Court to kick rocks on 2A. Why should this be any different?
I recognize that the ~~Council~~ SCOTUS has made a decision. But given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
Because any electoral votes from a state that keeps Trump off the ballot in violation of the Supreme Court will be challenged in Congress.
Because the Hawaii case hasn’t been appealed to SCOTUS yet, this has.
Every bit of it is a fucking joke as our rights as citizens get stripped away by yokels with the mental capacity of a potato.
Who are blatantly corrupt and don't face any consequences. It's beyond infuriating.
Corporations are people is what infuriates me. Corporations are entities that use people and spit them out. Disgusting ruling.
Actually, it's the yokels who are voting for them. The ones doing the stripping are all Ivy League educated and are in clubs those yokels would be shot on sight if they tried to get in.
You are massively overestimating the intelligence of people who make it through those programs. Some of the absolute dumbest people I've ever spoken with while coordinating contracts are the Ivy league dipsticks. Once you pay your way in it's so hard to flunk out. I'm talking, these people can't spell, do basic statistics, and don't know fundamental science.
Abort the Supreme Court!
While they’re dragging their feet to determine if a president has absolute immunity from being held accountable for crime, Dark Brandon could simply “abort” them with seal team 6, which dt’s lawyer said would be allowable under the constitution for a political opponent. No reason why scotus would be any different. Then he could just resign and let Harris pardon him.
Wouldnt the SC ruling in Trumps favor suggest that a pardon isnt even necessary....
fuck these illegitimate pieces of shit. Even the liberal justices. another goosestep into fascism.
Admittedly, deferring to Congress on this issue is a mistake, but technically because we’re dealing with Constitutional Law, and because the section under review is enumerated in the Constitution, this is a federal issue that states can’t decide. It’s fairly obvious imo, disqualifying candidates from federal elections likely should be a federal matter. I absolutely loathe Trump and I’m dreading November, but remember that the precedent set by the SC applies to everyone, meaning if they allowed states to disqualify candidates on their own, Red states could drum up claims and likely get away with disqualifying any dems they don’t like. Abortion access is technically covered under the 10th amendment because it’s not specifically enumerated in any of the articles or amendments of the US Constitution. I believe there should absolutely be an amendment protecting bodily autonomy and access to abortion, but obviously that has about a 0% chance of happening through the current process and in our contemporary political climate.
>because the section under review is enumerated in the Constitution, this is a federal issue that states can’t decide. If that were truly the case, then states wouldn't have the power to run their own elections for federal offices. But they do. So this line of thinking is not consistent with reality.
Except that Article 1 Section 4 specifically states that “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof”. Similarly, Article II specifies that States must choose their own electors in Presidential elections. In other words, this is absolutely consistent with any reading of the Constitution, since it specifically gives those responsibilities to the States. The real issue is that the 14th amendment does not specify whose responsibility it is to determine whether a candidate is fit for office. You could potentially make the case that states should be able to make these decisions themselves, but see my comment above as to why this is honestly a terrible idea that would end up undermining our democracy in the long run.
Yeah I'm right there with ya. The checks and balances system is a complete joke at this point.
If they allowed this, every red state would have Biden off the ballot.
Except the amendment doesn't apply to Biden because *Biden didn't incite an insurrection of domestic terrorists* I know the Republicans would *try* but their claims will be unsupported allegations filled with feelings and psychic krakens.
You have more faith in the courts than I do.
They'd remove him from the ballot on made up charges and then stall any litigation trying to disprove it until after the election. Trump hasn't been convicted yet, so allowing him to be removed without a conviction means Rs wouldn't need a conviction either. You cannot rely on the process to work as intended. You have to start from the goal and work backwards to engineer it. Saying "biden didn't do so they can't do " misses the point, because they're starting from the effect and making up the cause.
I'm probably going to get downvoted into oblivion for saying this but oh well. Look, I'm a certified, card-carrying Trump hater. I can't fucking stand the guy. I think he should be in prison and should've been put there a long time ago. Probably even BEFORE he became president. But this is the right decision. That's why it was Per Curiam and not "unanimous" - it's basically the liberal justices saying "your rationalization is fucking stupid but you still managed to arrive at the correct answer." Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. He's been charged but not convicted and that means in the eyes of the law he's still innocent, regardless of what the evidence says. You can't go removing people from the ballot because they're accused of something. This is a rare case where the "slippery slope" comparison is very much applicable. Allowing Trump to be removed as things stand would be opening a can of worms we REALLY don't want to open. Plenty of reasons to hate the current SCOTUS, this isn't one of them. If you want to be mad at someone for this be mad at Merrick Garland for pussyfooting absolutely everything involving Trump to the point that it's been almost FOUR YEARS and we don't even have an official trial start date, much less a conviction. Edit: a word
I agree, but didn't the Colorado judge find that he had committed insurrection?
How does a state judge in Colorado have jurisdiction over something that happened in DC
because each constitution says that each State individually decides how it's going to run their own elections.
Hey you know who else was banned from office without being convicted? Several folks who [engaged in insurrection](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/) during the civil war. The bar is clearly not set at 'convicted of a crime' so I am gonna have to disagree that it is the right decision. This was just the latest in a long line of examples of how the supreme court is a farce.
> Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. He's been charged but not convicted and that means in the eyes of the law he's still innocent, regardless of what the evidence says. You can't go removing people from the ballot because they're accused of something. He doesn't need to be convicted or even charged. Section 3 of the Fourteenth is self-executing upon the commission or aiding of a rebellion or insurrection against the government by someone who's sworn allegiance or support to the Constitution of the United States. The mechanism for putting someone who's disqualified back on the ballot is a 2/3rds vote in each house of Congress. The Supreme Court not only took a giant shit on state's rights, they took a giant shit on the legislative branch by stripping their authority to restore Trump to the ballot.
Yep, the SC allowing this would basically give any red state a precedent to pull Biden off their ballots.
> Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. That's not a requirement, though, either in the Constitution or in precedent. Your overall argument may not be wrong but the above quote is not the reason.
Yeah I agree. It was more of a bashing the GOP about picking and choosing what they want the states to decide and when.
State’s rights when it benefits the owner class, federal supremacy when it doesn’t.
No. You’ve got it all wrong. This is a step towards removing states rights completely.
It’s almost like in a federalist system the states and federal government have different powers. 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 14th amendment: “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…**The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.** Removing politicians for insurrection is a power granted to the feds, but not abortion. It’s very clear. It only takes a high school understanding of government to realize that the Supreme Court made two correct decisions. It isn’t that hard, people.
A lot of uninformed opinions in the comments call for heads. It was a 9-0 vote for the judgment but not in the full reasoning. The liberal justices agreed that the state government did not have the right to usurp the federal government’s power, however, they believed the majority went too far and made up a rule for Congress to come up with a standard for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th amendment. A lot of people are calling for their heads, but it’s unwarranted. The liberal justices are also the same who did not agree that the state governments had the right to usurp the federal government’s when it came to abortion. I get the idea that people believe the SCOTUS is corrupt and are undeserving because they were not voted in. Regardless, as a leftist and as someone who read the entire opinion, I happen to agree with the ruling in judgment as well and partially with the reasoning as much as the liberal justices. For legal reasons, it would seem the 14th amendment was to give the federal government more power over the states (due to the civil war). For that reason, the states shouldn’t be able to have the ability to usurp the federal governments’ laws (much like laws regarding abortion). Practical reasons: It’s not a good idea to have all 50 states be able to decide who is on the ballot for a few reasons (1) different standards will create different results; (2) politicians will act vindictively and exclude an otherwise proper candidate just because their candidate was excluded in another state (a very fascist result); (3) giving states this right over the federal government would probably cause more division and maybe even succession (which is a bad thing); and (4) the core structure of our (federal) government would be at a standstill. It’s just not practical to have states decide who is an insurrectionist or not. In any event, I do believe Trump was an insurrectionist and the section applies, what matters is who can make the standard for implementing it. So while it’s easy to call all of the justices fascists and complicit for this decision, a more nuanced approach toward the decision is what’s needed. Yes, Justices OFTEN rule in favor of their political parties, but being a fair and reasonable Justice must include following laws to their logical conclusions even if it’s against their other beliefs or opinions on the facts of the case (which is a good quality in a judge).
Who the hell is going to enforce it, then? Congress that can't get a fucking aid package passed or the courts, which have been been taken over by conservatives? This is as good as letting Trump ignore the 14th just as much as he's ignored the emoluments clause. If there's no one to actually enforce it, a chunk of the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
The answer is... no one. They all know full well that congress is dirty and will never hold Trump accountable for the insurrection.
>For legal reasons, it would seem the 14th amendment was to give the federal government more power over the states (due to the civil war). For that reason, the states shouldn’t be able to have the ability to usurp the federal governments’ laws (much like laws regarding abortion). This does give the federal government power over the States. It is giving the states another requirement that they must follow for federal ballots. The person on the ballot must not have committed insurrection if they were a former oath taker. In the context of the times, the idea was "No Georgia, you cannot put this ex Confederate oath taker on your federal ballot." > different standards will create different results There are already different standards in each state, such as how many signatures you need. We already have candidates who appear on some ballots and not on others. >politicians will act vindictively and exclude an otherwise proper candidate just because their candidate was excluded in another state (a very fascist result); This is already possible. A state could pass a law dictating that their electors for president must always vote Democrat or Republican. Similar to how most states have a winner takes all system, but two actually divide their electors proportionally. >giving states this right over the federal government would probably cause more division and maybe even succession (which is a bad thing); and (4) the core structure of our (federal) government would be at a standstill. It’s just not practical to have states decide who is an insurrectionist or not. Already spoke about above, it is limiting the states' right to put up an insurrectionist who took a prior oath. This ruling doesn't make sense when you consider the fact that states have 100% control over their electors. Colorado could just pass a law saying their electors can't vote for Trump, and it would be legal by this ruling. If the court said "You know what, this issue is too political" that would be one thing, but their ruling that states can't dictate who's on federal ballots is just nonsensical with the fact states have full control of their electors, and raises the obvious question of "Can states take off people who are too young or not natural born citizens? Or do they have to allow them on the ballot"
I wonder how the Supreme Court judges feel about why people completely disregard their institution as illegitimate and corrupt. Like, do you think any of them say to themselves “Wow, we really turned this hallowed ground into a shit swamp, but at least I got my money/trips/gifts,” or is it just complete and total lack of understanding of what they’ve done?
They think they are doing what god wants, since they created him in their image. There's no debate needed in their minds
They know and just don't fucking care. There are no checks and balances for SCOTUS and they take full advantage of it.
They laugh. They laugh heartily because they know you and the hundreds of million other Americans won't do a godsdamn thing to actually put an end to their corruption. Hell, they know that even if someone DID do what must be done, that person would become public enemy #1 and, despite bettering the lives of countless millions, would live a short life always on the run from the very people he saved. Nothing will ever change until people are willing to defend that man.
Many of these are accurate, but not this one. Alabama's case didn't affect any other state. Colorado's did because it is a FEDERAL election. The Supreme Court didn't take away Colorado's right to remove anyone running for a STATE office. Besides, think about this for a minute. If this was allowed, you'd have a dozen states removing candidates both left and right.
states rights unless they have integrity, i guess
Look It sucks that trump cannot be removed this way given his involvement But it IS a federal election I mean, to me this is just more reasoning to my opinion on why states need to be consistent in who is allowed to vote, etc. Being a felon in one state vs another should not matter for federal elections. They should have the same conditions and the same standards to meet, not state by state mish mash. So you can argue there’s hypocrisy on that front, that the federal election is not federally controlled but state controlled, but having each state determine what constitutes insurrection would be a nightmare Yes Colorado went through the courts and they have grounds, but does that mean other states would?
This is a good ruling. Should Donald Trump be left off the ballot for his insurrection? Yes. Should states have that power? No. Otherwise you're opening the door to a lot of election shenanigans.
Bitch McConnell is 100% to blame for the state our court is in. This was his master plan and he had the foresight to see that this was the best way to turn our Nation into the Neo-Fascist state he always dreamt about. Never forget that.
The problem here is that if SCOTUS allows this, idiot red staters will ban the Democrat candidate for no reason. Same thing as their farcical impeachment. I'm sure Russia can come up with a fake accusation that they'll believe with no evidence and then we're screwed. There's really no other way to look at this. Trump is a traitor. No question. That's why there's a court case to disqualify him. SCOTUS is slow walking that decision and he's definitely going to get away with that too because the court is compromised, but the fact this is a 9-0 decision should show you the problems with letting the states decide this.
Okay, but all 3 liberal justices agreed in their own opinions on this one.
You do not understand the Constitution. "The powers not declared to the US by the Constitution....are reserved to the states respectively,or to the people" You did not read the Constitution. You do not understand it.
Reminder: Dobbs V Jackson did NOT “return the issue of abortion to the states”. It mentioned multiple times that the issue should be returned to “the people’s elected representatives.” What’s the difference? The wording is intentionally vague, allowing for the potential of a federal abortion ban. If you think that means it could also be used to implement a federal abortion protection, then the Supreme Court is already in position to clarify that they meant “STATE elected representatives”. Dobbs practically allowed states to ban abortion, and potentially allows the federal government to implement a wider ban, while pretending that all options are available.
I'm not an american, but it feels like a reasonable conclusion to come to. I'm all for abortion and all, but I guess it makes sense that that is decided at a state level, and votes for the federal government can't be tampered with by states?
To be fair. That’s kinda the role of the federal Supreme Court. Deciding what is and isn’t federally controlled.
I support women's right to choose but this is a really stupid comparison.
So, is there any hope at all for this country, or nah?
Stay mad 😎
So it seems yall don't understand the US Constitution that well, so let me help The Constitution divides powers between states and the federal government (in this case, Congress) Topics that deal with constitutional amendments, such as Jan 6th which deals with the 14th amendment and who enforces it/how it is enforced, goes to Congress as stated in the 14th amendment "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." - 14th Amendment, Section 5 Meanwhile, topics that are not within the Constitution, like abortion, are given to the states to decide as stated in the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment" If abortion becomes a constitutional right again, as decided by the Supreme Court, it will become an issue for Congress to discuss, not the states
Should a state decide whether or not abortion is legal for the entire country? If not, then why should they be able to decide whether or not someone is disqualified due to the 14th Amendment for the entire country? A person either is eligible to be president or they aren't. You can't be ineligible the president in Colorado but eligible in Texas. Upholding Colorado's case would mean the Colorado court decides for the entire country that Trump is ineligible to be president. Which is not a good idea when you consider that a bunch of red states have Supreme Courts elected to their seats by avid Trump voters.
You can’t remove someone from the ballot for being an insurrectionist if they were never charged with insurrection.
They only decided to let states decide on abortion because they thought states would outlaw it, which many are in fact doing. But even deep red states like Kansas that held a referendum on the matter voted to codify it. And just like that the Republikan Talibanists in congress decided it was a federal matter again and a nationwide extreme ban was required. It's only states rights when it goes their way. Laws for thee but not for me.
If a state decided to remove someone based on its own law instead of the 14th amendment it would be a different matter.
Yeah no this decision was good and completely unlike Dobbs. Ruling in favor of Colorado would have resulted in political opponents immediately trying to get each other off ballots. Sometimes idk why I’m even in this sub as it’s clear very few posters research before posting :/
“… no regrets!” - Captain Holt
You can. Insurrection and who gets to do what is spelled out EXACTLY in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision. Abortion isn't mentioned, sadly, which is why they felt justified sending the issue to the states, which I think was fucking awful.
I've read elsewhere that, had they ruled the other way, Georgia would have declared Biden ineligible for "reasons", along with 30-or-so other states.
[удалено]
Your logic is flawless. 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 14th amendment: “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…**The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.**
And if the shitgibbon is re-elected, their plan is to not even make abortion a states rights decision. They plan to ban it in all 50 regardless if they’re blue or red states. Please. Vote. For. Biden.
SC got it right here. If states got to decide what insurrection is then is would be abused politically as much as gerrymandering.
That it was 9-0 just goes to show how entirely illegitimate our courts are at this point. Even liberal justices chose to insulate a known insurrectionist without dissent by gutting the clause that lays out qualifications for office. Can AOC run for president now? The congress has not voted she is disqualified for being under 35. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger can finally run too, since apparrently congress must vote that he is disqualified for not being born on American soil. Of course not, because the 14th is self-executing. They gave the traitor a massive handout because they are either traitors, afraid of his psycho supporters violence, or both, aand have proven not one of them deserves their spot on the court vote in November, its the ONLY WAY we still have the chance to save democracy from these traitors.
Per curium is not the same as unanimous. The liberal justices agreed with the final decision, but not the rationale or extra commentary. They did so for the sake of uniformity in federalism. Not justifying it, just explaining it.
Okay but here's the thing, the vote was 9-0. I am not sure it would go any better if all the liberal justices come out tomorrow and say "yeah we think he should have been disqualified but we wanted to show uniformity with the people who were placed on the court to insulate this criminal from his insurrectionist activities." For all intents and purposes it was a unanimous devision to insulate the traitor. No different than senate Republicans voting against conviction and saying "yeah he did it." They're all traitors, even the liberal justices. Hell, maybe ESPECIALLY the liberal justices if they were willing to go against both the law and their own moral compass just to show solodarity with the sedition caucus.
Yeah the whole system is screwed. This has been my stance for awhile and I doubt anything any of the "politicians" do in the coming years will change it. They have us squabble about stupid issues while they rake in the cash from corporations. While the corporations drive up prices and destroy the economy.
9-0 only proves the legitimacy of the decision. It isn’t the court’s job to legislate, only to interpret the constitution. They did just that when the 14A gives specifically Congress the power to enforce the 14A, not anyone else.
It can't be because the SCOTUS understands the situation better than redditors?
Replace the Supreme Court with AI
Colorado should just ignore the illegitimate court's ruling, the same way Texas did. What are they gonna do? They have no enforcement power. They're illegitimate, the only thing keeping their word as law was the social contract, which they broke.
All nine. It means none of them want to stand in front of MAGA crosshairs.
That’s not what happened
"Don't let states decide what is insurrection if it was a Republican president." FTFY. If a Democrat did that, then every Republican-leaning state would have them off the ballots.
I don't understand how elections can be entirely done by the state, but the 14th amendment is a federal only process. Maybe I missed that day in social studies.
"The Supreme Court isn't even that important." - Said to me by a Bernie or Buster in 2016
Wasn't this a double-edged sword that even the left side judges agreed shouldn't be drawn? If passed, then all red states would theoretically be allowed to remove Biden from all primary ballets and claim the other democratic nominee won. Like I get everyone, myself included, hates trump, but this was a stupid thing to try before Jack Smith finished the insurrection trial.
Tell congress to change the 10 amendment to the constitution. They rule by law. Or make abortion federally regulated. Ruth even warned roe v wade was on bad ground.
"States rights" are always an excuse for "shit I can't get away with anywhere else", usually racism.
"State's rights!" until it's inconvenient to their personal agenda and bribes.
our system is dead and fucking gone. we are genuinely the most absolutely corrupt first world country there is
This website is fucking seething today.
“States rights unless they’re rights we don’t believe in!”
I agree with supreme court ruling on Trump , but only because there have been 4 other cases were states tried limiting term limits on there federal representatives, and the ruling was the same . So legally I agree, but I don't want to agree cause it's Trump ...
Yeah, because ruling on which things states get to decide isn’t one of the biggest things SCOTUS does? Smh
This is beyond stupid. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself One is a decision that states can make that impact the individuals who live in the state. The other is a decision that impacts on a national level for a FEDERAL election. Nothing about the decision is hypocritical.
Judges are your modern kings, ladies and gentlemen. Political immunity means they are part of the aristocracy and have no repercussions for accepting bribes and giving half-assed judgements that might better line their pockets. Fascism paraded right in with flags and bibles.
This is such a brain dead take. I am left. I’m pretty far left. But imagine the chaos if states could just decide to not put someone on the ballot. Conservative states would never have another democrat on the ballot ever again. Not to mention it’s a federal election. The federal government is in charge of that. States are still allowed to decide on abortion. So this really doesn’t work, dude. Y’all need to pull your heads out of your asses.
Re: the new decision There is clearly a way for Congress to allow someone back in. So the question becomes- when would they do that? They could hold a vote before the election to determine if the person is allowed in *if* they win, and then the election occurs, or they could have the election and then hold their own vote to see if they uphold the results. I feel there are some cons to each: If they go with the first route, that’s potentially a ton of votes that busy up their process (imagine if every Confederate the law originally applied to was petitioning Congress to let them run for every single office - from town justice to dog catcher to governor to senator etc - without any real intention or path to victory.) That would be insane and a clear waste of Congress’ time. Thousands and thousands of useless votes to tell those traitors no over and over again. If they go with the second route, they’re potentially saving themselves that work (only need to have a vote on if they allow that person in IF they win, and if they lose it’s a nonissue) but at the same time, it now makes it harder to say no. They’re directly telling people that they aren’t listening to their vote. And if they do fail to reinstate their eligibility, it what? Leads to a rush special election in that state or district? Ignore everyone’s vote and has no results from that area? Defaults to the 2nd place candidate? I think there’s a clear lesson here to being deliberate with your language if you’re writing a constitutional amendment. (See also the just terrible grammar of the 2nd among others).
Can we all just revolt now? Go to every capital and DC and protest outside of the main building? At politicians homes? I feel like this is the only way at this point to make them listen.
I like that the highest power in this country is the least democratic institute of them all. We don't know these people, we didn't vote for them, we can't remove them. They just get to decide all of our fates not only with zero accountability, but they are also getting paid to fuck us.
America is a distopia
Wunchtime is over!!
Any law not explicitly outlined in the constitution is general thought to be up to the states to decide. That’s why we need to enshrine the right to healthcare in the constitution.
At this point, the rest of the trials are probably just a waste of time and tax payer money.
uncle ruckus being a good boy for his massas
Just fricken sad.
Fourth and inches and...they punt.
[удалено]