The Supreme Dead Beats

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Don't you find it ironic that the 14th amendment limits states rights in scope but you're saying that it expands them?


I do like the framing in that post though.

It tells me that you do know things are corrupt...

a reply to: JinMI

14th amendment limits states rights

How so? How does codifying constitutional rights for individuals, as the 14th Amendment does, remove states' rights?

you're saying that it expands them?

The 14A expanded individual equal rights. It gave slaves and everyone born in the US citizenship.

I don't see Section 3 as limiting anyone's right, except the insurrectionists trying to weasel themselves into a government position.

It was individuals who brought suit in Colorado and Maine. Not the state. The states', Colorado's and Maine's rulings were on behalf of private citizen's cases brought before them, not on anything the states required from the candidate.

So, while this is a question of states' rights, it is a matter of an individual's right to enforce the 14th Amendment, through their own states' courts.

So, who has the right to enforce the 14 Amendment, Section 3?

SCOTUS doesn't have an easy job here.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Is disqualification different than impeachment? Yes. Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment

A Congressional vote is needed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

How so? How does codifying constitutional rights for individuals, as the 14th Amendment does, remove states' rights?

A zero sum game. The expansion of civil rights means the state has less power and that by due process, requires the state to maintain the onus of proving guilt.

I don't see Section 3 as limiting anyone's right, except...

Exactly the point!!

a reply to: JinMI

So, you think that the 14th A, Section 3, violates insurrectionists' rights?

LOL, That's what it's designed to do!

a reply to: Mike72

disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

So, when, and if, SCOTUS upholds Trump's disqualification in Maine and Colorado, Congress can vote to remove the disability. Until then, the 14th needs nothing from Congress for the enforcement of Section 3.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

So, you think that the 14th A, Section 3, violates insurrectionists' rights?

LOL, That's what it's designed to do!

Good point.

If I call you an insurrectionist, I can now violate your rights.

That's been your argument this entire time.

If only there were a way, say a court to where we could actually determine if you were in fact an insurrectionist......

Why do you think section 1 and 5 are also within the 14th amendment?

Was it to make sure that due process was NOT followed and that congress CAN'T make, then enforce a law "appropriate" for the provisions of the 14th amendment?!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

i think you missed this part;

Congress can bar someone from holding office

.

I'll fix my post so it is more apparent for the selective reading, wishful thinkers.

Thanks for pointing that out.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mike72

disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

So, when, and if, SCOTUS upholds Trump's disqualification in Maine and Colorado, Congress can vote to remove the disability. Until then, the 14th needs nothing from Congress for the enforcement of Section 3.

Congress has already adopted appropriate legislation.

Thus the insurrection statute.....

a reply to: Mike72

Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can bar someone from holding office.

Well, that is Laura Temme, Esq.'s opinion. But she's wrong.

Section 5 Enforcement
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Neither Section 3 or Section 5 give Congress the power to bar anyone from office.

Congress can refuse to seat an elected congressional candidate by 2/3 vote. It can lift the 14th A. disability by a 2/3 vote.
But it can't bar anyone from holding office, like Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom.

It can write and pass laws that can define how to enforce the 14th Amendment and the Constitution. It can pass a resolution that declares Trump is or isn't an insurrectionist. But that resolution could be challenged in court if they tried to enforce it.

a reply to: JinMI

The argument is that Section 3 is self-executing. It doesn't require a conviction to be enforced.

Does the US Code on Insurrection say that a person MUST be convicted of violating the code before they can be disqualified under the 14th A?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The argument is that Section 3 is self-executing. It doesn't require a conviction to be enforced.

Can you inform me of some other self executing laws so we can draw together some kind of analog?

Does the US Code on Insurrection say that a person MUST be convicted of violating the code before they can be disqualified under the 14th A?

Yes:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC 2383

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then it must be unconstitutional because it bypasses due process, partly as bypassing the right to confront an accuser. 😃

a reply to: JinMI

Can you inform me of some other self executing laws so we can draw together some kind of analog?

Presidential age requirements and natural born citizenship are both self-executing constitutional qualification for President of the United States. Natural born citizenship is self-executing. All anyone has to do is show their birth certificate to prove their citizenship. They don't have to prove it in a court of law in order to vote or exercise any other privilege of citizenship.

Is there anything in the 18 USC 2383 that says that a conviction of violation of the law is required before a candidate can be disqualified?

Does it say that 18 USC 2383 is the only avenue The People have for enforcement of the 14th A., Section 3? Does the 14th A, Section 3 require the DOJ to first approve of an indictment of an individual, before a trial can be held to decide whether or not that individual has violated the law, and to what extent, before the 14th A, Section 3, The People's right to a government free of insurrectionists, as guaranteed by the 14th A, Section 3, can be enforced?

If so, If that's what SCOTUS rules, We The People are screwed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Presidential age requirements and natural born citizenship are both self-executing constitutional qualification for President of the United States. Natural born citizenship is self-executing. All anyone has to do is show their birth certificate to prove their citizenship. They don't have to prove it in a court of law in order to vote or exercise any other privilege of citizenship.

Ok so where is the analog to the removal of liberties?

Is there anything in the 18 USC 2383 that says that a conviction of violation of the law is required before a candidate can be disqualified?

Does it say that 18 USC 2383 is the only avenue The People have for enforcement of the 14th A., Section 3?

That's what due process is for. And why sentencing follows....

Does the 14th A, Section 3 require the DOJ to first approve of an indictment of an individual, before a trial can be held to decide whether or not that individual has violated the law, and to what extent, before the 14th A, Section 3, The People's right to a government free of insurrectionists, as guaranteed by the 14th A, Section 3, can be enforced?

Why you refuse to remove the context of sec 1 (due process) and sec 5 (congress legislation and enforcement of) is beyond me at this point.

If so, If that's what SCOTUS rules, We The People are screwed.

How? I'd like to know the adverse effects of forcing congress, which is the only body who can remove the disability, to adopt a law and allow for the accused due process.

a reply to: xuenchen

Then it must be unconstitutional because it bypasses due process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,.........
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

By not being able to hold the office of President of United States, Donald Trump isn't being required to answer to a capital or otherwise infamous crime, or being deprived of life, liberty, or property.

However, Trump did get due process, in both the Colorado and the Maine court cases, even though they were civil, not criminal cases. He'll be getting even more Sue Process from SCOTUS!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He'll be getting even more Sue Process from SCOTUS!

Freudian slip?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Got due process? How so? 😃

a reply to: JinMI

Ok so where is the analog to the removal of liberties?

I'm not following. Who is losing liberties?

That's what due process is for. And why sentencing follows....

Nobody is losing property, liberty or life by Donald Trump being ineligible to hold office based on his actions leading up to and the day of Jan 6th.

How? I'd like to know the adverse effects of forcing congress, which is the only body who can remove the disability, to adopt a law and allow for the accused due process.

The law requires, if convicted, a financial fine, (property) and/or prison time (liberty). The 14th Amendment makes no such requirement. It is merely a disqualification.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He'll be getting even more Sue Process from SCOTUS!

Freudian slip?

HAHA

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Got due process? How so? 😃

In Colorado and in Maine, due process all the way to SCOTUS!