• Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    They also mention roles of Congress via the 20th Amendment, Article II, and section 5 of the 14th Amendment. And via these they indicate that it’s implied that Congress is the one who disqualifies.

    With regard to the 14th Amendment Section Three, a person who has sworn an oath, and then engages in insurrection, is disqualified. Congress is given the power to “remove such disability;” this is wholly different from Congress being “the one who disqualifies.”

    This still leaves SCOTUS a perfect out: read the law, apply the law. SCOTUS should rule that Trump meets the characterization for someone disqualified from the ballot via 14S3, and that States, having the sole responsibility for operating elections, should disqualify him from their ballots - while making it very clear that this disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote from each House of Congress.

    SCOTUS does not want to be responsible for disqualifying Trump; they don’t have to be. In actual fact, he has disqualified himself, through the actions he took of his own free will. SCOTUS also does not want to be the last word on the subject; they don’t have to be. Congress, and their vote (or lack thereof), would be the last word on the subject.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      With regard to the 14th Amendment Section Three, a person who has sworn an oath, and then engages in insurrection, is disqualified. Congress is given the power to “remove such disability;” this is wholly different from Congress being “the one who disqualifies.”

      I couldn’t agree more here. The notion that the one that removes the disability indicates that someone added it. Being silent on the who isn’t an oversight by those who carefully framed the 14th. There’s a realization outright that calling out traitors and ensuring that they cannot attempt rebellion was a role for anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution. To vest the power in a single branch is just inviting those seeking a rebellion to overtake that branch and call it mission complete.

    • Rivalarrival
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      SCOTUS has an even better out: they have appellate jurisdiction on this issue, not original jurisdiction. They can decline to hear the case.