.
Posted on 02/05/2024 2:48:08 PM PST by libstripper
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week on whether states can keep Donald Trump from appearing on primary election ballots for president based on the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. More seriously, it could decide that Trump is ineligible to be president again even if he wins the November election.
We should hope for two outcomes: First, that the court does not use technicalities and procedural issues to evade a clear decision; and second, that it allows common sense and the fate of democracy to loom large in its decision.
The case before the court is an appeal of a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. It found, “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President (and) because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
FTA:
The previously mentioned courts ruled Trump did so by inciting violence on January 6, and the House impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”
Then, for some strange reason, this author refuses to state that the Senate acquitted Pres. Trump of all of that very charge and that the Constitution deals with such acquittals by providing that after a conviction following an impeachment, the impeached and convicted president can then be tried in any relevant court for the offenses of which he was convicted. Thus the inevitable implication is that, since Pres. Trump was acquitted, he can't be prosecuted in any court for the alleged offenses of which he was acquitted.
A sane society would disbar all lawyers who filed these claims and all judges who ruled that these outlandish claims had merit.
John Roberts is a foreign agent and traitor.
“First, that the court does not use technicalities and procedural issues”
Technicalities and procedural issues are their friggin job, you moron. Having 9 dictators ruling the country is no better than just one.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
There’s nothing in the amendment about SCOTUS.
Oh good, I hope it ends this “our democracy” bullshat.
What if SCOTUS decides that this is a state’s rights/prerogatives issue concerning elections and hands it right back to the states?
As soon as I saw “our democracy”, I knew exactly where the opinion was going.
But hey, it’s the sHill, so I’m not surprised.
Unreal how so called intelligent Harvard law degreed attorneys can’t get past a basic fact.
It should be 9-0
.
Wouldn’t handing this back to each state be the same as letting each state decide qualifications for anyone to run for President ever? Like lower age to 18, say only certain diversity candidates, etc., at whim and ever-changing? Is no one concerned and mentioning that any candidate ever could potentially be kept off ballots for contrived reasons not subject to standards?
The writer, we trust, got a C grade in his Journo 101 class for this casual effort.
Unfortunately, Scotus unconstitutionally supplanted Congress’ sole 14A authority long ago.
It would be a remarkable and welcome breath of fresh air if Scotus declared Congress and Congress alone is empowered to enforce the 14A.
What a twink.
Here are the relevant impeachment clauses of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
and:
Article I, Section 3, seventh clause:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The clear reading of these clauses is a President can only be impeached for and convicted of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Thus, since President was acquitted of “inciting insurrection,” there is simply no basis for disqualifying him under the Fourteenth Amendment.
That's why, had Traitor Pence stood tall on January 6 and refused to certify the 2020 electors from the fraudulent swing states, the election would have reverted back to the state legislatures, all of which were conservative, Republican majority, and Trump would have been made POTUS.
The lawyers should have to pay all associated costs for this frivolity.
> Wouldn’t handing this back to each state be the same as letting each state decide qualifications for anyone to run for President ever? <
At a minimum, it would allow any state to call any incident an “insurrection”, and thus bar any candidate involved in that incident.
Now here’s the interesting thing. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president the power to declare an insurrection. And that’s it. No one else.
The Hill may as well be Media Matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.