How big

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

No.  It gives Congress the power to write a statute that would be enforced by the executive and judicial branches.  The court is not given the power to act independent a conviction of the statute. 

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial system works.  The Constitution itself is law.  Violations of it can and are enforced by the court system all the time.  This section itself even gives you the proscribed penalty.  And again you're going away from the traditional R requirement of only the plain text of the language.

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This case has more holes than a Swiss cheese.  Is it any indication that of eight dimocrat judges involved, the vote is split 4-4?

As to this, no, it's a novel legal theory, and those typically run up against the more slow-moving nature of the judicial system.

[Paul158]

3 hours ago, PortaJohn said:

 

My best attempt to answer this question is no conviction is not required.  It was never specified in the 14th.  During that era Congress was preventing Southerners  involved with the Confederacy during the Civil War from ever holding office.  @VakAttack this sound somewhat correct?

So it is based on a law made 150 years ago that was put in place specifically for those confederates who participated in the civil war to keep them out of government. I believe all of those Americans are now dead, or they are pushing 200 years old. Now Old Joe is close but not really.

[Plasmodium]

Is anyone else repulsed that expansion of this to 80% of the country that is not a swing state has no practical effect on the election?

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Because, textually speaking, Section 5 isn't specifically exhaustive in terms of remedy, i.e. it doesn't say "the only way this can be enforced is through Congressional legislation" just that Congress has the power to enforce this thru further legislation.

In context it sounds like a terrible law. Which can easily be misused. Which was written 150 years ago for a specific reason to achieve a certain outcome. Shouldn't this law have stricter requirements in order have less confusion when trying to interpret it?

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

There is not "no evidence."  There's a lot of recorded evidence.  Again, you just don't agree with it or see it the same way as this court did.  I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings.

Not enough evidence to charge or convict. Only enough for them to form an opinion which is not law.

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, ionel said:

How many courts saw it the other way?

4752 courts saw it the other way.  But we can't talk about those courts.

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

There literally IS a remedy available, that's what Colorado SC just did (although the order is currently stayed until 1/4/24 or SCOTUS rules on it.)

Supposedly they are starting to print ballots Jan. 5th.

[mspart]

48 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

Part of me wants Colorado to win this...

Then the red states take Biden off the ballot..

Then..... nevermind I don't want to know.

This.  Or similar the next election.   This is not the direction we want our country to go in.  Granted, CO is a D state and most likely would not vote for Trump in the general election, so it might be a moot point.   But this is not the way we should be running elections.   That is what the primaries are for, to weed out the weak and allow the top guy or gal to be the nominee of the party.  

Ohio Elite has it correct.   None of us want to know what will happen if this CO decision stands.   It will not be pretty. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

4 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial system works.  The Constitution itself is law.  Violations of it can and are enforced by the court system all the time.  This section itself even gives you the proscribed penalty.  And again you're going away from the traditional R requirement of only the plain text of the language.

As to this, no, it's a novel legal theory, and those typically run up against the more slow-moving nature of the judicial system.

Interesting history of your self-execution theory:
 

“Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.[8] But shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice issued the first opinion on Section Three and held that the text was not self-executing in Virginia and—in the absence of congressional action—did not apply to a Black criminal defendant there.[9] Following these inconsistent rulings, Congress enacted a Section Three enforcement statute and federal prosecutors brought many actions to oust ineligible officials, including half of the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
 

https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

 

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

This.  Or similar the next election.   This is not the direction we want our country to go in.  Granted, CO is a D state and most likely would not vote for Trump in the general election, so it might be a moot point.   But this is not the way we should be running elections.   That is what the primaries are for, to weed out the weak and allow the top guy or gal to be the nominee of the party.  

Ohio Elite has it correct.   None of us want to know what will happen if this CO decision stands.   It will not be pretty. 

mspart

This is a good example of how most people understand this preposterous ruling.  If each state followed suit it would be chaotic.  How supposedly intelligent people can study law, and be considered good enough to make it to the bench, only to churn out this kind of partisan garbage is what destroys the people’s confidence in the institutions of our civilization. 

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Interesting history of your self-execution theory:
 

“Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.[8] But shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice issued the first opinion on Section Three and held that the text was not self-executing in Virginia and—in the absence of congressional action—did not apply to a Black criminal defendant there.[9] Following these inconsistent rulings, Congress enacted a Section Three enforcement statute and federal prosecutors brought many actions to oust ineligible officials, including half of the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
 

https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

 

The language of section 3 is, on it's face, self-executing.  It tells you, in that section, that Congress may by a 2/3 vote remove the disability.  It does not require legislative intervention to excecute.

[Offthemat]

52 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The language of section 3 is, on it's face, self-executing.  It tells you, in that section, that Congress may by a 2/3 vote remove the disability.  It does not require legislative intervention to excecute.

Do you believe that it also empowers state courts in Alabama and Mississippi to determine who is insurrectionist and kept off their ballot?

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Do you believe that it also empowers state courts in Alabama and Mississippi to determine who is insurrectionist and kept off their ballot?

Stop trying to change the argument.  I have already stated, multiple times, that I personally would want the living document/non-textualist interpretation of laws written hundreds of years ago; that there should be a conviction.  You and I have been simply arguing about textualist and originalist legal interpretation.  The Colorado Court used a textualist interpretation to get their result.  You are advocating for a non-textualist interpretation, which I agree with.

Edited December 21, 2023 by VakAttack

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Not enough evidence to charge or convict. Only enough for them to form an opinion which is not law.

So is the 'opinion' that presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office. Just that usually the DOJ is on the side of the executive.

[PortaJohn]

8 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Stop trying to change the argument.  I have already stated, multiple times, that I personally would want the living document/non-textualist interpretation of laws written hundreds of years ago; that there should be a conviction.  You and I have been simply arguing about textualist and originalist legal interpretation.  The Colorado Court used a textualist interpretation to get their result.  You are advocating for a non-textualist interpretation, which I agree with.

@VakAttack apologies if you've answered this already.  What approach do you believe the defense will take?  I've heard some argue the president isn't listed in section 3.  Dershowitz argues there is an impeachment provision that requires a 2/3 vote & on those grounds the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump.  Others note the Due Process Clause in the 14th and an argument can be made there.   Just wondering what strategies the defense team might take

[jross]

16 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Is anyone else repulsed that expansion of this to 80% of the country that is not a swing state has no practical effect on the election?

In some ways, sure, but the Tyranny of the majority is more repulsive.

[Offthemat]

8 hours ago, VakAttack said:

…

Incorrect.  It is textualist/originalist to read and interpret the entire Amendment, as well as anything else that would explain the writer’s intent.  At the time it was written it was perfectly understood that it pertained to the Civil War.  The men affected by it were well known to have been associated with the Southern war effort.  They didn’t, nor could they, deny it.  Even so, enough controversy arose that Congress found it necessary to write a statute the next year.  A statute that the Colorado court ignored.  I believe that when the Supreme Court deals with this case it’ll be said to be textualist/originalist, and will go against the Colorado court, and you. 

[Plasmodium]

32 minutes ago, jross said:

In some ways, sure, but the Tyranny of the majority is more repulsive.

C'mon now.  You don't believe that.  That is for checks and balances to solve.  Electoral college to elect the president is just a vestige of the 3/5ths compromise.    Electoral college itself is tyranny.

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, Offthemat said:

So, where’s the conviction?

Is a 'conviction' needed to keep someone off the ballot for not being a citizen or 35 years old? No. Same situation. Sorry that its confusing. 

A trial was held. Testimony was offered for and against. A judge made a decision. That's it. If SCOTUS upholds it, which they should, then he doesn't get to play president anymore. 

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Is a 'conviction' needed to keep someone off the ballot for not being a citizen or 35 years old? No. Same situation. Sorry that its confusing. 

A trial was held. Testimony was offered for and against. A judge made a decision. That's it. If SCOTUS upholds it, which they should, then he doesn't get to play president anymore. 

Bless your little heart. 

[jross]

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

C'mon now.  You don't believe that.  That is for checks and balances to solve.  Electoral college to elect the president is just a vestige of the 3/5ths compromise.    Electoral college itself is tyranny.

Imagine the two reddest counties in Florida held a higher population than 50% of the country.

How well would Florida represent the rest of the US?

Metros folks don't represent my interests any more than mine do theirs.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Metros folks don't represent my interests any more than mine do theirs.

And therefore, sacrifice and compromise are necessary, if we want to maintain a functioning and civil society. 
 

In other words, everything can’t always be what I think is absolute best for me. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Bless your little heart. 

Death rattle of a lost argument. 

Dog bless! 

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

C'mon now.  You don't believe that.  That is for checks and balances to solve.  Electoral college to elect the president is just a vestige of the 3/5ths compromise.    Electoral college itself is tyranny.

The electoral college is tyranny. Can you please explain.

[jross]

19 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

And therefore, sacrifice and compromise are necessary, if we want to maintain a functioning and civil society. 

In other words, everything can’t always be what I think is absolute best for me. 

Where is the compromise with a popular vote enabling metros to decide what is best for them is best for all?