The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
Good luck? He’s still not going to be on the ballot or eligible for a write in campaign.
This is only the primary ballot. He’d still appear on the final ballot if nominated by the party.
Really? I don’t remember anything like that from the 14th. If he’s ineligible he won’t appear on any ballot in that state.
It’s apparently what the court ordered. I haven’t read it though.
And if the state Supreme Court agreed they wouldn’t have reversed the lower court.
You’re setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed when the scotus rules that he is eligible and they can’t remove him from the ballot, and the argument will be completely reasonable based on the he stupid wording of the amendment.
Oh? So you buy that line that the President is not an officer of the government?
Yes, it’s a sound and well-reasoned legal argument which has been adopted by the Supreme Court and was relied upon by the Court less than 15 years ago.
Was it “Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)”?
Because we already talked about how that case wasn’t about the president in anything more than their supervisory powers over appointees.
Considering the scotus has already ruled that we don’t elect officers in the US…yes, I do find that argument to be reasonable.
I’m assuming you have a source for that?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010),Article II%2C Section 2 procedures.
It links to the SCOTUS case.
Alright. That’s not how SCOTUS rulings work. They aren’t word for word law like a bill. So the observation of what an officer is in regards to presidential supervision is exactly that. The holding was that they could not protect an appointee from being fired by using other appointees as a cut out. But only in that case for reasons of breadth of impact and functionally creating law by regulation. It is not an opinion on whether or not the President is an officer under the 14th amendment.
Which Reason does actually point out; more than I expected from them. But they are right that there will be arguments in front of the court over it if the case is accepted. To say that’s required is kind of a duh moment. Nobody goes to the SCOTUS and just shrugs.
Smells like bullshit around here.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010),Article II%2C Section 2 procedures.
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…
Pretty clear. Hold any office. He can’t hold any office.
Unlikely.
I wish I had your optimism.
So are we just downvoting things we don’t want to hear now?
As a non-US citizen I’m curious to know the arguments for both sides…just sticking my fingers in my ears and singing “la la la can’t hear you” ain’t gonna change the result…no matter which way it goes.
So, for the curious, why is this reply wrong? Do we think a republican weighted Scotus that overturned Roe v Wade would allow their sponsor to get ruled out of the election?