This is turning out to be a game of hot potato where no one wants to be the one who is deemed responsible for keeping Trump off the ballot. Reading the 14th Amendment, it’s clear as day that he is no longer eligible to become president, seeing how he led an insurrection and all.
But everyone who is in a position of authority to do something about it (save for the 5 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court) is too scared to step up. Instead, they keep passing the potato along, hoping that someone else will do something about it.
I hate to say it, but I’m sure the Supreme Court is going to pass the potato as well. They’ll say “the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn’t clear, so it’s up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot.” That final pass of the potato back to Congress will be what kills the whole issue.
We need republicans to loose the house and senate in november. Get control. that I’m aware of, the Victor Berger was the only guy, until recently who was barred by the 14th outside of being a civil war leader. He was a German-American senator that opposed entering WW1, even after the 1917 espionage act. He ran for office, won, then was convicted just before getting off to office.
they created a special committee and had a full vote in the senate. Granted, Berger was a senator, and not POTUS, so it might require both houses.
If we can take the house back and maintain control of the senate… there’s a chance.
Interesting. I’d never heard of Victor Berger before. So he won a seat for Congress, but the House refused to seat him, citing the 14th Amendment. That doesn’t really work for the presidency, since there’s no one to “seat” the president. I guess John Roberts could refuse to swear a president in, citing the 14th Amendment, but it’s not a requirement that the Chief Justice administer the presidential oath .
Probably best to just keep him off the ballot to avoid this mess, but like I said, I’m sure they’ll keep kicking the can down the road.
They’ll say “the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn’t clear, so it’s up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot.”
Which would be such a stupid take, because if someone were deemed ineligible, Congress can override that per the last sentence of section 3
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Why would Congress be designated the one to make that decision if it’s also the one to override it? Especially when 2/3 is a pretty big threshold to make?
I’m not saying you’re wrong in predicting the possibility, it would just be a terrible ruling if you’re right.
I agree that it would be a terrible ruling. But unfortunately, I’m 99% sure that was the argument made by one of the dissenting judges in the Colorado case. I’m working right now or I’d link it.
This is turning out to be a game of hot potato where no one wants to be the one who is deemed responsible for keeping Trump off the ballot. Reading the 14th Amendment, it’s clear as day that he is no longer eligible to become president, seeing how he led an insurrection and all.
But everyone who is in a position of authority to do something about it (save for the 5 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court) is too scared to step up. Instead, they keep passing the potato along, hoping that someone else will do something about it.
I hate to say it, but I’m sure the Supreme Court is going to pass the potato as well. They’ll say “the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn’t clear, so it’s up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot.” That final pass of the potato back to Congress will be what kills the whole issue.
I’d love to be wrong.
We need republicans to loose the house and senate in november. Get control. that I’m aware of, the Victor Berger was the only guy, until recently who was barred by the 14th outside of being a civil war leader. He was a German-American senator that opposed entering WW1, even after the 1917 espionage act. He ran for office, won, then was convicted just before getting off to office.
they created a special committee and had a full vote in the senate. Granted, Berger was a senator, and not POTUS, so it might require both houses.
If we can take the house back and maintain control of the senate… there’s a chance.
otherwise, we’re probably fucked.
Interesting. I’d never heard of Victor Berger before. So he won a seat for Congress, but the House refused to seat him, citing the 14th Amendment. That doesn’t really work for the presidency, since there’s no one to “seat” the president. I guess John Roberts could refuse to swear a president in, citing the 14th Amendment, but it’s not a requirement that the Chief Justice administer the presidential oath .
Probably best to just keep him off the ballot to avoid this mess, but like I said, I’m sure they’ll keep kicking the can down the road.
The enforcement clause in section 5 of the 14th says congress gets to do it
Which would be such a stupid take, because if someone were deemed ineligible, Congress can override that per the last sentence of section 3
Why would Congress be designated the one to make that decision if it’s also the one to override it? Especially when 2/3 is a pretty big threshold to make?
I’m not saying you’re wrong in predicting the possibility, it would just be a terrible ruling if you’re right.
I agree that it would be a terrible ruling. But unfortunately, I’m 99% sure that was the argument made by one of the dissenting judges in the Colorado case. I’m working right now or I’d link it.
Edit: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf In page 6 of the 2nd dissent (sorry don’t know the PDF Page because it’s not showing in my mobile)
He says “Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-executing, and that Congress alone is empowered to pass any enabling legislation.”