When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate. Neither Manchin nor Sinema would have voted to abolish the filibuster and they had no path to 60 votes for anything against Trump.
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
55 points (85.7% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2749 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is really the issue. Republicans are kind of die-hard party voters in Congress. The Dems had a few turds in the punchbowl who wouldn't do the right thing.
We're in a world now where there's no path to 60 votes ever again on any issue that isn't "Killing dogs is bad."
That position sounds anti-law enforcement.
Literally would make most police actions illegal and there's no way Uncle Joe would sign it.
"Killing dogs is bad."
I mean, you just lost Mitt Romney's vote with that one
And the Huckabee clan.
It's natural that disqualification under 14A should be a federal question, but it's nonsensical that SCOTUS would require Congress to enforce the Constitution. That was not predictable.
What the Dems did do when they had the House was impeach Trump for insurrection. If the Senate had done their job by convicting him, then, in the second phase of impeachment, he would have been barred for office for life. But, led by McConnell, they voted to let him be president again.
Who should enforce it then? Seems like exactly the sort of thing a court wouldn’t want to touch so as not to look too political, no?
Unless there’s no way around the fact that the 14th effectively creates a “constitutional crime” within federal courts’ jurisdiction that can be pardoned by a congress super majority, which would have been my intuitive reading.
14a5 clearly states:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It’s a bit of a technicality, while trump is ineligible to be POTUS or anything else; it remains congress’s job to enforce that ineligibility
Think of a DWI- you’re not allowed to drive drunk but if cops or somebody weren’t going around watching for it, the law would be meaningless.
Section five means, as far as the rest of the 14th is concerned, congress are the proverbial cops.
Which, if you think about, makes it so that elected people are in the power of enforcement, compared to SCROTUS who are appointed for life, and obviously don’t reflect the direct will of the people.
All of that said? I disagree that states don’t have the right to control who’s on the ballot.
In some regards they already are making those decisions- you can’t just go put your name in the hat. As an example of stated making that determination; you have, for example, citizenship being considered.
Edit: it should also be noted that while the “states don’t have that authority” was unanimously decided, the liberal justices and Barrett disagreed with the rest of it, saying the majority opinion went too far.
So let's review. Congress has to impeach someone and the Senate dismiss them.
Congress can not impeach someone who is not holding a federal job.
Therefore any president who attempts to steal the election is immune to prosecution unless they run again later and get re-elected and therefore are now eligible to be impeached and dismissed?
What am I missing
You’re arguing something that is fundamentally not relevant.
Sorry. That’s not what the SCROTUS decision is about.
Stop it. You sound like a republican.
Edit: they are saying a “specific act”. I’m not sure what they envision it detailing, but it’s not a full impeachment. If you view victor berger’s unseating as a result of his espionage conviction (which is really the only procedural precedent we’ve got,) then that’s a simple majority vote.
This is worse than I thought (I’m basing it off reading the actual ruling unfortunately my eyes must have glazed over, and I’m not all the way through-)
End edit:
The scotus decision basically just says that Colorado can’t enforce the 14th on federal employees.
Their reasoning, if I understood it right is that:
- the amendment specifically says the onus is US congress, and doesn’t specifically delegate powers to the state governments
- the matter of elections are merely delegated to states, implying they’re never given explicit authority to find some one ineligible or otherwise. (Though, nobody who is too young is allowed on the ballot. Nor citizenship status,)
- it would be “messy” to allow states to enforce it, since they’re likely to come to different decisions.
They explicitly shied away from making a decision on that. (Probably since we all fucking saw it live on Jan 6.)
That clause is at the very end of the 14th amendment, section 5, and they are cherry picking, this is extra power for congress if they want to make additional laws to help enforce it. However the 14th amendment has four sections prior to this (not just the section on insurrectionists) and these are often enforced even without specific additional laws, such as equal protection, through the courts. Sure congress can make specific laws helping to enforce equal protection, but they don't have to, you could always sue in the court if your constitutional rights were violated.
The clause about congress may make laws is also included in other portions of the constitution. The reason it's added is without it, it might be unclear if federal congress would be able to make any additional law pertaining to this beyond what is already written in the amendment, due to the tenth amendment which states that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government fall to the states. This reasoning is present in the still recorded debates to get the amendment passed in the first place, when someone brought up is it necessary to even add that clause at the end. So if say congress wants to make more laws to help protect voting rights (also protected in the 14th amendment), they now have the power to do so and can cite that clause for why they are able to make this law under the constitution, but what is already written in the amendment does not vanish without more laws, it's nonsensical.
The liberal justices argue (correctly imo) that limiting just this portion of the amendment to be non active at all unless congress makes a specific law makes no sense, is not how it was used historically, and goes too far. The conservative justices are willfully misreading this to try and shut off any potential route to using the 14th amendment as intended here, such as through the federal courts.
Your argument (and the conservatives on the supreme court) would be saying because of this clause the entire fourteenth amendment, sections 1 through 4, (and any other part of the constitution that uses this language, including the thirteenth amendment banning slavery) are totally inactive unless congress decides to make a specific law about it. So no ability to sue for violation of equal protection? No protection of voting rights unless congress decides to make a law about it? No ban on slavery if congress doesn't get around to passing something? What kind of constitutional protection is that, if it can just be stripped away simply by congressional inaction? And how does that make any sense when for this specific clause it goes out of its way to say a 2/3rds majority of congress is needed to override it? The conservatives arugment effectively totally nullifies this and makes it a simple majority to over ride it.
There's no reason to isolate just this portion of the amendment, and say this part is inactive without a specific law, unless they're a partisan hack like most of the supreme court, trying to provide cover for individuals who made an attempted coup. Or more lazily just side stepping the responsibilities of the court. Even Barrett thought the other conservative justices were going too far.
It’s a bit of a technicality, while trump is ineligible to be POTUS or anything else; it remains congress’s job to enforce that ineligibility
And luckily for Trump, Democrats would rather let him be installed as dictator than get rid of the fucking filibuster that they use as an excuse to break campaign promises.
or, you know, just hear me out. have him hanged for an insurrectionist traitor.
But he's rich and that sounds like consequences.
Good point.
We need a guillotine. And maybe a few pitchforks and torches.
Sorry, just read 14A, sec 5:
> The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The decision seems pretty predictable to me then.
In fact it seems that this was never going anywhere and that the provisions are actually pretty weak. If an insurrectionist is popular enough to be a plausible presidential candidate, then they’re not unlikely to have significant support in congress.
Sorry, but what part of section 5 prohibits any other enforcement? It just means federal laws aimed at preserving the other sections are constitutional.
Not at all. The rest of the 14th Amendment is all self-executing. E.g. if your right to due process has been violated, you can sue, without needing Congress to pass a law that specifically protects you. As the 4-justice SCOTUS minority said, it doesn't make sense to require legislation for just this one section.
Anyway, if the Dem-controlled House had passed a bill declaring Trump ineligible for office, Senate Republicans would have filibustered it. So it's a moot point.
dems missing an opportunity to do something? now theres a new thing. /s
@maegul @politics Congress couldn’t do anything after January 6th, because that would be an ex post facto law which is forbidden by the Constitution. You could maybe fault the Justice Department for not charging him under the one specific law ( 18 U.S.C. § 2383 ) which apparently works to disqualify under this ruling. Of course, if the facts were different they would have divined some other interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Is it not a timing issue ?
Would it not be more difficult to make this ruling, if he were already convicted of insurrection?
If he were already convicted of insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection he would be disqualified already.
18 U.S. Code § 2383
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Unfortunately Trump was never charged with this by Jack Smith. He's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, and obstruction/attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.
I'd argue that the statutory authority for 14a3 is separate and independent from the authority set forth in Sec. 2383, and that if Congress sua sponte votes to ban him or not would it be equally as valid as if it happened after a criminal proceeding driven by the justice department. If I'm wrong then all Trump has to do is keep appealing to the SCOTUS that he bought and paid for and then all of us are just wasting time here.