I'll just add the following. No legal scholar and not a constitutional lawyer.
During the livestream, I believe it was Judge Alito who asked The State of Colorado lawyer what would happen if they sided with Colorado and what would prevent another state let's say Texas from taking Biden off the ballot due to an indictment where he was not convicted. What would prevent other states from doing tit for tat? CO lawyer basically said just have faith that lawmakers will do the right thing. For which Alito basically said well that's what said was about presidential impeachments, now look how there are more occurring impeachment proceedings being debated. Listening to the whole livestream, I could tell from all the judges Colorado was not going anywhere with their legal arguments. In short, the capitalist class does *not *want instability. Erik On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:01 AM Les Schaffer <[email protected]> wrote: > relevant snippets from the liberal threesome's Opinion: > > > In this case, the Court must decide whether Colo- > rado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the > ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus > disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of > the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so > would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, > at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is > enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. > > ... > > The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a > few States could decide the Nation’s next President would > be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Re- > construction Amendments “were specifically designed as an > expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sover- > eignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179 > (1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution > placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose > its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for > Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may > hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongru- > ous to read this particular Amendment as granting the > States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candi- > date for federal office”). > > ... > > Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth > Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives > Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appro- > priate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, how- > ever, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments > (including the due process and equal protection guarantees > and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning > that they do not depend on legislation. > > ... > > Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role > in our democracy. The American people have the power to > vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is > a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and rati- > fied the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed > an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. > They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in > that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, > could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority > goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section > 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming > President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce > Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to > define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. > Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur > only in the judgment. > > i'm no legal scholar but the threesome sound like they are saying either: > 1.) there was a better legal way to attempt to remove Trump from the > ballot, or 2.) Congressional legislation could make it so. anyone better > understand the threesome? > > Les > > > On 3/5/24 9:54 AM, David Walters wrote: > > The problem is this. The 14th Amendment is a Reconstruction era U.S. > Constitutional amendment that is *flawed*. Designed to prevent the > defeated Confederate officer corp and slavocracy from running in the > elections, it was never intended to go seriously beyond that as another > Civil War was never considered. What we are talking about is Section 3 of > the Amendment: > > 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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an > oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as > a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer > of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have > engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or > comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of > each House, remove such disability. > > At no place does it indicate HOW some one is considered to have committed > or engaged in insurrection or rebellion. There simply is no mechanism to > charge someone with violation of this Section. No court or panel is > mentioned. Thus it is left hanging. As Trump was never convicted of > rebellion (he is under indictment for this), he really can't be kept off > the ballot. It would be politically suicidal for the Democrats if he was > kept off the ballot and, indeed, it would also set a somewhat bad > capitalist-electoral precedent if he was. > > David > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#29268): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/29268 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104733450/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
