Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FBaggins

(26,789 posts)

6. He clarified it later

Reply to Upthevibe (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 14, 2021, 04:20 PM

Feb 2021

He's talking about changing existing law and passing legislation implementing 14A in a way that doesn't currently exist... not the speculated resolution or concurring resolution that you referred to above.

This would pretty certainly be unconstitutional (for the existing reasons plus now an ex post facto concern), but it would put the ball in Trump's court to challenge it - assuming that the Senate could get past a filibuster to pass it and Biden was willing to sign it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do we know why they didn't move forward with Article three (3) [View all] Upthevibe Feb 2021 OP

They Can't Without Conviction sfstaxprep Feb 2021 #1

Yes they can..... Upthevibe Feb 2021 #3

Trump already proved... FBaggins Feb 2021 #4

They lack the power to do so FBaggins Feb 2021 #2

This video from DU. Neal Katyal: 14th Amendment Upthevibe Feb 2021 #5

He clarified it later FBaggins Feb 2021 #6

He had a long discussion with Jonathan Capehart this morning about how to use the 14th Amendment csziggy Feb 2021 #7

csziggy.... Upthevibe Feb 2021 #8