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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ExtremelyWokeMatt

(161 posts)
24. She has full discretion as it is undefined.
Tue Dec 13, 2022, 05:20 PM
Dec 2022

Previous articles take over there probably, about them having discretion to set the guiding principles/rules in doing their business.

Per the document:


Implementation

It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it. Courts have produced mixed results on this question. Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress “to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” There might be multiple ways Congress could enforce the Disqualification Clause, including relying on federal criminal prosecution for insurrection and treason, allowing private civil enforcement through writs of quo warranto or other procedures, enacting new legislation establishing general procedures for adjudicating disqualification under Section 3 or for identifying specific disqualified individuals, or unicameral measures by the House or Senate to exclude or expel individuals from their respective houses.”

“An exclusion occurs when either the House or Senate refuses to seat a Member-elect. That power derives from the Constitution’s charge that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” and may be achieved by the vote of a simple majority. An expulsion, on the other hand, occurs when either chamber removes one of its current Members.” (Read: may, this is one option)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Nancy is still Speaker. ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #1
I was thinking that all of those that planned or participated or supported lapfog_1 Dec 2022 #2
Not sure about Gitmo, but ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #4
She is still speaker, but she doesn't have the dictatorial powers you imagine. tritsofme Dec 2022 #7
Which is why, following Article 1, I included Chuck Schumer and 'etc' ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #10
She can't expel members in the new Congress, or "void" their elections. tritsofme Dec 2022 #12
According to what? ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #14
The Constitution. What in the world are you talking about? tritsofme Dec 2022 #15
Read this please, there are acts overriding that ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #18
Nowhere does it say it that today's Congress can bind the incoming one. tritsofme Dec 2022 #20
That's literally what that clause says ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #21
So how do you suppose the outgoing speaker imposes her decision here? tritsofme Dec 2022 #23
She has full discretion as it is undefined. ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #24
So you're saying the outgoing speaker has no role in the process? tritsofme Dec 2022 #26
If it is self enforcing ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #27
So the new speaker (whenever they find one) could just sign a writ reversing hers? tritsofme Dec 2022 #28
You're asking me to support the seating of insurrectionist Republicans? ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #29
Where did I ask you to support a Republican? tritsofme Dec 2022 #31
You asked if a new speaker (which would have to be republican to want to reverse that writ)... ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #32
How do you conflate a hypothetical scenario with asking you to support a Republican? tritsofme Dec 2022 #33
Touchy ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #34
Thank you for the definition? As I said, your own source says it is unclear tritsofme Dec 2022 #35
Because there has been no investigation linking them to insurgency or insurrection? ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #37
A lot of people here really need a Civics refresher. brooklynite Dec 2022 #16
Correct for ordinary expulsion, but ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #17
And again, none of them have been accused of insurrection (other than by the blogosphere)... brooklynite Dec 2022 #19
Yet. ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #22
Also ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 2022 #25
Nailed it republianmushroom Dec 2022 #3
The reason for expulsion is not true ColinC Dec 2022 #5
Thank you for correcting disinformation. Just A Box Of Rain Dec 2022 #8
Adding my thanks Hekate Dec 2022 #9
THANKS for putting out the correct info. 👍 nt Raine Dec 2022 #13
Twitter strikes again sarisataka Dec 2022 #6
Just like Lincoln said ... lpbk2713 Dec 2022 #11
We had a civil war about this IronLionZion Dec 2022 #30
Marjorie Greene is still a representative. Initech Dec 2022 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"seems like a good day to...»Reply #24