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

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

brush

(55,426 posts)
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 03:01 PM Mar 2024

On SCOTUS ruling that Colorado, a state, doesn't have the authority to take trump off its ballot. [View all]

I don't like it but that is correct. The 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 is self-executing. It says insurrectionists are not eligible for any government office.
Period. Plain and simple. There should be no question about it. It reads as follows:

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 ...
Why have a Constitution if we don't follow it?

And when you think about it, IMO, SCOTUS is of course wrong again, it's not up to Congress either, or SCOTUS. Again, the 14A, Sec 3 is self-executing.

It should be enforceed, insurrectionists are not eligible in all states as the amendment reads.

SCOTUS is right in one respect, we can't have a president who is not recognized as president in some states and not others.

49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boy I'll bet the states' rights people will be all over this. Permanut Mar 2024 #1
Absolutely, the Supreme Court punted. gab13by13 Mar 2024 #2
They ran off the field and hid triron Mar 2024 #6
But the state has the authority to make it hard, even impossible, for people to vote. patphil Mar 2024 #3
the crooks, i mean republicans on the court samsingh Mar 2024 #4
Thank you. Refreshing to hear someone else say this. triron Mar 2024 #5
9-0 is hard to argue with. Silent Type Mar 2024 #7
6 assholes and 3 chickenshits. triron Mar 2024 #8
Yep, I hope the 3 aren't allowing themselves to be bullied. brush Mar 2024 #10
What's even harder to argue with is the amendment. brush Mar 2024 #9
I thought Tribe and Luttig were way off the mark when they started this. Luttig is difficult to listen to, as well. Silent Type Mar 2024 #12
'see post 32. brush Mar 2024 #34
OK. So you would have made it 9 to 1. Silent Type Mar 2024 #36
You're misunderstanding. SCOTUS was right in ruling a state, brush Mar 2024 #37
If it's self-executing, then citizens of all stripes should be able to challenge tRUMP's eligibility on any state SWBTATTReg Mar 2024 #26
What makes an insurrectionist an insurrectionist? Polybius Mar 2024 #39
Do you think Section 5 came into play. SYFROYH Mar 2024 #11
Good question. brush Mar 2024 #15
The right is for states' rights except when they're not Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2024 #13
Wouldn't the opposite be true too with some? Polybius Mar 2024 #40
How do you respond to the liberal justices' argument that the amendment limits state's power, not expands it? mathematic Mar 2024 #14
IMO SCOTUS got one thing right, that a state, any state, doesn't have the authority to not allow a candidate... brush Mar 2024 #18
If the position is... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #29
So who decides if Trump was guilty of insurrection ripcord Mar 2024 #16
Ahhhhh...do you not believe your lying eyes? We all watched it on TV. brush Mar 2024 #17
So in all court cases if we have video we don't need a trial? ripcord Mar 2024 #19
IMO the 14A Sec. 3 is correct. Insurrectionist are not eligible. brush Mar 2024 #20
True as that is, he hasn't been tried and convicted for that or any other actions related to January 6. Jedi Guy Mar 2024 #21
I agree with Judge Luttig and others that it's self-executing. brush Mar 2024 #23
Okay. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, even if it isn't true. N/T Jedi Guy Mar 2024 #25
See post 32. brush Mar 2024 #33
Under our system of justice you have to have a trial. totodeinhere Mar 2024 #27
Not according to the wording of Sec.3 of the 14A. brush Mar 2024 #32
Yes I have heard the interpretation that you are mentioning. totodeinhere Mar 2024 #35
Does this mean states can't disqualified candidates running for state or any lower office? LiberalFighter Mar 2024 #22
14A Sec. 3 says yes, no office in any state...and no military officers either. brush Mar 2024 #24
In its ruling the Supreme Court did say that states do totodeinhere Mar 2024 #28
Which is a reasonable ruling pinkstarburst Mar 2024 #30
Agreed.. n/t totodeinhere Mar 2024 #31
not really a good argument for letting an actual traitor back into office. Basically a strawman argument. Blues Heron Mar 2024 #47
And yet, states routinely disallow people from appearing on the ballot Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2024 #38
That isn't the states keeping someone off the ballot ripcord Mar 2024 #41
The federal government is only involved via the U.S. Constitution Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2024 #42
The Court ruling has to do with the 14th amendment. totodeinhere Mar 2024 #43
The 14th Amendment specifies a qualifier, just as Articles I, II, Am XXII. Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2024 #45
You are leaving off Sec. 5 former9thward Mar 2024 #44
Sec. 5 also says that the State, meaning the United States... brush Mar 2024 #46
The amendment does not prevent people from running for office. It prevents people from holding office LeftInTX Mar 2024 #48
Ineligible? brush Mar 2024 #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On SCOTUS ruling that Col...