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

Editorials & Other Articles

Raven123

(7,857 posts)

13. I agree this could become a tit for tat feud

Reply to Gaugamela (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 05:58 PM

Dec 2023

SCOTUS has it’s hands full on this one. Just not sure one can argue the 14th doesn’t apply to POTUS and VP. I could see the tit-for-tat discussion playing into a decision regarding how the Amendment is implemented. What a complicated issue. Hope we get to hear the oral arguments live. Interesting times we live in!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lessig: The Supreme Court Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump's Ballot Removal [View all] Gaugamela Dec 2023 OP

The 14th Amendment MANDATES that states bear that cost..... lastlib Dec 2023 #1

According to Lessig, that mandate doesn't include POTUS/VP for the reasons stated. Gaugamela Dec 2023 #7

Yes, Biden didn't engage in a insurrection to prevent the transfer of power to himself. brush Dec 2023 #11

Any other area that Mr. Lessig would like to see us simply give up and ignore the constitutional hlthe2b Dec 2023 #2

Lessig is making a reasoned argument regarding a specific part of one amendment. He's not Gaugamela Dec 2023 #8

Obviously, you don't... hlthe2b Dec 2023 #9

What a crock NoRethugFriends Dec 2023 #3

This is an opinion piece by a Harvard Law constitutional scholar. Your comments don't address Gaugamela Dec 2023 #6

Picking and choosing, you say? I note you do NOT quote Laurence Tribe who does not hlthe2b Dec 2023 #10

Maybe POTUS and VP were included intentionally Raven123 Dec 2023 #4

They were included and then excluded, presumably because of a process of reasoning and Gaugamela Dec 2023 #5

PRESUMABLY Xoan Dec 2023 #12

I agree this could become a tit for tat feud Raven123 Dec 2023 #13

Lessig fears a civil war mymomwasright Dec 2023 #14

Merely defeating him may well trigger violence or the ultimate civil war. We have precedence hlthe2b Dec 2023 #15

There isn't going to be a Civil War. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17

I used to think they were a bunch of all-talk blowhards. shrike3 Dec 2023 #19

Nothing has really changed - most of them still are. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #20

If the constitution is followed there is no tit for tat mymomwasright Dec 2023 #16

Reciprocation is a moot point. lees1975 Dec 2023 #18