Silly me.

I actually amended my OP to address that point. If you refresh, you can see it.

Why tout it if we don't follow it? And I agree with the OP, the three liberal justices seem to be bullied by the 3 maga ts.

Where's the strong descent? Where?

However, I sure wouldn't have griped if trump had been removed from ballot.

So, based on that reasoning...since there are no longer any Confederates running for office...wouldn't it make sense for article 3 to be revoked?


Each amendment should be checked over, and anything that has no bearing on the current century, tossed out since it may no longer be relevant!

. . . how to craft language that would apply solely to Confederates from the Civil War. The fact that they did not do so says to me that their intent was aimed both at Confederates and at future insurrectionists.

. . . that says that the 14th Amendment applies only to Civil War Confederates.

So's the 13th!

Jesus.

It's your framing that makes no sense.

Since they could have been killed that day, they should have been awaiting this opportunity. But their cowardice to the Insurrectionists once again appeared.
PROTECT AMERICA, NOT TRUMP!

what the constitution actually says. As soon as that starts to happen, we're going to see a reckoning take place that is past due for this court.

Red states are ALREADY ignoring supreme court rulings. Once the blue and purple states start ignoring the courts, we will see some changes. It might come as a shock if the actual sane people do it, because "it's okay if you're a republican". Let's catch some hair on fire and see what happens.

Because that’s the kind of anarchy you’re advocating.

Point taken.

But, on edit: hasn't the supreme court ALREADY taken the 14th amendment and thrown out the intent? I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But we're already dealing with a court that has no regard for the intent of the laws that are on the books.

Their authority is derived from congress/federal government.

And I agree. But this court is, in my humble opinion, throwing out everything the constitution was supposed to stand for, even, and maybe especially, the right for extremists to form their own militias. (2nd amndmnt).

Citizens United happened even BEFORE the dreaded trio that republicans pushed through for trump (and the Federalist society, and the Heritage Foundation, well, and all the oligarchs). Destruction of the voting rights act, one rung of the ladder at a time. Dobbs, taking away right to privacy of your own body and health. Now about to decide whether any (ANY!!) of the regulatory agencies have a right to exist to protect we, the people, from dirty air, water, dangers on the job.

Do you not agree, Fiendish Thingy, that they are already bastardizing whichever parts of the constitution that don't suit their extremist agenda?

But sometimes they get things right.

This was one of those times. Ruling against immunity will be another.

States can just ignore any decision their governors or legislatures don’t agree with? Why do we even have a federal government? We might as well break into independent sovereign countries, put together something like the EU with no bothersome overarching government. How does that sound?

seems questionable and ill-conceived.

Congress has passed laws saying if you are convicted of insurrection (and, IIRC, a few other crimes) you cannot hold federal office.

The end of Section 3 "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." There is no reason for this to be here if Congress were intended to have the sole authority of ineligibility.


The very short section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress would be enforcing this provision by not removing it by a 2/3rds majority. A Congress isn't going to declare a Candidate ineligible and then the same Congress also declare a candidate eligible within the same election cycle.

Based on the wording:

And congress already exercised that authority by including a clause in the statute for the crime of insurrection, which prohibits someone convicted of that crime from holding federal office.

But there is still the question in your scenario of how you separate ballot access from political hardball.