Congress will be log-jammed by the 2nd Amendment against the 14th.
'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Then 'infringing' could be convicting those who fought at the Battle of the 6th of the rebel / president.

wombatwoody wrote on Mar 6^th, 2024 at 11:07pm:

That wasn't their basis. They gave a judicial ruling on the hypothetical question. It allows a ruling on the question:
Can Kamala Harris, a Federal officer, be served an injunction preventing her from declaring Trump as pres on January 6, 2025 on the grounds of insurrection. Courts are very happy to jump into the 2nd Amend on gun rights.

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 8:30am:


Yes and correct as well.

The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section.

The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly.

This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 9:42am:

Except there was no insurrection.

And the SCOTUS ruling is simply saying that it is not for the States to determine who runs for Federal office. It's a pretty basic pinciple of any Federation.

Not complicated, not even for a duck llike you.

Federal Election Commission.


Quote:

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 10:20am:


Really?

That's funny.

When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this:

(4) that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6;

(5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and

(6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

It is now up to the people to do the work that the supreme court were too chicken shite to do.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 11:25am:


You are either very stupid or very dishonest, slimey turd. I am tipping both. You idiotically/dishonestly try to present the Colorado Supreme Court's take with the SCOTUS's reversal of that take.

THe FULL QUOTE, you dishonest, lying, slimey turd, is this:

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court’s operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding
(1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach;
(3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility;
(4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6;
(5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and
(6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

The Colorado Supreme Court accordingly ordered Secretary Griswold not to “list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot” or “count any write-in votes cast for him.” Id., at 114a. Chief Justice Boatright and Justices Samour and Berkenkotter each filed dissenting opinions. Id., at 115a–124a, 125a–161a, 162a–183a.
Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a.

We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse.

p 3-4 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Now I have to go and wash my hands after interacting with you, repulsive liar.