309d
@moonbus saidJefferson Davis is a poor example; he was a Senator and House member before the Civil War and thus would plainly fall under the terms of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could N ...[text shortened]... ions.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
309d
@moonbus saidthe 14th doesn’t mention the president
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could N ...[text shortened]... ions.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
309d
@mott-the-hoople saidHow many times does the Constitution refer to the office of the President? By what reasonable construction would that NOT make him an "officer of the United States"?
the 14th doesn’t mention the president
I'd be surprised, though not shocked (this court is pretty lawless), if a majority accept the "President isn't an officer of the US" argument. Oral argument isn't always indicative of what the decision will be, but it looks like they're leaning more on consequentialist reasons (it would be "bad" if a single State could decide a Presidential election was tossed around) though how they'll read that back into the supposed intent of the 14th Amendment Framers will be interesting.
309d
@no1marauder saidWhy try to confuse? OK, it is true the president 'officiates', so yes, he must be an officer of some sort, so you take that tac and gom for it.
How many times does the Constitution refer to the office of the President? By what reasonable construction would that NOT make him an "officer of the United States"?
I'd be surprised, though not shocked (this court is pretty lawless), if a majority accept the "President isn't an officer of the US" argument. Oral argument isn't always indicative of what the decision wil ...[text shortened]... w they'll read that back into the supposed intent of the 14th Amendment Framers will be interesting.
But note that the framers don't say he is an officer, and seemingly wrote words that do not nearly imply that he is. After all, if some are made officers, but the pres is left out of that group......he is not. What is all this Gee-hawing about?
309d
@averagejoe1 saidWhy explicitly mention particular offices when the bar was to anyone who was an "officer of the United States"?
Why try to confuse? OK, it is true the president 'officiates', so yes, he must be an officer of some sort, so you take that tac and gom for it.
But note that the framers don't say he is an officer, and seemingly wrote words that do not nearly imply that he is. After all, if some are made officers, but the pres is left out of that group......he is not. What is all this Gee-hawing about?
No one has yet given a reasonable answer as to why the 14th Amendment Framers would exclude the President from the category of those banned from holding office IF he participated in an insurrection or rebellion. In the debate on the clause:
"It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?
"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.
Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.
"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364
309d
And it had been established for a long time that the President was an "officer of the United States". For example in the 1799 Postal Act:
"The relevant language of the 1799 Act on the subject of free postage for officers of the United States did include the president, however (bolding ours): “And be it further enacted, That letters and packets to and from the following officers of the United States, shall be received and conveyed by post, free of postage. Each postmaster, provided each of his letters or packets shall not exceed half an ounce in weight; each member of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States; the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of House of Representatives, provided each letter or packet shall not exceed two ounces in weight, and during their actual attendance in any session of Congress, and twenty days after such session; the President of the United States; Vice President; the Secretary of the Treasury,” and so on"
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/[WORD TOO LONG]/
309d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThis is too ridiculous to require rebuttal
A state by your logic cluld tell me that I cannot vote in a federal election.
Do your own homework:
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
309d
@no1marauder saidI picked Davis as an example of someone who fulfilled the criterion of having been an insurrectionist and who would have enjoyed great popularity in some states, after the war. I presume that his sort was exactly who was meant by the authors of the amendment in question.
Jefferson Davis is a poor example; he was a Senator and House member before the Civil War and thus would plainly fall under the terms of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
309d
@moonbus saidIt's a ridiculous notion that the 14th Amendment Framers would have meant to disqualify those who engaged in rebellion or insurrection from occupying the office of a local post master but would have been OK with the same individual being President of the United States.
I picked Davis as an example of someone who fulfilled the criterion of having been an insurrectionist and who would have enjoyed great popularity in some states, after the war. I presume that his sort was exactly who was meant by the authors of the amendment in question.
I still find it hard to believe that SCOTUS would rule that; they'll find some other excuse to keep Trump on the ballot.
309d
@moonbus saidYeah, I notice it has taken a SCOTUS hearing just to thresh out only one littel element of this conundrum, so I would consider my query to need at least as much consideration. They can take a man off a ballot? It would follow that they can decide a few more things on their to-do list, don't you think? Well, maybe you don't.
This is too ridiculous to require rebuttal
Do your own homework:
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
309d
@no1marauder saidSo you suggest that the court will make a political decision? Why would they, when they most certainly are not going to rule politically on the CO matter? We even got Sotomayor, for gosh sakes. A constitutionally based ruling.
.
I still find it hard to believe that SCOTUS would rule that; they'll find some other excuse to keep Trump on the ballot.
309d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidI realize right wing media is taking a victory lap and assuming that the SCOTUS will rule 9-0 at 8-1 or most but that's not how these things work. Questioning at oral argument doesn't necessarily translate to specific votes.
So you suggest that the court will make a political decision? Why would they, when they most certainly are not going to rule politically on the CO matter? We even got Sotomayor, for gosh sakes. A constitutionally based ruling.
We'll have to see what the court decides, how it votes and, more importantly, what their rationale is.