Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And the current SCOTUS is dangerously biased.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Federalist Society Scholars Say Trump is Disqualified From Office
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
The "originalists" have no issue ignoring the plain meaning and originating documentation if it suits their political ends.
The Imperial Supreme Court - Harvard Law Review
The past few years have marked the emergence of the imperial Supreme Court. Armed with a new, nearly bulletproof majority, conservative Justices on the...
harvardlawreview.org
On each of those axes, the Court’s recent opinions point in radically different directions. The Court has taken significant, simultaneous steps to restrict the power of Congress, the administrative state, the states, and the lower federal courts. And it has done so using a variety of (often contradictory) interpretative methodologies. The common denominator across multiple opinions in the last two years is that they concentrate power in one place: the Supreme Court.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Because they're an unhinged, ignorant, seditious lot who value cult over country. Intelligence, democracy, and rational political discourse are beyond their comprehension. The only good thing about that movement was it lets the rest of society know who and where they are.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
The only possible saving factor is some of the judges are aware SCOTUS is on extremely thin ice with the American people so they'll push to keep the partisan rats in check as any more corrupt stunts will have the country, figuratively speaking, calling for their heads. It'll be the stunt that ensures there's a massive push for imposed ethics, term/age limits, or at the least impeachments and a stacking of the Court (Article III, Section I).
That's a false generalization.
Perhaps you see only the originalists you disagree with?
One flavor of originalism (mine) is that original intent
is better than alternatives. And where there is ambiguity,
side with inferences that favor liberty (which itself is an
original intent).
I believe them. This bit in the constitution seems clear-cut. It is not an "Innocent until proven guilty" situation. He is 'Disabled' meaning unqualified. Trump is not qualified anymore than if he were under age or were not a citizen by birth.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
What the problem is the injustice system has been creating false illusions of cause and affect, starting with the Russian Collusion scam and coup.
If you recall, Trump was Impeached for trying to get Ukraine to look into the Biden Family Influence Peddling Business in Ukraine, since the USA were about to give them money and corruption was happening in Ukraine. This was turned upside down and make to look like Trump was guilty.
The House Investigative Committee has evidence that that impeachment was a smoke and mirrors coverup to protect the Influence Peddling Business of the Biden Family. This is based on IRS records of a large number of shell companies that were used tome money around.
Trump was impeached as part of a coverup. The real crooks have yet to see justice, but are still running a scam to escape justice. I am sure everyone has saw and heard the video of then VP Biden saying how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating the oligarch that the Biden family was being paid by. Trump was the scapegoat to cover up crimes. In the Russian collusion Obama and Biden spied on Trump in a worse way than Nixon did. While Hillary was influence peddling as Secretary of State and hired a Russian to write the fake dossier. The smoke and mirrors created a scapegoat.
The analogy is if a shady defense lawyer is able to get a crook off, is the crook innocent? If the defense lawyer gets a crook off, by framing an innocent person, is the crook innocent by the law? If the crook is in charge of the Justice Department and able to leverage the system to get other crooks off, does make them all innocent by the law?
The Jan 6 demonstrations can be seen in two ways. It was either a fight against crooks in office who were trying to cove rump crime and railroad innocent people, or crooks in office using optics to hide the truth. My guess is the Federalist Society has something to lose if Trump gets to run. Trump can use the justice system as a weapon also, since the Democrats have created a new legal game that they say is fair.
If Trump was to get in, and he does the same things to the crooks as was done to him, is it OK? Or will the dual standard now come in affect as the Democrats suddenly pretend to see the light?
His impeachment in the House is irrelevant, because he was never convicted in the Senate. As far as that goes it does not prevent him from running.
I watched the news while this was happening. These people attempted to stop the election certification, and Pres. Trump helped them try. He also pressured his VP to stop the certification. To be eligible for election he needs 2/3 of Congress in both houses to approve his application; because he gave aid to these people and because he behaved treasonously. It is a procedural matter.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wait what? He needs a 2/3 approval? I must have missed that. If true that would be good news. But you may be misinterpreting something, though I would be very happy to be shown to be wrong in this case.
I'm agreeing with the OP's interpretation of Section 3 of the 14 Amendment. The amendment declares he has a disability which makes him ineligible. It does not say "If he has been convicted." Its like he's under age or not a natural citizen. To run legally he needs Congress to make an exception for him. The second he became notorious for supporting a treasonous action this became a matter of clerical procedure. Any election official has the authority to exclude him without any legal repercussion against themselves.
And still, to enforce the 13th on this point, will require someone to file suit to remove him from the ballot, prevent him from taking office, and requiring Congress to take that vote. Any and all of these would then be appealed up to the Supreme Court, who would decide whether or not this provision of the 13th should be applied.
Until then, he is allowed to campaign, be on the ballot everywhere, and if elected, take office. You can say it's in violation of the 13th all you want, but until the SC rules it so, it is a provision with no teeth, a 'truth' with no consequence.
Until then, he is allowed to campaign, be on the ballot everywhere, and if elected, take office. You can say it's in violation of the 13th all you want, but until the SC rules it so, it is a provision with no teeth, a 'truth' with no consequence.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
The 'disability' referred to in the 14 amendment is not a medical disability, but his ineligibility based on participation in insurrection.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ah, if you keep this up, we should have a great corn crop next year.