146
submitted 8 months ago by neuracnu to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago

Hm. So I'm guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don't seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.

[-] ira@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago

That's certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren't laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn't a new precedent by any stretch.

Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So does XIII, section 2

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And XV, section 2

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So there it is right there.

Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don't know what I don't know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But "unprecedented" isn't one of them, it seems.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

There are mountains of case history on the other amendments. This one is truly new.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

That doesn't mean Congress needs to define it before it's actionable.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

Well, yeah, he's on team Naz...er Republican and can keep the tax breaks flowing to the top.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Mostly because it's not SCOTUS' job to make laws ... they're simply there to interpret what Congress has passed. Which is pretty much how high courts operate everywhere, including Canada, the UK, etc

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

The problem is SCOTUS rules with original intent as the prime basis, so any in-depth ruling would take a long time for them to deliver. Kavanaugh said as much when he questioned what the word "insurrection" actually means.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Which is stupid since the original Colorado ruling went into the definition of insurrection in excruciating, originalist-style detail.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 8 months ago

Well Bret, it’s nothing like playing quarters.

[-] irotsoma@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Cool, then let's put Ariana Greenblatt on the ballot and make them make a law on how to disqualify children.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
146 points (100.0% liked)

News

23215 readers
3208 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS