Poll: Who has enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

[Curried Goats]

Once again Moron, they gave nothing to Congress.

Go get educated.

Holy shit you are thick.

They did. Feel free to cry about it.

 

[Nostra]

They did. Feel free to cry about it.

How, stupid? The power is already spelled out in Section 5.

What a clown.

 

[Curried Goats]

How, stupid? The power is already spelled out in Section 5.

What a clown.

So what did we need SCOTUS for?

 

[para bellum]

The entire Colorado ruling was before them, they could of addressed whatever issues with the ruling they wanted, they chose to only decide on who has the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot. Why are you MAGAts so emotionally soft that you can't accept that courts all around the country, after hearing testimony and seeing evidence, concluded Trump was an insurrectionist? That's not even as bad to me as jury finding him to be a sexually assaulter.

"We 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?”

 

[BS Filter]

So what did we need SCOTUS for?

To slap you silly with a 9-0 decision so there is no question. You really are a dumb ass.

 

[Nostra]

So what did we need SCOTUS for?

To bitchslap your out of control Dimtard hack judges and politicians, Moron.

Man, you are think.

 

[Curried Goats]

"We 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?”

Right, that's what Trump's side wanted them to focus on and the granted that request. They were asked by the other side to address the matter of insurrection and determine once and for all where Trump was an insurrectionist. They denied that. They could of chosen to but they decided not to. What is still confusing you?

 

[Curried Goats]

To bitchslap your out of control Dimtard hack judges and politicians, Moron.

Man, you are think.

The court gave the power to politicians, moron. Politicians now have the power to disqualify Trump.

 

[BS Filter]

Right, that's what Trump's side wanted them to focus on and the granted that request. They were asked by the other side to address the matter of insurrection and determine once and for all where Trump was an insurrectionist. They denied that. They could of chosen to but they decided not to. What is still confusing you?

Wrong. The Trump team wanted to get on the Colorado ballot. The Supreme Court said in their decision only congress can keep him off. Article 5. Read it.

 

[BS Filter]

The court gave the power to politicians, moron. Politicians now have the power to disqualify Trump.

Congress, not the states. Read it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong. The Trump team wanted to get on the Colorado ballot. The Supreme Court said in their decision only congress can keep him off. Article 5. Read it.

That... doesn't dispute anything I said....

Congress, not the states. Read it.

And the people in Congress are politicians.... yes...?

 

[BS Filter]

That... doesn't dispute anything I said....

And the people in Congress are politicians.... yes...?

It doesn't say politicians. It's specific. If it said politicians then the Mayor of Loopyville could ban Trump from the ballot. You're an idiot.

 

[para bellum]

Right, that's what Trump's side wanted them to focus on and the granted that request. They were asked by the other side to address the matter of insurrection and determine once and for all where Trump was an insurrectionist. They denied that. They could of chosen to but they decided not to. What is still confusing you?

Show me that petition and the denial. There is nothing in the decision that references your claim.

Insurrection is a Federal offense, and State courts have no jurisdiction over Federal crimes.

If you are so confident that it was an insurrection, why hasn't Trump been charged in a Federal Court with the crime?

 

[Nostra]

The court gave the power to politicians, moron. Politicians now have the power to disqualify Trump.

For about the tenth time…….Congress already had the power, Dumbass.

Read the OP for your education., Concentrate on Section 5. I don’t want to overload your pea brain.

 

[Nostra]

Wrong. The Trump team wanted to get on the Colorado ballot. The Supreme Court said in their decision only congress can keep him off. Article 5. Read it.

He is incapable of rational thought,

 

[DGS49]

I fear that most Americans do not understand how the Federal court system works with respect to the Constitutionality of a law.

The Supreme Court CAN NOT just look at a new law, review it, and pronounce it OK or otherwise. They can only deal with actual CASES and CONTROVERSIES. That is to say, if a law is problematic, what must happen is that someone has to be HARMED by the law or be CONVICTED under it. Then they can take it to court and appeal it. They lose the court case, they lose the appeal, it goes to one of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and lose there. Then the USSC has to agree to take the case. Usually, they don't. This process normally takes YEARS.

The USSC gives much leeway to Congress and the President, and if a law or prosecution can be understood in a way that comes within Constitutional standards, even if that understanding is not obvious, the court will probably let it slide.

So it is very difficult to get even a blatantly unconstitutional law overturned, and often only a tiny section of it will be impacted and the remainder will be in force.

A good example of how it works was the original Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). It included a mandate that everyone buy health insurance, and imposed a PENALTY (a thousand bucks or so, as I recall) if they refuse to get insurance. Well, there is nothing the Constitution that allows Congress to compel citizens to buy health insurance (NOTE: A STATE could do that, but Congress has no such power).

So they argued before the Supreme Court, with the Administration saying, "WE damn well CAN penalize people for not buying insurance," and the opponents of the law saying basically, Bullshit.

The Court found that Congress HAD NO POWER TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE, BUT, they certainly had the power to impose a tax. So they deemed the "penalty" to be a tax, and let the law slide.

Ultimately, a Republican Congress reduced the TAX/PENALTY to zero, so it's no longer an issue.

 

[jbander]

I fear that most Americans do not understand how the Federal court system works with respect to the Constitutionality of a law.

The Supreme Court CAN NOT just look at a new law, review it, and pronounce it OK or otherwise. They can only deal with actual CASES and CONTROVERSIES. That is to say, if a law is problematic, what must happen is that someone has to be HARMED by the law or be CONVICTED under it. Then they can take it to court and appeal it. They lose the court case, they lose the appeal, it goes to one of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and lose there. Then the USSC has to agree to take the case. Usually, they don't. This process normally takes YEARS.

The USSC gives much leeway to Congress and the President, and if a law or prosecution can be understood in a way that comes within Constitutional standards, even if that understanding is not obvious, the court will probably let it slide.

So it is very difficult to get even a blatantly unconstitutional law overturned, and often only a tiny section of it will be impacted and the remainder will be in force.

A good example of how it works was the original Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). It included a mandate that everyone buy health insurance, and imposed a PENALTY (a thousand bucks or so, as I recall) if they refuse to get insurance. Well, there is nothing the Constitution that allows Congress to compel citizens to buy health insurance (NOTE: A STATE could do that, but Congress has no such power).

So they argued before the Supreme Court, with the Administration saying, "WE damn well CAN penalize people for not buying insurance," and the opponents of the law saying basically, Bullshit.

The Court found that Congress HAD NO POWER TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE, BUT, they certainly had the power to impose a tax. So they deemed the "penalty" to be a tax, and let the law slide.

Ultimately, a Republican Congress reduced the TAX/PENALTY to zero, so it's no longer an issue.

Ya only because one of the most supported bill in our country had the name of a Democrat on it and the worst part was that he was a black American named Obama. Automatic right wing hatred.

 

[struth]

So what did we need SCOTUS for?

to tell the demafascist running certain states they can't keep people from voting for the person they want

 

[para bellum]

I just finished reading the 154 pages of the oral arguments, and it's pretty entertaining. I am actually kind of impressed with the liberal justices, they were on point with their questions.

The answer to this:

"They were asked by the other side to address the matter of insurrection and determine once and for all where Trump was an insurrectionist. They denied that. They could of chosen to but they decided not to."

can be found in the transcript.

The short answer is that the SCOTUS would have to do a de novo retry of the case, meaning start over from scratch, with no consideration of any of the finding of fact in Colorado.

There is no uniformity of process from State to State in election law, which is what this case was brought under in Colorado. For a finding that has Federal election consequences to apply to all 50 States, it has to come from a Federal court.

The reason Trump's lawyers didn't develop their case on due process was because it would only win them in Colorado. Winning it on jurisdiction wins it in every State.

The court was not impressed with Colorado and obviously did not think Trump received due process. Even the liberal justices struggled trying to find something to agree with Colorado, the entire case was such a farce.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Redheaded Stranger]

Nope. Trump would be the elected head of the Executive Branch, if the House passed the 14th barring Trump from holding office, and he refused to leave, the House has no enforcement mechanism. That may be why we all said that the president is excluded from the 14th...

wrong