• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    It says only Congress can reinstate him. It says nothing about Congress removing anyone from candidacy, because the “shall” language is self-executing.

    • frezik
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is from the main opinion:

      The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provi- sion is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “en- force” the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997). Or as Senator Howard put it at the time the Amendment was framed, Section 5 “casts upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it, for the future, that all the sections of the amendment are car- ried out in good faith.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2768

      So they say Congress needs to pass legislation to enforce this, and that is the only way to take Trump off the ballot.

      The concurring opinion from Sotomayor/Kagen/Jackson does not like this at all:

      Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amend- ment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other po- tential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnec- essarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yep. I read section 5 for myself. It’s a twisted way to read it that Congress is supposed to be the executor of the “shall” language in section 3, specifically through legislation. It just says Congress shall have the power to legislate the 14th Amendment. It does not say Congress shall legislate 14th amendment issues.

        But that’s kind of been their MO the whole time. “I don’t wanna rule, so I’ma hide behind Congress and say it’s their job.”

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It seems pretty straightforward to argue congress needs to create a mechanism to label someone as having engaged in insurrection. All judges agreed a single state making that determination using their own rules isn’t sufficient.

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I stand by what I said. They’re hiding behind Congress instead of making a decision. They didn’t seem to have a problem dusting off precedent from 150 years ago to make sweeping changes to how the country operates, before.

            But now, when it comes to actually defending the self-executing portions of the Constitution, it’s suddenly too hard, and it’s Congress’s job. Bunch of fucking cowards.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Weird how “shall” means something totally different in the 2nd amendment than anywhere else in the document…those wacky founders!