639
I mean come on! Like, sure ok then, please go on ahead.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
639 points (98.6% liked)
Political Memes
5241 readers
2178 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
SCOTUS would have to rule that States can not hold their own elections which would violate the Consitution. Odds are they won't hear the case.
Can't they just reinterpret the insurrection clause? That has no besring on states holding their own elections.
Most clauses are pretty legalize, but Congress wrote the 14th Amendment in plain English.
And amendments supercede all preceding verbiage in the constitution. The only way out of being disqualified by the 14th is to have congress vote on it as provided for in the amendment.
I agree with your sentiment, it seems like clear language to me. Unfortunately a lower court in Colorado had already interpreted the presidency as not "being an officer of the United States". SCOTUS could easily just uphold that previous ruling while not weighing into a states election laws. (I think IANAL)
I disagree slightly. It doesn't specify that the president is included under "officers", but that would be the most reasonable interpretation by far.
There's no way, when it was written, they were leaving a loophole for Jefferson Davis to run for president!
SCOTUS these days can and will make up whatveer the fuck rationalization they want to justify any decision, and then tagline it with "but this only applies to this one specific scenario" to keep from locking themselves out of ruling the opposite way next time.
Last year (or earlier this year?) they ruled on a case where the event that triggered the suit was literally made up and never happened, and everyone knew it.
No, all they have to do is say that the POTUS is not an "Officer" therefore loophole for exactly one person in history.
They've nearly done it before with the 2000 election.
they'll figure out some way to make it a "compelled speech" issue that violates the first amendment.