you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 2 years ago (19 children)
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says "Congress shall have power...", not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state's normal constitutional right to run it's elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.

    The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we've been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (15 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.

    Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government

    …or so they argue

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don't make sense anymore? Cool. Let's do gun control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    The Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." SCOTUS isn't ignoring the Constitution for once.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    I couldn't find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.

    But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their "documents" case for more than 2 years now and it didn't work, they couldn't make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.

    In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Notice I said confederate not conservative

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.

    Someone give you shit about it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment