The minority's opinion on today's case is truly mindblowing.

All Justices agreed - the opinion was unanimous. Four justices had something to add.

No one said there needs to be "legislation to legislate the 14th".

What HAS been said is that Congress not the states is empowered to enforce Section 3 but it needs to specify, through legislation, HOW this will be done.

Or in other words, YES, it says in plain English that Congress shall enforce by legislation and THAT is the point - the point being that Congress has yet to pass the necessary legislation. Legislation that specifies HOW this will be done.

In short, Congress has the principle but not the procedure. There is no roadmap to follow. What is required is ONE piece of legislation that provides one.

 

Disqualification from candidacy or office is most certainly a civil penalty. And criminal convictions are not necessary in order to impose a civil penalty. Nor do civil penalties preclude criminal convictions. For a person can be held liable for a person's death and subject to civil penalty, even if acquitted of murder.

Again, no one made an "argument" - all concurred in the opinion, hence there was no "minority". Some had additional opinions but it would be wrong to characterize them as antagonistic. They were not, at all.

And again, no one was arguing for something that "already exists".

They expressed their concern that requiring Congress to pass legislation specifying the process of disqualification would limit or eliminate other methods of enforcement.

 

There is a roadmap, called the Department of Justice. Take it up with AG Garland as to why the DOJ did not pursue 2383 against Donald Trump.
(My guess, if he had to actually answer is that the DOJ couldn't find, throughout the course of its investigation a plot to rebel against the government.)

A plot to stay in power? Yes, but that is distinct from a rebellion against the government. It would have been an insurrection, if Biden had been seated as the 46th President and then they tried their stunt. But before, he's just a 'president-elect', which certain actors in Main Justice tried to argue was merely ceremonial(Flynn case)

They probably regret that position now, because it precludes it being an insurrection before the president-elect becomes President.

 

Disqualification is a civil penalty.

 

Dude your horse is dead. beating him at this point just makes you look deranged.

 

There is no legislation specifying how Congress applies Section 3.

 

Again the horse is dead you should probably quit beating him...

 

"Again"? You've only said that once, but I see you've said it to others. An inanity repeated is still an inanity, but have at it. It is easier than explaining yourself, I'm sure.

 

Nah, it was plainly antagonistic. Just hidden in plain sight. But no one's gonna be confused by it. They probably hoped no one would bring it up. I brought it up because of how absolutely silly their argument is, and I will continue to illustrate with this post.

Yes, it's true that civil penalties do not preclude criminal convictions. However, actually, let me put it like this: The moment insurrection stopped being a 'civil penalty' is when Section 5 was written. This is because Section 5 put it into Congress's orbit and thus becoming a federal law.(IE: California and everyone else not named Colorado, MaIne and Illinois ruled this way)

And unlike federal courts, civil courts are not created by Congress. They are created by the states.

Actually, this is further enforced by today's majority opinion: They conclude that Colorado, Maine, etc can bare Trump from their STATE offices, but not their federal ones.

 

Facts sir are facts the ability of states to remove federal candidates from the ballot is doa. You can yell that they are wrong all you want but it won't change a damn thing hence the horse is dead continuing to beat it is a waste of time that could be better spent doing something else.

 

. Gotta keep their rooting section happy, I guess.

 

Well it's certainly an individual reading that leads you to discern antagonism where another does not.

Are you under the impression that civil cases only occur in state courts? I hope not.

Section 5 did not "stop insurrection being a civil penalty". Firstly, insurrection is not a "penalty", it is an offence. And, the fact that Section 5 says Congress can legislate HOW it will apply Section 3 - the process and procedures it will follow - does not make insurrection solely a criminal law. The law against insurrection is separate from, and exists independently of, a law on how Section 3 will be applied. Similarly, a civil proceeding with a civil penalty is not precluded by the existence of that criminal law.

And the determination was that states can disqualify state officers, but cannot disqualify federal office holders.

 

Either you're confusing the posters you're replying to, or not understanding the posts. Your comment bears no resemblance to mine. Notably, in that I have not contested the opinion.

 

And if you want to disqualify someone for a crime, like insurrection, you have to actually convict them of that crime.
Meaning, you can't ignore the 6th amendment just to say they are guilty of a crime you want to use to disqualify them with the 14th amendment.

 

This is really twisting in knots here. Firstly, you finally acknowledge that it's an offense. An offense with a criminal code, and how is that enforced again? It is enforced by the DOJ. Or are we going to assert that the DOJ/Courts lack standing over the US title code?(There's no argument where that would fly)

But if the status of the federal criminal code isn't enough to certify that insurrection is solely a federal crime(or at least with respect to federal office). I would make the argument that persons(IE: People of Colorado V Trump), would not apply because the people would lack standing.

Again, this is the view of the SCOTUS, as well as every Court not named Colorado, Maine and Illinois. The people are not per se injured by the criminal act of insurrection. Any more than we are injured by negative consequences of passed legislation.

An individual(or a group of individuals, as the case is in a class action lawsuit) can only bring that suit with respect to actual harm.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation10.html

So even if a civil penalty(which I argue it was no longer once 2383 came into force), none of these States had any actual standing because harm wasn't done to them. Any harm of 1/6/2020 was to the federal government and to Washington DC specifically.

Simply put, we have the enforcement mechanic already and it is a federal crime(hell, the States themselves have local-state ordiances on insurrection), so it can be prosecuted on a state level. But it cannot be conceived as some 'civil injury'. That's preposterous to me.

 

So according to these justices, if Congress has to legislate how they will use the 14th amendment, which has never been done in the history of the US, then you can't use the 14th amendment to make any claims at all. The 14th is a dead issue and can't be used for anything.

Yeah, like that makes any sense what so ever.

Only problem is (and why thats a dumb claim by these justices) To deal with the problem of former Confederates holding positions of government power, its third section disqualifies former government officials from holding office if they took an oath to support the Constitution but then betrayed it by engaging in an insurrection.

The amendment is already written and it covers what Congress is needed for.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section Five of the Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment

Which also means, if you want to keep someone off a ballot, that doesn't meet the requirements of the 14th, you need approval from Congress to do so.

There is no other legislation to pass and NOTHING in the amendment states such. When you can find the portion of the Amendment that claims any additional legislation is required, I would love to read it.

But someones interpretation isn't what the Amendment states.

 

No, you don't. A criminal conviction is not required. Whether or not someone engaged in insurrection can be adjudicated in a civil action.

 

How do you convict an American citizen of a crime in a civil court under a criminal statute?
I guess will can now shut down all the Superior courts and fire all the judges now.

 

Certainly it's an offense. An "offense" can be civil as well as criminal, and adjudicated in a criminal OR civil action, or BOTH.

Or in other words, just because an offense has a criminal code, does NOT mean it cannot ALSO or ALTERNATIVELY be adjudicated as a civil matter.

As it was in Maine, Colorado and Illinois.

Standing was not deemed lacking in any of these cases, and was a non-issue for SCOTUS.

 

A civil case would not be seeking to convict someone of a crime and impose a criminal punishment.

 

Insurrection is a federal crime.
You can't convict anyone of any crime in civil court.
This Democrat ideology of how the 14th amendment works has been shot down.
Its nothing but fantasy dreamed up with no legal standing anywhere.
Which is why you can't find anything that even comes close to these idiotic Democrat fantasies.

The 14th Amendment was written (EXCLUSIVELY) for Confederates who fought against the US to stop them from holding office.
Not for American citizens 150 years later.

Even after the 14th Amendment was ratified there were hundreds of Confederates who were voted into office. Congress knew they couldn't do anything about it, even with the 14th Amendment without legislation. So they passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 which allowed them to enforce Section 3 against Confederates. Essentially, a year after the 14th Amendment was ratified, Congress was forced to pass legislation to enforce Section 3 against the very Confederates it was designed to keep out of office.

Now, since the 14th amendment still exist, and you want to use it against an American citizen who was not a Confederate, then you can enforce it against someone who is CONVICTED of insurrection. And these fairy tales of Congress determining the guilt of a federal crime are just fairy tales told by Democrats because its all they have.

If Congress could legislate Trump guilty of insurrection, The very same Democrats who knew they didn't have the vote to impeach, TWICE, but moved forward anyway, would have raised the issue the day he left office giving them a win-win no matter the vote.

If Congress didn't get their 2/3 vote (just like in the Senate for impeachment) they would claim Republicans support insurrection and beat everyone of the head with it from day one.

But no such thing exist. You don't get to convolute Confederate rulings with American citizens 150 years later. And you can't legislate ANYONE guilty of a federal crime.

 

According to the justices, that would be Section 5.

Section 5 does NOT say that Congress has the authority to adopt legislation for "the other parts of the Amendment". It applies to all parts, Section 3 included.

You are disregarding the stated PURPOSE, INTENT and BENEFIT - per SCOTUS - of such legislation.

"Chase went on to explain that “[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.” For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.” The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. 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 carried out in good faith.” Congress’s Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3. Indeed...less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that .... “hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” "​

The perceived necessity for Section 3 legislation does not render the entire 14th Amendment a "dead issue".

Instead of complaining about the Justices' opinion - what you think they're suggesting - why don't you read what they have actually said, and why, specify what exactly you find fault with in their reasoning.

 

And when Sen. Trumbull noted that .... “hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms.
Congress already prescribed how those determinations should be made. Its called the Enforcement Act of 1870.

And just to clarify something, If you what you think were true, then tell me why Democrats aren't running down to Congress in herds to put Trumps insurrection to vote tomorrow morning?

 

Of course you can't achieve a CRIMINAL conviction in a CIVIL proceeding.

Again, the existence of a criminal code does not negate the option for a civil proceeding.

Ask OJ Simpson. Heck, ask Trump.

 

Ask Carroll...