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

Because there's implementing legislation in place yet. Or did you think that when SCOTUS opined that there should be, that Congress magically passed it overnight?

The relevant section of the Enforcement Act was repealed. Other subsequent acts lacked teeth. If there was something still on the books that was fit for purpose, SCOTUS would have said so, and not opined that there should be.

 

OJ was not convicted of anything. He was given a civil penalty.
Trump wasn't convicted of rape, he was given a civil penalty.

The 14th states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.
Those are federal crimes. You don't get to accuse someone of those crimes in a civil setting then use it to claim they are insurrectionist.
No more than you can legally call OJ a murderer. And if you publicly state OJ is a murderer and host a campaign against him, you can be found guilty of defaming him and pay a huge fine for it.

And let me help you out with another stated fact by the SCOTUS when they heard this case.

The first draft of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provided in effect that: "No person shall be President or Vice President, Senator or Representative, or elector of President of President and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
The words "President or Vice President" were deliberately edited out of the final version of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, together with the disqualification of presidential electors and vice-presidential elector who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" makes it clear that the Framers' of Section 3 did not intend for it to apply to presidents or vice presidents.
Congress itself voted to strike the words president and vice president from Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment before its ratification in 1868.

This fact is further confirmed by the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, which says The President shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.
Moreover, the Commission clause of Article II, Section 3 says that The President shall, i.e. must, "Commission all the Officers of the United States." No President has EVER commissioned himself or his Vice President either before or after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The President is obviously not an Officer of the United States for the purposes of the Commission clause.

Finally, Article II, Section 4 provides that: "The President, Vice President all civil Officers of the United States" shall be liable for impeachment. Note here that the text does NOT say: "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States. Once again, Article II does not treat the President and Vice President as being merely civil officers

Just as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains a hierarchy of officers, so too does Article II in the Appointments Clause, the Commission Clause, and the Impeachment Clause make it crystal clear that the President and Vice President are not civil officers of the United States.

That and the fact that Congress itself voted to strike the words president and vice president from Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment really sums it up.

The Liberal justices when hearing this from Colorado stated, the 14th doesn't refer to the President of the US as an officer of the government.

On top of which the unanimous ruling from the SCOTUS states

Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates.

States lack even the lesser powers to issue writs of mandamus against federal officials or to grant habeas cor- pus relief to persons in federal custody.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5. his can hardly come as a surprise, given that the substantive provisions of the Amendment “embody significant limitations on state authority.

It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office.

Sates have no power . . . to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress

Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.

Federalism principles embedded in that constitutional structure decide this case. States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government.

To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the people.

The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles.

ll nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into ac- count the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to fed- eral offices. But they are important ones, and it is the com- bination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular ra- tionale—that resolves this case.

 

Yes. That's why I said ask Trump. He knows because of Carroll.

 

And if all that were true, then you would have to explain why every congressional Democrat on the hill isn't calling for an immediate session to vote on Trumps insurrection. Right now.
Its because this is all fantasy dreamed up using state justices to do their dirty work because they have no ability to find Trump guilty of insurrection by vote. And they would look like incompetent boobs for even trying.

 

He was never found liable for the 61 mentions of rape in the lawsuit. He was not found liable for defamation of rape in the lawsuit.

 

If you're going to claim that something is from the SCOTUS opinion, or anywhere else for that matter, you need to specify which parts exactly, and identify and separate them by quotation marks or boxing, with attributions.

Yes, SCOTUS has stated that only Congress, not states, can apply Section 3 to federal offices.

And yes, four justices added that requiring implementing legislation determining how Congress would do this, would potentially rule out other options for applying Section 3.

This is simply repeating what I have already said, in posts way back.

No OJ was not convicted. He WAS nonetheless held liable in a CIVIL case. Ditto Trump.

Both were given civil penalties. Disqualification is a civil penalty.

Clearly, then, the fact that a criminal code existed for their offense did NOT not mean that they could not be subject to a civil action.

 

SCOTUS did not propose Congress have a "vote on Trump's insurrection". It opined that legislation should be enacted to define what exactly the process and procedures for applying section 3 will be. Pursuant to which, Congress - democrat or otherwise - will know how to go about it.

 

Is it or is it not the case that a person can be subject to civil as well as criminal complaints?

That - and that only - is the point.

 

Congress already had a "vote on Trump's insurrection"
Impeachment no. 2

 

Acquitted for the purposes of impeachment.

That does not preclude civil action for the purposes of disqualification.

 

Because those were the only three courts who would accept it. California rejected the standing, as did others. We little peons had absolutely no injury or factor into the 1/6 fiasco. Hell, neither did any of the courts who accepted it. Because you know and I know the only ones with standing was Washington DC(you know, where this so-called 'insurrection' is said to have been taken place.)

As others have stated, even if you can sue for damages, etc that's not the same as a conviction or being able to apply the 14th for disqualification.

Simply, there's no room for the minority's complaint. Their complaint was a fart in the wind, but it was a fart too stupid for me to ignore.

 

The left are bound and determined to call it all an insurrection for political purposes.

 

The Congress must vote to impeach and remove before any legal actions can be taken.... already done and they acquitted... it is the safety valve in our system by the founding fathers, for just this very reason...

Show us the "civil action for the purposes of disqualification" Congress can do...

 

There is absolutely no requirement, anywhere, that a conviction is required. Hence the civil proceedings used by Colorado et al were not at issue.

States have differing civil standing requirements, which is why, as you say, several denied section 3 actions. This diversity is one (and one only) reason why SCOTUS believes it should be applied by Congress only, according to appropriate legislation guiding implementation.

 

Yes.... not prove it...but.... just call it.... that is all that is needed for the court of public opinion.. the voters are persuaded more by this kind of misinformation and propaganda than any court decision...

 

Congress has not yet enacted such legislation for application by Congress.

 

Where do you get this ****?

 

You're missing a step.
A civil penalty is a non-criminal remedy
Civil penalties don't disqualify anyone from anything.
How can you have a civil procedure, to take someone off a ballot, for a criminal claim, with a non-criminal remedy?

You can't claim Trump got a civil penalty then in the next breath state Disqualification is a civil penalty like they are somehow linked.
They are not.
You can't disqualify a presidential candidate in a civil procedure for a criminal claim, when no such criminal claim has been adjudicated.
Just because the process is a civil process, doesn't give them any rights to determine anyone is guilty of a crime, that disqualifies them for a criminal act, just because its a civil procedure.

 

Which would stop the process before it even began because a president or vice president are not officers of the US government.
And Congress can not legislate the Constitution or make any changes to the Constitution.

 

FACT...... @Nemesis...
The Congress must vote to impeach and remove before any legal actions can be taken. Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5.....

 

That appears NOWHERE in either the Constitution or caselaw. It's far from fact, and much closer to fantasy.

 

Mitchell argued asserted in court filings that the presidential oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is different from an oath to "support" it, which is the oath described in Section 3.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
"You have a list, and 'president' is not on it,"

Jackson later said the history of the 14th Amendment provides the reason for why the presidency may not be covered by Section 3.

"The pressing concern, at least as I see the historical record, was actually what was going on at lower levels of the government, the possible infiltration and embedding of insurrectionists into the state government apparatus and the real risk that former Confederates might return to power in the South via state-level elections either in local offices or as representatives of the states in Congress," she told Mitchell. "And that's a very different lens."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Congress has enacted a mechanism to prohibit insurrectionists from holding office: The Insurrection Act, which was passed decades before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. "That tool exists, you agree, and could be used against someone who committed insurrection,"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-colorado-case-takeaways/


Chief Justice John Roberts
The "whole point" of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power after the Civil War in an attempt to bring Confederate states into line and questioned why it would give states the ability to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.
"Wouldn't that be the last place that you'd look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to ... enforce the presidential election process?"

 

Deflection Alert!

Trump did nothing for 3+ hours during the Capitol riot. His gross dereliction of duty is reason enough the guy should never again see the inside of the White House.

 

And? These are discussions and the end result is the opinion.

 

MAGA nonsense.