@Teri_Kanefield “the constitution is unenforceable without popular support” is amongst the realest of realpolitik i’ve heard in my lifetime. doesn’t sound like a great way to run a society but who am i to say so? i don’t even know what the meaning of “is” is 🤗
It seems that you made that odd comment without reading the blog post.
I wonder if you would have responded differently had you read it.
I plan to write about the degree of rage and anger over this ruling, which is disproprtionate to the moment and is a sign of something deeply wrong with the way information is communicated.
@Teri_Kanefield i actually did and should note that i really do appreciate your efforts. no doubt i’m missing it but i didn’t see any answers beyond “this stuff is complex” which is definitely true! i wonder where that complexity ends? what’s the point of writing things down if they can just be endlessly debated and reframed into nothingness? a 9-0 ruling does have weight but at the same time, what’s it really say? that this law born out of an actual war is… whoops!.. too vague, sorry!
@Teri_Kanefield “oh but the 14th specifically deals with holding office, not winning office.” that’s where my original comment came from - the implications of having a constitutional amendment that can only be enforced by the very people it seeks to bar from office. you often say - apologies if i get this wrong - the law can’t solve political problems. but isn’t that the entire point - to move beyond mere opinion toward fact?
@Teri_Kanefield “you… hate our legal system or you are the victim of rage merchants” is not exactly a generous take but i get how being The Law Explainer can be exhausting. thanks for your time!
@Teri_Kanefield to me, the Constitution is clear. The states conduct elections and impose the plain provisions of the constitution on candidate eligibility. If the er, the remedy is clear, Congress removes the impairment. What additional legislation is required? Show your work.
Before you ask snide and frankly absurd questions, you might want to read the blog post.
If you read it, you didn't understand it, so I suggest you try again. If there are parts you have trouble understanding, ask in the comments of the blog post and I'll try to help, but I am pretty sure that if you spend some time, you'll understand it all.
I could be misreading it, but I don't think they are requiring new legislation. I think this order still allows the option for federal prosecutors to bring action in federal court under the existing Enforcement Act of 1870.
@Teri_Kanefield I did not intend my comment to convey outrage, I was actually trying to diffuse the outrage, perhaps unsuccessfully.
However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned when the minority opinion does state that "the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement". Maybe the practical effect of that will be less significant than it sounds.
@Teri_Kanefield@carton383@LLS@StephanieJones Understood, Teri, and I'm looking forward to your piece. To clarify, though, I'm not outraged by the decision (with which I agree, though not the "per curiam" (ie majority) opinion); my sad laugh is at the logical inconsistency of saying that Constitutional provisions (other than those granting Congress a power, like the Commerce Clause) can be limited by laws Congress passes, because then the Constitution becomes inferior to politics rather than being the indestructible container within which politics take place. In this case, "Congress can remove a disability" ≠ "the disability is meaningless unless Congress affirmatively enables it," which should be obvious but apparently isn't to a SCOTUS majority.
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones Here’s my question, does the majority opinion imply that the amendment against serving a third term needs empowering congressional legislation to allow removal of a third-term-seeking candidate from the ballot? Or was there a difference drawn between that amendment and 14/3?
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones
And I want credit for being smart enough to not pay attention to the cable and youtube lawyers and rely on you for analysis of the chaos we've created. 😆
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones I hate the idea that a law against insurrectionists become president is unenforceable, but I have to admit I don't see any practical way to enforce it. And I suspect the attempt would lead to mass violence - 1/6 times 100.
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones So if Tribe ends up with egg on his face it seems the same for Luttig as well, who has been constantly lauded as an impeccable judicial mind in these matters.
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones Tribe's a clown, but what if the Jan 6th coup had worked? Who would have stopped Trump from installing himself as a dictator?
Same question applies if he wins in November.
What Tribe describes is a fantasy judiciary that recognizes when it is being manipulated and defends itself.
Reality is a federal judiciary that is at best already so compromised that even if it recognized the threat (which it doesn't), it would be powerless to act against it.
Tribe misled millions about impeachment too - frequently conflating it with criminal prosecution, and turning many frustrated Democrats against their own party and representatives. He is an instrument of chaos.
I would never be able to say this on Twitter, where it would probably go viral, but I spoke privately to Tribe a few times and I pointed out he was wrong.
His answer indicated that he has a complete disregard for the effect he has on people and thinks he is entitled top anything off the top of his head.
And he is. He has that right. Unfortunately he is put forward as an expert in all legal things instead of someone popping off the top of his head.
It's not a particularly profound insight, but I have observed that most people, most of the time, are more interested in being validated than informed. Twitter and Tribe are good fits for scratching that itch. I don't know where you find the energy to engage in that world, but good on ya for fighting the good fight.
@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones It's just more evidence that the majority of our citizenry get the entirety of their information from talking heads and perform no research into the sources themselves. I'm no lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. It states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
@morecowbell@specked@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones One of the key problems here is that when you say " invalidates and destroys its plain meaning", you have to specify plain meaning according to whom. We are talking about a document that was ratified two hundred and thirty five years ago, and we are STILL arguing about what some parts of it mean (when it suits us to do so).
Add comment