Replies

Trump paid propaganda, or not? I literally have no idea. Site quoted by Rush? I don’t remember one way or the other, but I’ll assume it’s true. That doesn’t mean that this piece isn’t a worthless piece of analysis.

SCOC is not a subordinate court to SCOTUS. However, a Writ of Certiorari will lie on constitutional issues from the decisions of the highest court of a state, so its subordinate in sort of a figurative sense. Subordinate courts, ruling in very important issues, ROUTINELY stay their own orders pending review.
That SCOC did so in a tacit acknowledgement that their decision is wrong, the central point of this article, is just BS. There is no doubt SCOTUS would have issued a stay if SCOC did not. Yes, they’re hacks, but in their hackery they still observe the forms of the law

This opinion is wrongly decided, and will be reversed. The District Court should not have even reached the issue of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, because the judge correctly decided that, under the plain language of the 14th Amendment, the prohibition does not apply to him

One of the dissents to this decision correctly points out that there is no enforcement legislation on the amendment. So you’re left with the language of the amendment. When statutory language is clear, the analysis stops there. You don’t proceed on to determine legislative intent. In this case that’s what SCOC relied on. However they didn’t cite any legislative history; they just said they couldn’t imagine that the framers would intend it to apply to sheriffs, but not the President

In short, others are correct that this decision is law porn for the left, and they’re doing the Toobin even as we speak. But this article is useless in analyzing the situation

My take: The Amnesty Act of 1972 invalidated Article 14/Section 3's insurrection clause anyway. Trying to keep Trump or anyone else off the ballot for "insurrection" is like using the 18th Amendment to imprison someone for alcohol (hoping people forget the 21st Amendment undid it).

Relevant text from 14th Amendment/Section 3:
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.

And later Congress did removed the disability with the Amnesty Act of 1872:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.