Replies

Pinging AC because you might be in a position to remember how Luttig was lauded on FR back in the early 2000s.

Pinging woodpusher to show another example of a judge who (”conservative” bonafides notwithstanding) doesn’t know how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is applied.

The 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause was nullified later anyway by the 1872 Amnesty Act. They might as well put people in prison for drinking due to the 18th Amendment (hoping people forget the 20th Amendment nullified the 18th).

I was around back then and I definitely remember the ‘lauding’ of Luttig.

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.

The provision only applies to persons who, having previously taken an oath,

(1) as a member of Congress, or

(2) as an officer of the United States, or

(3) as a member of any state legislature, or

(4) as an executive or judicial officer of any state,

Trump was never any of those. An officer of the United States is an individual in a position appointed by the President of the United States. The President is not an appointed official and is not an officer of the United States. The term is a legal term with a specific definition.

The provision of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump, regardless of whether he committed insurrection or not. There was no insurrection, but Scotus need not decide that point. All they need decide is that the Amendment clause does not apply to Trump.

Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as “the Appointments Clause,” states how federal officers must be appointed.

[The President] "shall nominate, and 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep561477/

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 497-98 (2010), Roberts, CJ, Opinion of the Court

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure,or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same). That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).

The People do not vote for Officers of the United States; they are appointed by the President.

The Colorado Kangaroo Court concludes:

But we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary's deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires, it shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

Pinging AC because you might be in a position to remember how Luttig was lauded on FR back in the early 2000s.

We have to remember that Luttig is American nobility.

A young swarthy peasant named Napoleon Beazley [17 years old] killed "Lord" Luttig's father in a robbery.

Beazley's biggest surprise in life came in the form of his swift death - 8 years.

The system gave Beazley the bum's rush to the needle in 2002 - eight years, where an ordinary peasant family would have to wait decades to see justice done. "Four legs good, two legs better!"

In 2005, the Supreme Court (in Roper v. Simmons) banned the practice of executing offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes.

Just a little too late for young Napoleon...

https://freerepublic.com/tag/jmichaelluttig/index