This is not rocket science. The 1898 law says that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed". But this law is not even cited in the Colorado opinion--was it even cited to the Court?
Facts?, Facts?
Leftist Jurisprudence don’t need no stink’n Facts.
Wait, how can a Congressionally-passed law undo or erase a constitutional amendment?! If it can be done here, then it can be done with the second amendment as well.
Because the CREWS gang don’t care.
Section 3 does not even cover the President. The omission of the position of President in the text was not a simple oversight nor is the President covered by the “any position “under” the United States” text since the Presidency is an office “of” but not “under” the United States and there is a big difference.
These questions of “how could they?” are silly.
The did. Right in your face. This is about raw exercise of power, thumbing their nose, and daring you to do anything in response. And then getting ready to crush you if you do. Welcome to banana Republic dictatorship.
How can a statute repeal part of a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the states? That doesn’t make sense.
It’s not rocket science, but it’s rather obvious that the 1898 law did not repeal the provision. A law cannot repeal a constitutional provision, only another constitutional amendment can.
What this statute clearly did, by its words, was remove any disability imposed on whoever otherwise would have been forbidden to hold office... as the amendment permits. No way this is helpful.
I would think the 1898 law only applies to rebels before it was passed in 1898.
“all political disabilities...are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except...[~=rebel Congressmen and officers]”
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/17/STATUTE-17-Pg142.pdf
What law schools did the Colorado jurists go to?
They didn’t “miss’ it. They thought all dumb asses would miss it tho.
Trump has no legitimate worries with regard to January 6th.
Flagrantly denying a man due progress as required by the Constitution is an act of rebellion against it.
You really have to understand that the revolutionaries believe the revolution is over, they have won, and everything they do now is just mopping up their defeated enemies.
In this context, arguments to these four justices of the Colorado Supreme Court are like Old Bolsheviks talking to Beria or Yagoda. They didn’t understand what the drain in the floor was for.
I don’t know what to do, and, as a great American once said, I’m too old to go bushwhacking.
But I can tell you that voting is not going to displace the revolutionary cadres now ruling this country, and they are just begging for a reaction that will enable them to consolidate their power using violence once and for all.
Section 3 was not repealed. Repeal is a very precise term.
The disabilities prescribed in Section 3 were removed. Also a very precise term.
Kangaroo court
Banana repooblic
Failed nation
I didn’t know this. Thank God for The Heritage Foundation. Rock solid research.
The biggest problem with the left weaponizing the government is that their madness allows for a looser and looser interpretation of any law, case law, or any other legal standard so that it merely becomes an expression of their whims to do anything they wish.
It is like being governed by the queen character of Alice in Wonderland.
Bookmark
A Constitutional Amendment cannot be repealed or altered by an act of Congress. Prohibition was not repealed until passage of the XXI amendment. FDR chose to publicly declare he would not enforce the Volstead Act, but only in the case of 3.2 beer. The rest had to wait
If this were true a Dem Congress and POTUS could repeal or change the words “ shall not be infringed to shall be monitored by the state.
I think this is just another interpretation of the amendment. Their interpretation of the "disability clause" is that it is a wholesale amendment of the amendment. They hide behind arguments of individuals involved in the Civil War, the various amnesty acts that refer to "individuals," etc. But they don't discuss the reasons why other interpretations suggesting a case-by-case removal of the disability was the true intent. We have to look at other disqualification clauses in the Constitution for insights.
First, let's look at simple sentence grammar.
No person shall be a... who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.This plain reading implies that the rebellious person in question is asking Congress to remove the disability for their case alone. This appears, to me, to be a legitimate interpretation of the clause that is not being discussed.
Historical citations of various amnesty acts shows that the span of the acts were for defined persons, not posterity. Removing the disability for all posterity would be a de facto amendment to the Constitution.
Second, let's compare this to the impeachment sections of the Constitution regarding the Senate.
Article I Section 3 Clause 7 says:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.Notice the conjunction, AND, that separates removal from office from disqualification to hold future office?
Does a plain reading of this suggest that it is a dual and conjoined punishment, that is, that someone convicted of impeachment is both removed from office and denied future office; or is it two separate and distinct punishments?
More drastically, if they are separate and distinct punishments, can the Senate vote to keep someone in office but disqualify them from running for future office? Is there a dependency defined by the conjunction AND that implies order? There is no "normal" reading of such conjunction language that suggests that the order of the actions that are conjoined has any bearing on the meaning of the phrase.
Yet somehow, these punishments have been separated; the Senate can remove someone from office and still remove the "disability" of holding future office. Separate votes have been held to remove someone from office but still let them run for future office.
Was the first vote to do this not a de facto removal of the disability from all future impeachment subjects?
What if clause 7 were instead written as:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Senate may by a vote of two-thirds remove such disability: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This writing of clause 7 would have made it clear that there were two separate punishments that the Senate could consider. However, if the Senate were to vote to remove the disability, would scholars insist that it was a removal for all future convicted individuals? I don't think so.
I think the safest conclusion is that Article V must be respected, that amendments can only be amended by future amendments, and that any legislation that enforces amendments are to only handle cases covered by such amendment.
Even with this interpretation, I still believe that the 14th amendment does not cover Presidents, especially President Trump. I just don't think that the authors of this paper got there appropriately.
-PJ