To: cotton1706
Justice Barrett concurs in part and concurs in the judgment. She agrees that states do not have the power to enforce Sec. 3 against presidential candidates but would not go further and address whether federal legislation is the only way that Section 3 can be enforced.
To: cotton1706
6 posted on
03/04/2024 7:05:16 AM PST by
volare737
To: cotton1706
Libs are in circle jerk melt down. Totally expected decision. However the court didn’t rule on President Trump
That he did not engage in any “ insurection” on Jan 6( Not an issue to contemplate).
54 posted on
03/04/2024 7:13:26 AM PST by
shadeaud
(God gave us the free will and intelligence to choose right from wrong. Use it or lose it!)
To: cotton1706
Barrett’s “reasoning” is ironic and a bit scary: SCOTUS mustn’t clarify all the legal issues being used to stir up partisan rancor and interfere in the election, because ... clarity might stir up partisan rancor. She wants the SC to self-limit to placate the (potential) howling mob.
Yeah, that’ll work...
To: cotton1706
would not go further and address whether federal legislation is the only way that Section 3 can be enforced Barret is on shaky ground if she thinks this.
- Section 5 says that "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article," not the states.
- If states can also have power to enforce federal legislation on the 14th amendment, then why can't states also have the power to enforce Article I Section 8 rules of naturalization regarding illegal alien entry into their states?
-PJ
276 posted on
03/04/2024 12:02:20 PM PST by
Political Junkie Too
( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson