When Donald Trump took the oath of office once again, it was the last time he’d be able to do so under the country’s constitution. But that hasn’t stopped his team from flirting with the idea of running again, writes Alex Hannaford – and the Democrats are nowhere to be seen...
The people who wrote the 14th amendmend fucked up. They did not specify how the disqualification clause is supposed to be invoked.
I mean, how are we suppose to invoke that?
States? If so, red states could just ban democrats by abusing the disqualification clause.
Conviction in courts? Well, trump never got convicted for treason/sedition. States convictionss of fraud isn’t disqualifying.
Simple Majority in congress? Well, again, a unified congress can just use it to disqualify the other party.
Supermajority? Well, that would never happen.
Supreme court? Well… look at the composition of the court
So… yea… somebody fucked up.
Blame the authors of the 14th amendment.
It is impossible to write an eternal constitution. Believing that is the biggest flaw of the American mindset.
——- Thomas Jefferson, 1931
I’m pretty sure the Founders were under the impression that we’d rewrite the Constitution periodically when we discovered loopholes or other new problems they didn’t foresee.
You mean like how every other country handles their constitution? That’s crazy talk.
You mean like all the amendments?
I do not, nor did they.
A whole lotta idiots think that our Constitution was divinely inspired by the character of Jesus from their storybooks and that it should never be changed. Of course, many of these very same idiots think this is a xtian nation.
Ideally the courts would rule on it and it would be up to congress with a supermajority to reverse it.
To be clear, a court did rule that he committed treason and was barred from running. SCOTUS did not say they were wrong, they only stated that they (the fucking courts) did not have the power to APPLY THE CONSTITUTION.
So yeah. It would be up to the courts to apply the constitution and SCOTUS would have the final word. I’m not sure why it would be any different from any other ammendment.
As dispicable as the court is, I agree with their decision.
If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.
Ideally, it should be completely overhauled SCOTUS with something like 15 seats, and every year, a seat expires, on staggered terms, with each justice serving 15 years.
Since a president can only serve a maximum of 8 years*, they could at most have 8 of 15 justices. Something as serious as disqualifying a candidate for federal office should require 2/3 of the SCOTUS’s total membership, so at least 10 of the 15 seats on SCOTUS.
A president serving 4 years could at best fill 4 of 15 seats, so even a corrupt president still leaves 11/15 uncorrupted judges.
Also congress has to approve the judges (ideally both houses, by simple majority)
And for intra-term vacancies, they should be filled by 2/3 supermajority, but if bipartisanship is impossible, they’ll just have to wait out the seat to expire.
Maybe I should design the political system. 🤔 I’ve been doing a lot of worldbuilding stuff for a novel I want to write.
It should be up SCOTUS to validate or invalidate Colorado’s findings. It would never be Colorado as the final word. That’s how the courts already work. Lower courts rule and higher courts can take further action if needed.
I’m all for SCOTUS reform though.
ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed for senate! Hmm, I think we’re gonna need you a new name, bud.