The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.
You’re setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed when the scotus rules that he is eligible and they can’t remove him from the ballot, and the argument will be completely reasonable based on the he stupid wording of the amendment.
Oh? So you buy that line that the President is not an officer of the government?
Yes, it’s a sound and well-reasoned legal argument which has been adopted by the Supreme Court and was relied upon by the Court less than 15 years ago.
Was it “Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)”?
Because we already talked about how that case wasn’t about the president in anything more than their supervisory powers over appointees.
Considering the scotus has already ruled that we don’t elect officers in the US…yes, I do find that argument to be reasonable.
I’m assuming you have a source for that?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010),Article II%2C Section 2 procedures.
It links to the SCOTUS case.
Alright. That’s not how SCOTUS rulings work. They aren’t word for word law like a bill. So the observation of what an officer is in regards to presidential supervision is exactly that. The holding was that they could not protect an appointee from being fired by using other appointees as a cut out. But only in that case for reasons of breadth of impact and functionally creating law by regulation. It is not an opinion on whether or not the President is an officer under the 14th amendment.
Which Reason does actually point out; more than I expected from them. But they are right that there will be arguments in front of the court over it if the case is accepted. To say that’s required is kind of a duh moment. Nobody goes to the SCOTUS and just shrugs.
You belittled me for, incorrectly, claiming I “buy” the argument. I simply pointed out that it’s a reasonable conclusion because the courts have already ruled that we don’t elect officers, which would implicitly include the POTUS.
I didn’t say it was a done deal, they might conclude that this part of the ruling does not actually mean the POTUS isn’t an officer. I would love that.
But you’re just putting more words in my mouth right now by implying I said this is how it would all play out. I’m not s legal scholar, I understand my own inadequacies here. Again, I just said it was a reasonable conclusion. I do suspect the courts will find a way to say he needs to be allowed onto the ballot, and they’ll put forth a reasonable argument as to why.
Smells like bullshit around here.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010),Article II%2C Section 2 procedures.
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…
Pretty clear. Hold any office. He can’t hold any office.
Unlikely.
I wish I had your optimism.
So are we just downvoting things we don’t want to hear now?
As a non-US citizen I’m curious to know the arguments for both sides…just sticking my fingers in my ears and singing “la la la can’t hear you” ain’t gonna change the result…no matter which way it goes.
So, for the curious, why is this reply wrong? Do we think a republican weighted Scotus that overturned Roe v Wade would allow their sponsor to get ruled out of the election?
lol. Welcome to lemmy!
And the only argument you’ll get is “it’s unreasonable because I’ve come to a different conclusion.” Too many people are so cocksure of themselves that they seem almost completely incapable of understanding a competing position, or completely incapable of understanding that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same thing.
But I can give you a quick breakdown of the competing theories here:
The popular belief here is that of course it applies to the POTUS because it’s absurd that you would be barred from being a Congressman/Elector, but not the President. And even though Senator (and other important positions) are explicitly called out, but POTUS is not, the POTUS is caught under the “any office” part of the amendment. And because they took an oath to uphold the COTUS, they should likewise be barred.
This is the “common sense and spirit” argument (which I find reasonable) and one that does have some historical support.
A good paper on this can be found here
The counter opinion is that: Why list important positions but not the most important position? Claiming the POTUS would fall under a ‘catch-all’ in this part doesn’t make much sense. Additionally the amendment says “as a member of congress of as an officer” and there is an argument to be made that POTUS is not a officer, as we don’t elect officers (a previous SCOTUS ruling I’ve referenced elsewhere), so it doesn’t technically apply to him because he was never in Congress.
This is the “technical interpretation” argument (which I also find reasonable, even if ultimately disagreeable).