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.
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.