David French has an excellent column in the NY Times. Here's an excerpt:
It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3. The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provid…
David French has an excellent column in the NY Times. Here's an excerpt:
It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3. The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. The Section then says, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.”
In other words, the Constitution imposes the disability, and only a supermajority of Congress can remove it. But under the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the meaning is inverted: The Constitution merely allows Congress to impose the disability, and if Congress chooses not to enact legislation enforcing the section, then the disability does not exist. The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction.
Thank you, but all I did was to quote David French. I don't question any of the justices' intelligence. I question their good faith. The six Republican politicians on the Court are just that; they have abandoned their role as justices and decided that, rather than examining the Constitution as objectively as they can, they will reach the result they prefer. All judges occasionally may be less than objective, but these six don't even try.
David French has an excellent column in the NY Times. Here's an excerpt:
It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3. The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. The Section then says, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.”
In other words, the Constitution imposes the disability, and only a supermajority of Congress can remove it. But under the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the meaning is inverted: The Constitution merely allows Congress to impose the disability, and if Congress chooses not to enact legislation enforcing the section, then the disability does not exist. The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction.
You are smarter than all the justices combined. Didn't they go to law school and then have to pass the Bar?
Thank you, but all I did was to quote David French. I don't question any of the justices' intelligence. I question their good faith. The six Republican politicians on the Court are just that; they have abandoned their role as justices and decided that, rather than examining the Constitution as objectively as they can, they will reach the result they prefer. All judges occasionally may be less than objective, but these six don't even try.
Yup, but I haven't gotten to tat one yet.
Thank You Henry..
Yes more of the ‘George W’ chicken sh*t decision making..
Gilded & Gutless