Not knowing US constitutional law, it seems to me the SCOTUS decision might mean that the Dems missed an opportunity when they had the house

That it’s a federal matter seems legally predictable/natural to me, and that it then falls to congress to enforce then also seems natural.

What am I missing on that?

Otherwise, what would the Dems have had to lose by passing an act when they had the house? The 14th was right there.

#uspol
@politics

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate. Neither Manchin nor Sinema would have voted to abolish the filibuster and they had no path to 60 votes for anything against Trump.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is really the issue. Republicans are kind of die-hard party voters in Congress. The Dems had a few turds in the punchbowl who wouldn’t do the right thing.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate.

      Democrats had a real majority. They found enough no votes to block stuff they ran on but never had any intention of passing. Exactly like they did with the public option.

      Voters are expected to operate in perfect lockstep and vote for the worst candidates party leadership thinks it can get away with. When our elected officials break off and vote with their fucking donors, we don’t demand conformity with the party from them at all.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You want there to be some grand conspiracy, but there isn’t. What’s crazy is how much smarter you think they are than they actually are

          • protist@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Is this all because you’re butthurt Biden got the most votes in the '20 primaries?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m talking about the party’s expectations of its voters versus its elected.

              You’re trying to divert to Biden because you can’t defend Senate Democrats’ reliance on the filibuster as an excuse when they break campaign promises.

              • protist@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                What “expectations of its voters” are you talking about? We get to vote however we want

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate. That’s a difference of 11 states worth of Senators. Its a fucking nightmare, but its also a big part of what slowed Trump’s agenda.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate.

          They need only 50 to change the rules of the Senate, with which they could do away with the filibuster forever. If they wanted to.

          They do not want to.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I sure do. Just enough Democrats considered the preservation of the Jim Crow Filibuster to be a greater priority than protecting Roe. Or democracy itself.

              There are always just enough.

  • Barney@mas.to
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    @maegul @politics

    It’s natural that disqualification under 14A should be a federal question, but it’s nonsensical that SCOTUS would require Congress to enforce the Constitution. That was not predictable.

    What the Dems did do when they had the House was impeach Trump for insurrection. If the Senate had done their job by convicting him, then, in the second phase of impeachment, he would have been barred for office for life. But, led by McConnell, they voted to let him be president again.

    • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      @barney @politics

      Who should enforce it then? Seems like exactly the sort of thing a court wouldn’t want to touch so as not to look too political, no?

      Unless there’s no way around the fact that the 14th effectively creates a “constitutional crime” within federal courts’ jurisdiction that can be pardoned by a congress super majority, which would have been my intuitive reading.

      • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        @barney @politics

        Were there not conversations at the time about how 14A would have been enforced? None of the issues around that are new and would have been obvious at the time.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      14a5 clearly states:

      The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      It’s a bit of a technicality, while trump is ineligible to be POTUS or anything else; it remains congress’s job to enforce that ineligibility

      Think of a DWI- you’re not allowed to drive drunk but if cops or somebody weren’t going around watching for it, the law would be meaningless.

      Section five means, as far as the rest of the 14th is concerned, congress are the proverbial cops.

      Which, if you think about, makes it so that elected people are in the power of enforcement, compared to SCROTUS who are appointed for life, and obviously don’t reflect the direct will of the people.

      All of that said? I disagree that states don’t have the right to control who’s on the ballot.

      In some regards they already are making those decisions- you can’t just go put your name in the hat. As an example of stated making that determination; you have, for example, citizenship being considered.

      Edit: it should also be noted that while the “states don’t have that authority” was unanimously decided, the liberal justices and Barrett disagreed with the rest of it, saying the majority opinion went too far.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So let’s review. Congress has to impeach someone and the Senate dismiss them.

        Congress can not impeach someone who is not holding a federal job.

        Therefore any president who attempts to steal the election is immune to prosecution unless they run again later and get re-elected and therefore are now eligible to be impeached and dismissed?

        What am I missing

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’re arguing something that is fundamentally not relevant.

          Sorry. That’s not what the SCROTUS decision is about.

          Stop it. You sound like a republican.

          Edit: they are saying a “specific act”. I’m not sure what they envision it detailing, but it’s not a full impeachment. If you view victor berger’s unseating as a result of his espionage conviction (which is really the only procedural precedent we’ve got,) then that’s a simple majority vote.

          This is worse than I thought (I’m basing it off reading the actual ruling unfortunately my eyes must have glazed over, and I’m not all the way through-)

          End edit:

          The scotus decision basically just says that Colorado can’t enforce the 14th on federal employees.

          Their reasoning, if I understood it right is that:

          • the amendment specifically says the onus is US congress, and doesn’t specifically delegate powers to the state governments
          • the matter of elections are merely delegated to states, implying they’re never given explicit authority to find some one ineligible or otherwise. (Though, nobody who is too young is allowed on the ballot. Nor citizenship status,)
          • it would be “messy” to allow states to enforce it, since they’re likely to come to different decisions.

          They explicitly shied away from making a decision on that. (Probably since we all fucking saw it live on Jan 6.)

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That clause is at the very end of the 14th amendment, section 5, and they are cherry picking, this is extra power for congress if they want to make additional laws to help enforce it. However the 14th amendment has four sections prior to this (not just the section on insurrectionists) and these are often enforced even without specific additional laws, such as equal protection, through the courts. Sure congress can make specific laws helping to enforce equal protection, but they don’t have to, you could always sue in the court if your constitutional rights were violated.

        The clause about congress may make laws is also included in other portions of the constitution. The reason it’s added is without it, it might be unclear if federal congress would be able to make any additional law pertaining to this beyond what is already written in the amendment, due to the tenth amendment which states that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government fall to the states. This reasoning is present in the still recorded debates to get the amendment passed in the first place, when someone brought up is it necessary to even add that clause at the end. So if say congress wants to make more laws to help protect voting rights (also protected in the 14th amendment), they now have the power to do so and can cite that clause for why they are able to make this law under the constitution, but what is already written in the amendment does not vanish without more laws, it’s nonsensical.

        The liberal justices argue (correctly imo) that limiting just this portion of the amendment to be non active at all unless congress makes a specific law makes no sense, is not how it was used historically, and goes too far. The conservative justices are willfully misreading this to try and shut off any potential route to using the 14th amendment as intended here, such as through the federal courts.

        Your argument (and the conservatives on the supreme court) would be saying because of this clause the entire fourteenth amendment, sections 1 through 4, (and any other part of the constitution that uses this language, including the thirteenth amendment banning slavery) are totally inactive unless congress decides to make a specific law about it. So no ability to sue for violation of equal protection? No protection of voting rights unless congress decides to make a law about it? No ban on slavery if congress doesn’t get around to passing something? What kind of constitutional protection is that, if it can just be stripped away simply by congressional inaction? And how does that make any sense when for this specific clause it goes out of its way to say a 2/3rds majority of congress is needed to override it? The conservatives arugment effectively totally nullifies this and makes it a simple majority to over ride it.

        There’s no reason to isolate just this portion of the amendment, and say this part is inactive without a specific law, unless they’re a partisan hack like most of the supreme court, trying to provide cover for individuals who made an attempted coup. Or more lazily just side stepping the responsibilities of the court. Even Barrett thought the other conservative justices were going too far.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a bit of a technicality, while trump is ineligible to be POTUS or anything else; it remains congress’s job to enforce that ineligibility

        And luckily for Trump, Democrats would rather let him be installed as dictator than get rid of the fucking filibuster that they use as an excuse to break campaign promises.

    • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      @barney @politics

      Sorry, just read 14A, sec 5:

      > The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      The decision seems pretty predictable to me then.

      In fact it seems that this was never going anywhere and that the provisions are actually pretty weak. If an insurrectionist is popular enough to be a plausible presidential candidate, then they’re not unlikely to have significant support in congress.

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sorry, but what part of section 5 prohibits any other enforcement? It just means federal laws aimed at preserving the other sections are constitutional.

      • Barney@mas.to
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        @maegul @politics

        Not at all. The rest of the 14th Amendment is all self-executing. E.g. if your right to due process has been violated, you can sue, without needing Congress to pass a law that specifically protects you. As the 4-justice SCOTUS minority said, it doesn’t make sense to require legislation for just this one section.

        Anyway, if the Dem-controlled House had passed a bill declaring Trump ineligible for office, Senate Republicans would have filibustered it. So it’s a moot point.

  • Jon Nix@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    @maegul @politics Congress couldn’t do anything after January 6th, because that would be an ex post facto law which is forbidden by the Constitution. You could maybe fault the Justice Department for not charging him under the one specific law ( 18 U.S.C. § 2383 ) which apparently works to disqualify under this ruling. Of course, if the facts were different they would have divined some other interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is it not a timing issue ?

    Would it not be more difficult to make this ruling, if he were already convicted of insurrection?

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      If he were already convicted of insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection he would be disqualified already.

      18 U.S. Code § 2383

      Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      Unfortunately Trump was never charged with this by Jack Smith. He’s charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, and obstruction/attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’d argue that the statutory authority for 14a3 is separate and independent from the authority set forth in Sec. 2383, and that if Congress sua sponte votes to ban him or not would it be equally as valid as if it happened after a criminal proceeding driven by the justice department. If I’m wrong then all Trump has to do is keep appealing to the SCOTUS that he bought and paid for and then all of us are just wasting time here.