Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Colorado Ballot Ban

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Colorado Ballot Ban
Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 181688
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 05, 2024 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oral arguments are scheduled for February 8.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 19381
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 05, 2024 07:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Oral arguments are scheduled for February 8.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."3


http://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-1-1/ALDE_00000848/#ALDF_000121 33

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 181688
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 06, 2024 02:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice catch, jwhop! I wonder if SCOTUS will even go that deep to mention it. The lack of due process in Colorado will be enough. Leftist nut jobs seem to think that since due process wasn’t mentioned in Section 3, then it must not apply! Idiots. It is clearly mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. I wonder where? 🤔 Due process is at the core of American jurisprudence. I do expect SCOTUS to discuss that of the officers mentioned, the POTUS is conspicuously omitted and was only mentioned in the context of “electors.” That was no accident. The President IS the Executive branch. I even expect the crazy Justice who doesn’t know what the definition of a woman is to concur. It should be 9-0. By taking the case in only a month, SCOTUS is signaling the urgency of this matter. The Court might even issue an injunction in the meantime.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2023

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a