Two recent U.S. Supreme Court actions have opened the door to a new legal frontier in which local and state officials can be disqualified from office for life for engaging in “insurrection” or providing “aid and comfort” to enemies of the Constitution, based on a post-Civil War era addition to the nation’s foundational legal document and how the courts interpret it.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office after he was convicted of trespassing during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The state judge who barred him from office did so on the grounds that his actions violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868 to prevent Confederates from returning to government.
The move came on the heels of an expedited high-court ruling that Section 3 can’t be used against federal officials or candidates until Congress writes a law outlining procedures to do so. That includes former President Donald Trump, the target of a national campaign to end his bid to return to the White House via the 14th Amendment.
However this doesn’t extend for candidates?
I think in their Trump ruling, they specifically said states can’t bar people running for federal office. State offices are up to the state.
I disagree and think the supreme Court of the United States is wholly corrupt at this point, almost openly, but the rulings align technically
they specifically said states can’t bar people running for federal office. State offices are up to the state.
Yep, which is absolute nonsense when you consider the fact that elections for federal office are the domain of the states, making them the ONLY ones who could possibly bar people from running without running afoul of the constitution.
To call those corrupt hacks “justices” is an enormous affront to the very concepts of justice and reason.
The Constitution does give power to Congress to pass laws on how states conduct voting (maybe just for federal elections? I’m not sure).
In this case, though, there isn’t a congressional law on how the amendment should be enforced, so typically that falls back on the state you’d think. But no, instead the conservatives on the court made up their own law somehow.
Well there is the Voting Rights Act, of course this supreme court has been trying to dismantle it completely. Then again nobody’s ever accused them of being consistent or honest.
This from a court controlled by the party that decries the federal government having too much power. Watch as the spiders eat their own and go on not caring.
