re: Wednesday or other SCOTUS experts, is this a trap?

quote:

---

There was a 30 day impeachment process, with a trial and ACQUITTAL, on this issue.

---

And that result has no precedents impact on any Court. I am confident Trump and the CO GOP reminded the Court of the impeachment proceeding. Also confident the Plaintiffs pointed out that 57 Senators voted to convict, and most others voted to acquit only because they didn't think a President no longer in office could be impeached.

Either way, the CO courts do not have to give the impeachment proceeding any weight at all.

quote:

---

Did that sound better in your head?
Are Senators impeached? Congressman?

---

You're making my argument for me.

quote:

---

My hot take is that I think the CO decision is wrong bc Section 3 of the 14th amendment needs enabling legislation from Congress and congress passed a law where insurrection is a crime.

---

I posted above before I read your hot take.

You are arguing that Congress can change the meaning of a clause in the Constitution by passing legislation. That cannot be correct. The Constitution says what it says no matter what Congress does.

No Court has held a conviction is necessary to invoke Section 3, and surely defendants have raised this as a defense?

4th Circuit said a Section 3 suit against Madison Cawthorn could proceed, but was moot when he lost the primary.

A Federal District Court in Georgia held that Marjorie Taylor Greene's actions did not arise to "engaging in insurrection" under Section 3, but did not rely on the lack of a conviction.

A New Mexico State court removed a county commissioner from office under Section 3 just for being present at Jan. 6. He was convicted of criminal trespass.

None of the State Courts so far (CO, MN, MI) have tossed the case on the grounds that Trump has not been convicted, which would be an easy exit.

I don't think the CO holding will stand because SCOTUS will rule the clause does not apply to POTUS, but not due to lack of a conviction.

quote:

---

You are arguing that Congress can change the meaning of a clause in the Constitution by passing legislation. That cannot be correct.

---

That's not what she said.

All sorts of Constitutional mandates require an act of Congress to execute.

I mean Congress sets jurisdiction for federal courts and has created concurrent jurisdictions with the USSC (like standing).

When the 18th Amendment was passed, Congress passed the Volstead Act.

Now, I'm not sure that a criminal statute is this "enabling legislation", but clearly Congress is the body who has to create the laws that execute this particular clause. This is a big reason why we're in this place currently where nobody really understands what the limits of this clause are, or how to execute the scheme in order to accomplish the goals of the clause.

quote:

---

Once it was Senators had but one task, to hear the evidence, then determine, as a jury, to disqualify or acquit. Constitutionality was a shark they'd already jumped.

---

I believe yours is the fairy tale since the GOP Senators get their marching orders from Turtle. And 7 of them rebelled and became the only Senators in history to vote to remove a President from their own party.

However, I agree that SCOTUS will hold the impeachment was the only way to disqualify a President, and the GOP missed its chance.

quote:

---

You're making my argument for me.

---

Let's try this another way. When you say ... "If USSC rules that this "acquittal" counts, then the clause is invalid except for impeachment purposes done in Congress" ... that would be a big fat "no." Senators/Representatives "literally" undergo a separate process.

But in the instance of Constitutionally coequal branches, with one of the branches having reviewed cause for disqualification at trial, and acquitted in accordance with the Constitution, the Judiciary cannot declare the finding null and void. Unless they choose to invalidate the entire process, saying continuance of impeachment following departure was a Constitutional breach.

quote:

---

"If USSC rules that this "acquittal" counts, then the clause is invalid except for impeachment purposes done in Congress" ... that would be a big fat "no." Senators/Representatives "literally" undergo a separate process.

---

Which means this clause could never be used for them if the Presidential impeachment process is the avenue.

See how that becomes absurd really quickly?

quote:

---

But in the instance of Constitutionally coequal branches, with one of the branches having reviewed cause for disqualification at trial, and acquitted in accordance with the Constitution

---

For a very limited purpose that doesn't involve the "insurrection" clause.

quote:

---

the Judiciary cannot declare the finding null and void

---

Yes, the judiciary can't remove the President via impeachment if the Senate doesn't vote to convict.

quote:

---

Unless they choose to invalidate the entire process

---

This would only apply to the specific impeachment process

quote:

---

Wednesday believed Sydney powell

---

What’s the point here?

You believed in the kraken too?

quote:

---

Via that acquittal, was he deemed qualified to run again?

---

No