www.nbcnews.com
"The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement."Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Democrats can't be stupid enough to have thought they would ever win this case. Another example of Democrats abusing the power of government to punish people they do not like.
It would seem to me that the president has immunity from direct prosecution for actions taken while president, unless he was prosecuted by Congress for those actions via an impeachment trial. Given that Trump wasn't convicted in his impeachment trial would, to me, imply his immunity is intact. Yes this does mean that he could have assassinated someone using Seal Team 6. If your crime is that heinous, getting 2/3rds of Congress to impeach shouldn't be an issue.
It is amazing how tone deaf leftist are.
I am not sure it is quite that simple. I agree, any actions within the purview of the presidency likely holds immunity (and rightfully so), but assassinating a competitor is acting outside that purview. I don't see immunity on that, but I am interested in the SCOTUS's interpretation there.
I'm certain Democrat wouldn't vote to impeach a Democrat President but I think Republicans would if the crime were proven without question and serious.
You have way more faith in them than I do.
While I agree with you that getting 2/3rds of Congress to agree on something would be near impossible, I think its what the founding fathers intended. It was meant so trivial crap couldn't be used to overturn the will of the people. And I assume that logical people would think that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a citizen would be something that even president's own party couldn't vote against. If not, then clearly we the people are electing the wrong kind of people into government.
Secession. No country can survive with such a diametrically opposed identities split nearly evenly across it. In the past, we governed towards the middle because you had to. Cabinet nominees and judges required a 60 vote approval which meant you had to be moderate to get votes from across the aisle. Budgets required a 60 vote approval which guaranteed some moderation and compromise. But over the past 20 years, we've eliminated all the guard rails that the founding fathers put into place to prevent extremism from either party from ruling the day. So now its just majority rule and you can put the most extreme conservative or liberal onto the bench. Now its just a majority vote to pass a continuing resolution to fund whatever the party in power wants. We don't even do budgets anymore. And because of this, we've seen VP Harris break more Senate voting ties than any VP in history, and has done it in only 3 years. And as we've moved towards the extremist positions, any candidate that runs anywhere near the middle gets primaried or lamblasted by their own parties. I give you protestors following Kristen Sinema into an airport bathroom as example A, and for example B, I can't count the number of solid Republican politicians who've been deemed "not Trumpy enough". Its too late to reinstall guardrails, so all I can hope is that ensuing future fracture will be peaceful.
I'm not budging. The Founding Fathers would not at all see a balanced budget, shrinking the federal government, and preserving free speech and the Second Amendment as extremist. Those issues are just for starters.
Only Congress can enforce the Constitution? You may need to go back and take another civics course.
The 14th has a specific line that gives congress the power to enforce it.
