Jurisdiction Stripping or Court Killing? The “No Kings Act” is a Decapitation of the Constitution

[Doc7505]

I'd pay to see the video of Chuck Schumer run over by a bus.

~~~~~~
Democrats will be the first to throw Schumer under the bus as soon as he is no longer useful.

 

[struth]

The Demafacsist are trying to establish their own court. This is what tyrantical regimes have done throughout history, and a play right out of National Socialist party

Volksgerichtshof People's Court (Germany) - Wikipedia

 

[Doc7505]

What nonsense. Remember that it was Trump who wanted to suspend the Constitution.

~~~~~~
Funny that you didn't include Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

**********​

The president’s disdain for his oath

There is a reason American soldiers, judges and political leaders must swear to protect the Constitution. America is a free, prosperous republic because of this charter we celebrate today. It is what makes us a country of laws, rather than one ruled by mobs or dictators. Straying from the...

www.heritage.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Trump said he never took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Not what he said.

We know what Trump ("he said"), said through his lawyers in the courts:

"Trump’s legal team also has argued that even if the Colorado State Supreme Court were able to consider Trump’s eligibility, the court was barred from such an action because the president was not “an officer of the United States;” and he did not take the oath of office specified in the 14th Amendment."

Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment Covers the Presidency

The Supreme Court should not twist the Constitution, argues Saikrishna Prakash
January 19, 2024

Section 3 is a mouthful. It provides that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, … or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States …, to support the Constitution … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … .”

Trump’s lawyers all but admit that a rebellious lieutenant is covered by this text and hence cannot hold any office of the United States. But they argue that a rebellious president is outside the scope of Section 3. Yet why would a provision disqualify all rebellious officers, including district attorneys, judges, port collectors, and captains, but provide a safe harbor for a rebellious president? This claim defies explanation. The people who drafted this provision sought to disqualify from future office all officers who broke their oath to the Constitution by engaging in rebellion or insurrection, including presidents.

The text yields the same conclusion. Did Donald Trump take an oath to support the Constitution? On Jan. 20, 2017, he took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” That vow not only required him to support the Constitution, it obliged him to resist violations of it. Because a president must do more than those who merely vow to “support the Constitution” is no sound argument that he may do less. The greater duty encompasses the lesser obligation. If it did not, we would have to imagine that a president could somehow “defend the Constitution” while simultaneously failing to support it. That square cannot be circled.

And the spin on what the Supreme Court is actually saying is what many people are posting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

TRUMP v. ANDERSON
Per Curiam
...

The “patchwork” that would likely result from state en-forcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole. U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 822. But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast” or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast—“for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.

* * *

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it.

See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and J ACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT , J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into ac- count the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

It is so ordered.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

~~~~~~
Democrats will be the first to throw Schumer under the bus as soon as he is no longer useful.

The Democratic party is not MAGA/GOP with their fleet of buses running over everyone and anyone getting in their path.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Democratic party is not MAGA/GOP with their fleet of buses running over everyone and anyone getting in their path.

I am sure Joe Biden will be happy to hear that.

 

[struth]

We know what Trump ("he said"), said through his lawyers in the courts:

"Trump’s legal team also has argued that even if the Colorado State Supreme Court were able to consider Trump’s eligibility, the court was barred from such an action because the president was not “an officer of the United States;” and he did not take the oath of office specified in the 14th Amendment."

Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment Covers the Presidency

The Supreme Court should not twist the Constitution, argues Saikrishna Prakash
January 19, 2024

Section 3 is a mouthful. It provides that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, … or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States …, to support the Constitution … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … .”

Trump’s lawyers all but admit that a rebellious lieutenant is covered by this text and hence cannot hold any office of the United States. But they argue that a rebellious president is outside the scope of Section 3. Yet why would a provision disqualify all rebellious officers, including district attorneys, judges, port collectors, and captains, but provide a safe harbor for a rebellious president? This claim defies explanation. The people who drafted this provision sought to disqualify from future office all officers who broke their oath to the Constitution by engaging in rebellion or insurrection, including presidents.

The text yields the same conclusion. Did Donald Trump take an oath to support the Constitution? On Jan. 20, 2017, he took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” That vow not only required him to support the Constitution, it obliged him to resist violations of it. Because a president must do more than those who merely vow to “support the Constitution” is no sound argument that he may do less. The greater duty encompasses the lesser obligation. If it did not, we would have to imagine that a president could somehow “defend the Constitution” while simultaneously failing to support it. That square cannot be circled.

And the spin on what the Supreme Court is actually saying is what many people are posting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

TRUMP v. ANDERSON
Per Curiam
...

The “patchwork” that would likely result from state en-forcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole. U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 822. But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast” or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast—“for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.

* * *

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it.

See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and J ACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT , J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into ac- count the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

It is so ordered.

Yeah who can ever forget how the demafacist in CO tried to undermine our democracy? I know I won’t.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am sure Joe Biden will be happy to hear that.

Please. No equivalency.

Joe withdrew on his own. He wasn't fired. Joe is a hero to Democrats.

Starting way back with Chris Christie and others, Trump's fleet of buses was rolling over everybody and anything in it's path.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Joe withdrew on his own. He wasn't fired. Joe is a hero to Democrats.

Pure garbage.

That you would push that narrative is why you are a troll.