Poll: Who has enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

[Hum Dinger]

There seems to be some confusion on this, so I will post the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in it's entirety so all can read from beginning to end to find the answer. I will include a link so I can't be accused of altering the text.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Fourteenth Amendment Explained

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.

Section 4​

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

So, you believe that at the time A. 14 S.3 was written, they intended for Congress to legislate for each and every Confederate that had held an office then participated in the insurrection, correct?

That would require that both Houses of Congress pass thousands of individual bills to bar each and every individual Confederate.

Guess again, fool!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There seems to be some confusion on this, so I will post the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in it's entirety so all can read from beginning to end to find the answer. I will include a link so I can't be accused of altering the text.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Fourteenth Amendment Explained

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.

Section 4​

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

It’s self enforcing just as is a disqualification for age or citizenship.

 

[Nostra]

It’s self enforcing just as is a disqualification for age or citizenship.

That isn't what the 14th states, simp.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That isn't what the 14th states, simp.

It is exactly what it says.

 

[Nostra]

It is exactly what it says.

Quote where it says "self enforcing".

GO!

 

[ThisIsMe]

8 judges in Colorado at least and a few more in the other States who disqualified him from the ballot. Haven't you been paying attention?

Ok, so 8 judges didn’t actually charge him with insurrection..they just “said it”, and that’s that? Is that your idea of justice?

So, let’s say some judges say it wasn’t insurrection? Now who’s right? Are you going to say it’s up to each individual state to decide if it was or not? How does THAT work? That will just come down to partisanship. Left leaning states will call it insurrection, right leaning states may not.

Also, insurrection is a criminal statute. So, does that mean a state can say he committed insurrection but not charge and prosecute for the criminal statute? So states can ignore the law? How does THAT work?

But, I like your idea that states can determine, on their own, who can be disqualified from elections. In a dark part of my mind, I really hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of disqualification, because I want to see the flurry of disqualifications against both trump and Biden.

It will be wonderful!

 

[Rawley]

It is exactly what it says.

Nope

 

[Rawley]

Quote where it says "self enforcing".

GO!

Crickets.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok, so 8 judges didn’t actually charge him with insurrection..they just “said it”, and that’s that? Is that your idea of justice?

Again, you dumb Bingo, judges don't ever charge anyone. That's not their job. Not even in criminal cases. What they did do was hold a hearing with evidence and testimony about whether or not Jan 6th was an insurrection and whether or not Trump engaged in it. Both those issues were adjudicated in that hearing and the judge and then later 7 appellate judges, found, after looking at evidence and hearing testimony, that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Trump did in fact engage in it.

So, let’s say some judges say it wasn’t insurrection? Now who’s right? Are you going to say it’s up to each individual state to decide if it was or not? How does THAT work? That will just come down to partisanship. Left leaning states will call it insurrection, right leaning states may not.

That's how it always works. Some Democratic candidates are on ballots in some States and not on the ballot in others.

Also, insurrection is a criminal statute. So, does that mean a state can say he committed insurrection but not charge and prosecute for the criminal statute? So states can ignore the law? How does THAT work?

What? I'm not sure what you're asking me. If you're asking me if States could inflict criminal penalties on Trump without indicting and convicting him in a criminal trial the answer is no. The Colorado ruling doesn't inflict any criminal penalties on Trump.

But, I like your idea that states can determine, on their own, who can be disqualified from elections.

That's not quite what I said. They have to follow the election laws that govern their particular states. Colorado for instance couldn’t disqualify Trump for being fat or orange because neither of those are disqualifications according to the constitution or State law.

In a dark part of my mind, I really hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of disqualification, because I want to see the flurry of disqualifications against both trump and Biden.

It will be wonderful!

It would be wonderful to watch you Bingos think you understand the legal principles behind disqualification.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congress would reinstate them because the civil court has no power, stupid.

The 14th amendment was created to control the states.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You should really read the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. It answers all your questions.

Oh, I understand what they said, I’m just not understanding where they think they get the authority to removed a candidate from the ballot when they haven’t charged him with insurrection “just because they said so”

But I like your idea of justice, it means the right can weaponize it and use it against you, kinda like you all are doing.

This election season is going to be entertaining.

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh, I understand what they said, I’m just not understanding where they think they get the authority to removed a candidate from the ballot when they haven’t charged him with insurrection “just because they said so”

But I like your idea of justice, it means the right can weaponize it and use it against you, kinda like you all are doing.

This election season is going to be entertaining.

That is in the ruling.

It is over 200 pages long. For every question they describe what they found. And why. And then quote the applicable precedent cases as to the authority to make such a determination.

It’s in there.

The problem is that you don’t like the outcome, and refuse to read the reasons why.

 

[Nostra]

Quote where it says "self enforcing".

GO!

Hutch Starskey where did you go?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Quote where it says "self enforcing".

GO!

The part where it says one cannot be president after being found to have engaged in insurrection.

 

[Curried Goats]

The part where it says one cannot be president after being found to have engaged in insurrection.

You'd think that would be fairly clear language but you can't really take anything for granted with these Bingos.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, you dumb Bingo, judges don't ever charge anyone. That's not their job. Not even in criminal cases. What they did do was hold a hearing with evidence and testimony about whether or not Jan 6th was an insurrection and whether or not Trump engaged in it. Both those issues were adjudicated in that hearing and the judge and then later 7 appellate judges, found, after looking at evidence and hearing testimony, that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Trump did in fact engage in it.

That's how it always works. Some Democratic candidates are on ballots in some States and not on the ballot in others.

What? I'm not sure what you're asking me. If you're asking me if States could inflict criminal penalties on Trump without indicating and convicting him in a criminal trial the answer is no. The Colorado ruling doesn't inflict any criminal penalties on Trump.

That's not quite what I said. They have to follow the election laws that govern their particular states. Colorado for instance couldn’t disqualify Trump for being fat or orange because neither of those are disqualifications according to the constitution or State law.

It would be wonderful to watch you Bingos think you understand the legal principles behind disqualification.

Again, you dumb Bingo

First off, what is a bingo? lol, did you just win a a game?

What they did do was hold a hearing with evidence and testimony about whether or not Jan 6th was an insurrection and whether or not Trump engaged in it. Both those issues were adjudicated in that hearing and the judge and then later 7 appellate judges, found, after looking at evidence and hearing testimony, that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Trump did in fact engage in it.

Ahh, “hearing” where democrat appointed judges get to ignore any defense, and just deem he was guilty. They determined he “engaged in insurrection”, determined by democrat appointed judges.

Ok, I’ll buy that. Gotta say..not gonna be a pretty election season if they win..gonna be lots of disqualifications going around, I’m kind of excited!

Some Democratic candidates are on ballots in some States and not on the ballot in others.

When has a state ever disqualified a democratic presidential candidate? Not in recent history.

What? I'm not sure what you're asking me. If you're asking me if States could inflict criminal penalties on Trump without indicating and convicting him in a criminal trial the answer is no. The Colorado ruling doesn't inflict any criminal penalties on Trump.

Yeah, I’m asking now a state can accuse someone of insurrection, and remove him from the ballot, but ignore the criminal statute? Can they do that with any other crime?

That's not quite what I said. They have to follow the election laws that govern their particular states. Colorado for instance couldn’t disqualify Trump for being fat or orange because neither of those are disqualifications according to the constitution or State law.

Oh, I know. I can see several red states “determining” Biden is in dereliction of duty, and guilty of insurrection against the cotus by not upholding its laws. And it will all be legitimate, because the state said so.

It would be wonderful to watch you Bingos think you understand the legal principles behind disqualification.

It’s very understood, the left are a great teacher. What you have taught the right is, no charge, no conviction are needed to remove a candidate from the ballot. All that is required is for something to think the candidate did something worthy of removal. A judge, even a Secretary of State.

I’m giving up on the argument of needing a charge to take action against someone and going with the much easier and more effective system of just interpretation and “because they said so”. It actually makes things so much easier.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The part where it says one cannot be president after being found to have engaged in insurrection.

So, section 5 has no relevance, right? ANYONE can enforce section 3? Right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

That is in the ruling.

It is over 200 pages long. For every question they describe what they found. And why. And then quote the applicable precedent cases as to the authority to make such a determination.

It’s in there.

The problem is that you don’t like the outcome, and refuse to read the reasons why.

I couldn’t care less about the outcome, i just don’t agree with how it was derived. But alas, you’ve won me over because I now see how this could be advantageous to the right. I am eagerly waiting to see how this all plays out.

 

[SavannahMann]

I couldn’t care less about the outcome, i just don’t agree with how it was derived. But alas, you’ve won me over because I now see how this could be advantageous to the right. I am eagerly waiting to see how this all plays out.

To agree or disagree with the way it was derived, you would have to read it.

 

[Concerned American]

They determined he “engaged in insurrection

When was it determined on any legal level that there was an insurrection? It is a criminal action that was never declared or charged by ANYONE. The court can't just pull one out of their asses. The SCOTUS will put them in their places.