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

[Lesh]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong Lesh

The 14th states that Congress can reinstate those that have been ruled ineligible.

It does not state that states legislatures or state courts can make any judgement regarding this .

The Court ruled 9-0 that states can not rule on Federal eligibility. This was a state a court ruling that they overturned. And it was reasonable.
They said that state courts can only rule on state level candidates.

Where several judges wrote dissents was the premise that ONLY Congress and not ANY Court can rule candidates ineligible.

That was a huge overreach.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The 14th states that Congress can reinstate those that have been ruled ineligible.

It does not state that states legislatures or state courts can make any judgement regarding this .

The Court ruled 9-0 that states can not rule on Federal eligibility. This was a state a court ruling that they overturned. And it was reasonable.
They said that state courts can only rule on state level candidates.

Where several judges wrote dissents was the premise that ONLY Congress and not ANY Court can rule candidates ineligible.

That was a huge overreach.

I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is...

The court didn't say that States cannot rule on Federal eligibility. What is really boils down to is that with out governing legislation from Congress states couldn't rule at this time because Congress has not defined (a) the criteria, and (b) the process. Congress could do that with federal legislation and empower states to make the call.

But we all know that Congress won't pass such legislation.

WW

 

[jc456]

Since you failed to back up all your lies in this post let me educate you.

Section 5 lists only on entity having enforcement
Power. Congress.

And that power is over the entire article, Moron.

she's fking canadian, why would she know our constitution?

 

[jc456]

The 14th states that Congress can reinstate those that have been ruled ineligible.

It does not state that states legislatures or state courts can make any judgement regarding this .

The Court ruled 9-0 that states can not rule on Federal eligibility. This was a state a court ruling that they overturned. And it was reasonable.
They said that state courts can only rule on state level candidates.

Where several judges wrote dissents was the premise that ONLY Congress and not ANY Court can rule candidates ineligible.

That was a huge overreach.

you should go educate your demofk judges on the supreme court. It seems you're smarter than them!!! ahahhahahhahahahhahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

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

I feel like I have the power!!!! let's just go there, I'll take all my opponents off the lists because I'm tooo scared of them!!!! hahahhahahaahahahaahahahaha. Just another piece of evidence that demofks hate the constitution and democracy.

 

[Nostra]

The 14th states that Congress can reinstate those that have been ruled ineligible.

It does not state that states legislatures or state courts can make any judgement regarding this .

The Court ruled 9-0 that states can not rule on Federal eligibility. This was a state a court ruling that they overturned. And it was reasonable.
They said that state courts can only rule on state level candidates.

Where several judges wrote dissents was the premise that ONLY Congress and not ANY Court can rule candidates ineligible.

That was a huge overreach.

That was one pathetic attempt to save face Lesh .

Section 5 gives sole authority to enforce the 14th to Congress, as I stated in the OP.

And as the Supreme Court just ruled unanimously.


Does anyone know how I can contact them just in case they need my brilliance and expertise in the future?

 

[Nostra]

They do you Snowflake. They are official courts and their rulings are official rulings. You hope a higher court over rules them but until that happens Trump has officially been found to be a piece of shit insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding the office of President just as a civil trial last year determined that he was lying, sexual assaulter and monetarily liable to his victim. Those are facts. Feel free to cry about them.

Glad you now agree there was no insurrection.

Fact.

 

[Curried Goats]

Glad you now agree there was no insurrection.

Fact.

I'm glad you snowflakes feel the need to imagine agreement. Thank you for revealing that frailty.

 

[Nostra]

I'm glad you snowflakes feel the need to imagine agreement. Thank you for revealing that frailty.

You just stated Trump was an INSURRECTIONIST unless the SC rules in his favor.



Time for you to scramble, Simp. Gonna be fun to watch.

 

[Curried Goats]

You just stated Trump was an INSURRECTIONIST unless the SC rules in his favor.



Time for you to scramble, Simp. Gonna be fun to watch.

The Supreme Court didn't over turn their judgement that Trump is an insurrectionist, Moron. What they said was they lacked the authority to remedy it even if he is.

 

[Nostra]

The Supreme Court didn't over turn their judgement that Trump is an insurrectionist, Moron. What they said was they lacked the authority to remedy it even if he is.

Scramble Simp, scramble.

 

[Curried Goats]

Scramble Simp, scramble.

You're the one who can't respond to me with anything but emojis. Did the Supreme Court take a position on their findings of Trump as insurrectionist? Yes or no?

 

[Nostra]

You're the one who can't respond to me with anything but emojis. Did the Supreme Court take a position on their findings of Trump as insurrectionist? Yes or no?

The SC unanimously threw all the sham state schemes out.

So we are left with zero insurrection charges, zero trials, and zero convictions.

Sux to be you, Loser.

 

[Curried Goats]

The SC unanimously threw all the sham state schemes out.

So we are left with zero insurrection charges, zero trials, and zero convictions.

Sux to be you, Loser.

What the fuck are you on about, Moron? Even if SCOTUS ruled he was an insurrectionist, that isn't a conviction. They handle questions of constitutionality, they aren't a criminal court. Jesus you're stupid. Also, since you seem to be unaware, there were multiple issues decided on through the history of this case. Colorado's lower court first found that Jan 6th was an insurrection, that Trump engaged in that insurrection but like SCOTUS they didn't think States had the authority to remove Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Next it went to the Colorado Supreme Court who affirmed both that Jan 6th was an insurrection, that Trump engaged in it but they over ruled the lower court on the issue of whether or not States could disqualify candidates under the 14th. SCOTUS didn't address the first two issues at all. They didn't over rule Colorado on whether Jan 6th was an insurrection or whether or not Trump engaged in it. They chose not to. Instead they skipped right over to whether or not States have the right to disqualify candidates under the 14th and overruled on that issue alone. It's not our fault reality hurts your feelings and that courts across the country have found that Trump is an insurrectionist, a fraud and a sexual assaulter.

 

[Nostra]

What the fuck are you on about, Moron? Even if SCOTUS ruled he was an insurrectionist, that isn't a conviction. They handle questions of constitutionality, they aren't a criminal court. Jesus you're stupid. Also, since you seem to be unaware, there were multiple issues decided on through the history of this case. Colorado's lower court first found that Jan 6th was an insurrection, that Trump engaged in that insurrection but like SCOTUS they didn't think States had the authority to remove Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Next it went to the Colorado Supreme Court who affirmed both that Jan 6th was an insurrection, that Trump engaged in it but they over ruled the lower court on the issue of whether or not States could disqualify candidates under the 14th. SCOTUS didn't address the first two issues at all. They didn't over rule Colorado on whether Jan 6th was an insurrection or whether or not Trump engaged in it. They chose not to. Instead they skipped right over to whether or not States have the right to disqualify candidates under the 14th and overruled on that issue alone. It's not our fault reality hurts your feelings and that courts across the country have found that Trump is an insurrectionist, a fraud and a sexual assaulter.

Nice unhinged rant. I made it thru two whole sentences before getting bored.

Keep scrambling….lyou still have nothing, Simp.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nice unhinged rant. I made it thru two whole sentences before getting bored.

Keep scrambling….lyou still have nothing, Simp.

You don't have anything and even admitted to being uninterested in actual argument. You can't even troll properly. Try less obvious projection.

 

[Nostra]

You don't have anything and even admitted to being uninterested in actual argument. You can't even troll properly. Try less obvious projection.

Quick yes or no question ……..Has Trump been charged under the Federal Criminal statute for insurrection?

 

[Curried Goats]

Quick yes or no question ……..Has Trump been charged under the Federal Criminal statute for insurrection?

Nope. What does that question have to do with anything I've said in this thread?

 

[Nostra]

Nope. What does that question have to do with anything I've said in this thread?

Ok, so since he hasn’t even been charged under the statute, much less tried, even much less convicted, you have nothing.

NO INSURRECTION.

Time for you to accept reality and give up on the 14th, Corky Goat.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok, so since he hasn’t even been charged under the statute, much less tried, even much less convicted, you have nothing.

NO INSURRECTION.

Time for you to accept reality and give up on the 14th, Corky Goat.

Just because you say I have nothing, doesn't make your emotionally frail claims accurate. I never once claimed that Trump was convicted in criminal court of insurrection. I said Colorado's lower court held a hearing, looked at evidence, heard testimony, from both sides, and then determined, through their legal lense, that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Then Colorado's Supreme Court affirmed that ruling and SCOTUS declined to address it. If you can't accept, emotionally, that those legal processing and judgements occurred, that's your problem.