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

[Concerned American]

When are you commies going to stop with this bullshit. They couldn't be charged because of Lincoln's amnesty. This isn't the late 1800s.

.

There was also a formal declaration of separation made by the Confederate states that recognized the insurrection in that case. These people are trolling. They can't be this stupid.

 

[meaner gene]

Just STFU, not going to play your absurd childish game.

.

You have no clue what you're talking about, because you can't answer a simple question without throwing Trump under the bus.

You can't apply due process to a case where disqualification is obvious. But you have to cling to due process and review by the USSC anyway.

 

[meaner gene]

There was also a formal declaration of separation made by the Confederate states that recognized the insurrection in that case. These people are trolling. They can't be this stupid.

Secession isn't insurrection.

 

[meaner gene]

The interesting part of the republican argument, is that republicans don't know how to write a constitutional amendment. They wrote the 14th to keep people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee out of office, and Civil War amnesty meant they'd have to wait for the next insurrection before they could ban anybody from office.

 

[Rigby5]

That's not what Section 5 says at all. It says that Congress can overturn the removal of a name from the ballot, not that they have the authority to ban someone.

It says that Congress has the power to enforce Section 5, but it doesn' say who has the power to determine who should be removed. I guess it would depend on what office the person is running for.

Wrong.

It is section 3 that says Congress can overturn the removal of a name from the ballot.
{...
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
...}

Section 5 says that the WHOLE "Article", meaning the entire 14th amendment, is subject to congressional jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not exclusive authority nor does it necessarily pertain to the Article 3 section.

States control their elections

No, states do NOT at all control their elections.
They run them, but things like eligibility are federally dictated.
For example:
{...
The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
Be at least 35 years old
Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
...}
The 14th amendment is a federal document, and clearly then is only federal jurisdiction.

But why are we even talking about this, since taking a person off the ballot clearly is illegal without a trial.
{...

Amendment V​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
...
, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
...
...}

Before any action can be taken against someone accused of "insurrection", clearly there first have to be conviction.
That is the most basic, simple, and obvious legal concept in the world.

 

[OKTexas]

You have no clue what you're talking about, because you can't answer a simple question without throwing Trump under the bus.

You can't apply due process to a case where disqualification is obvious. But you have to cling to due process and review by the USSC anyway.

You missed my edit, try again.

.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Does it take an act of Congress for States to disqualify someone because they aren't of age?

Nope, thats part of the qualifications clause.

 

[Rigby5]

Secession isn't insurrection.

Seems to me they are identical?

 

[Rigby5]

The interesting part of the republican argument, is that republicans don't know how to write a constitutional amendment. They wrote the 14th to keep people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee out of office, and Civil War amnesty meant they'd have to wait for the next insurrection before they could ban anybody from office.

The main point of the 14th amendment was to prevent segregation, not to keep the secessionists out of office.
The clause on office ineligibility is not only minor, but itself allows infinite exceptions.
Blocking anyone from office likely was not even really legal for them to add to the Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

Does it take an act of Congress for States to disqualify someone because they aren't of age?

YES, clearly the age qualifications come from Congress, and NOT the states.
When states leave those too young off the ballot, they are not making the disqualification, but Congress is. The states are just doing what Congress said for them to do.
But Congress did not ever suggest someone should be stricken from office over a protected, non-violent, political protest.

 

[OKTexas]

The interesting part of the republican argument, is that republicans don't know how to write a constitutional amendment. They wrote the 14th to keep people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee out of office, and Civil War amnesty meant they'd have to wait for the next insurrection before they could ban anybody from office.

Ever heard of the prohibition on ex post facto laws? Secession wasn't declared illegal by SCOTUS till the war was over and Lincoln gave amnesty to all the confederates.

.

 

[OKTexas]

YES, clearly the age qualifications come from Congress, and NOT the states.
When states leave those too young off the ballot, they are not making the disqualification, but Congress is. The states are just doing what Congress said for them to do.
But Congress did not ever suggest someone should be stricken from office over a protected, non-violent, political protest.

The qualifications for "federal office" come from the Constitution, not congress

.

 

[Curried Goats]

YES, clearly the age qualifications come from Congress, and NOT the states.

No they come from the constitution just as the 14th does.

When states leave those too young off the ballot, they are not making the disqualification, but Congress is.

Wrong again. States do.

The states are just doing what Congress said for them to do.

You mean the constitution.

But Congress did not ever suggest someone should be stricken from office over a protected, non-violent, political protest.

The constitution does....

 

[Curried Goats]

Nope, thats part of the qualifications clause.

As is section 3 of the 14th amendment. Not being an insurrectionist who had previously taken an oath to protect the constitution is also a qualification.

 

[The Duke]

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

Ya know, The Constitution says it's Congress, so I'm going with that.

 

[Leviticus]

Since states dictate election rules in their own jurisdiction, I would assume that they have the authority to enforce it on their own.

 

[Leviticus]

Ya know, The Constitution says it's Congress, so I'm going with that.

Can you cite the part of the 14th amendment that specifies that congress alone has the authority to enforce it?

 

[ThisIsMe]

As is section 3 of the 14th amendment. Not being an insurrectionist who had previously taken an oath to protect the constitution is also a qualification.

Who has been charged with insurrection ?

 

[meaner gene]

The main point of the 14th amendment was to prevent segregation, not to keep the secessionists out of office.

As I said, you're only proving that republicans don't know how to write constitutional amendments. Because if it was to prevent segregation, you missed that two decades later the USSC upheld segregation as constitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson
Apr 13, 1896 – May 18, 1896
A case in which the Court held that state-mandated segregation laws did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.