Likely? Try definitely. Or did PolitiFact forget who controls the House?
Of course they won’t, but damn they should.
Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.
We actually don’t know who controls the house, yet. Republicans need 7 more representatives, Democrats need 17, votes are still being counted.
Yes!! Let’s fight facism with facism
Enforcing the law isn’t fascism. Insurrectionists aren’t permitted to hold office.
Edit to add, it’s not like President Vance would be any better.
He was never actually charged for the insurrection though, was he? Just all the fraud, for which he’ll never be held accountable because our garbage-ass justice system had to treat him with fucking kid gloves. Not that they really bothered doing anything about the rank-and-file bootlicker scumbags who did participate, anyway.
Best I can hope for now is that the fucker ends up with locked-in syndrome or something. But, to your second point, you’re right, none of it matters because Vance is a sack of human waste too.
He was never actually charged for the insurrection though, was he?
That’s not a requirement according to the amendment. This is also why they’ve spent so much effort on downplaying it, trying to call it anything other than what it was. The Congressional inquiry determined that it was in fact an insurrection and it has been defined as such officially. As written, the inability to hold office should be self-enforcing, the Supreme Court went out of their way to interpret it in a way that it most definitely does not say.
Rich people faced with repercussions, or even accountability, is fascism to their supporters.
Didn’t the supreme court say they didn’t give a fuck about the constitution?
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case
Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.
There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.
Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.
As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.
He’s eating the sections. He’s eating the amendments. Of the people that live. There.
If they did that ud have civil war.
I appreciate the enthusiasm for social upheaval, but I wouldn’t call a civil war a good time.
Would an undisputed Trump presidency be less violent than ripping off the band aid? Dont choose more violence simply because it happens slower.
