Will the Supreme Court hear another case related to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by the end of 2024?

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

The question in the Colorado case is not the most consequential, it’s just about access for the primary ballot, which certainly could be allowed only for a subsequent case to address eligibility to serve as president. Also NONE of the justices even insinuated that they disagree with the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection, which they can’t avoid ultimately addressing. Also they can’t really say the law here is unconstitutional and overturn it because it is the constitution, which is literally the only thing the justices are accountable to and they can much more easily say “abortion isn’t a right granted by the constitution” than they can say “actually insurrection is not disqualifying” or “the president doesn’t swear an oath to support the constitution”.

@BTE hmm... i think tomorrow they actually will definitively state that trump is eligible. we'll see though

@SemioticRivalry Yes for the primary ballot for sure. But ballot access isn't what the 14th amendment prohibits at all. It prohibits serving because not everyone who takes office was elected by statewide ballot, such as Senators who at the time the 14th amendment was ratified were chosen by the state senate and are also occasionally appointed by a governor when a seat is vacated until the subsequent election. Plus the amendment isn't just for banning elected officials, but anyone appointed by the president to a cabinet position. So it makes no sense at all for ballot access to mean eligibility to serve. They are very different things.

@BTE ballot access is only granted to people who can serve though. you can't get on the ballot as a 14 year old. SCOCO used the 14th as the reasoning to remove Trump from the ballot. I think when SCOTUS say that SCOCO was wrong they will also say that he's eligible. Or that you need to be convicted of something to be disqualified.

@SemioticRivalry The conviction thing would be nonsense since the amendment includes the provision that 2/3 of the Senate can remove disqualification. Especially since the congress that wrote and passed the amendment did not create a congressional enforcement process despite clearly believing it was in effect once ratified since several people were ejected from Congress. Also, Trump was impeached for incitement and 57/100 senators voted in favor of convicting him so it is wrong to say the question of insurrection has been left completely unaddressed by the Congress and it makes more sense that any hypothetical congressional enforcement of the amendment would be done by simple majority than supermajority since it is a question of exclusion rather than removal, the latter of which should clearly have a higher bar.

@BTE there has never been an act of congress that asserts donald trump's ineligibility. the idea that 57 senators voting to unsuccessfully remove you automatically creates a disqualification sounds crazy. Especially in the Senate where 60 votes is needed to create new law. If the will of Congress was to disqualify trump, all they had to do was pass a law saying so. i'm open to the idea that it's self executing, but I think it should have a pretty high standard

More related questions