Legal Random, Random

[patrick]

That is two wins for James in February

[Owendonovan]

I wonder what percentage tfg's people are mentioned in this thread? (and how many more will end up here?)

[Fastbackss]

Your son just shot 4 people to death.
I wonder in what state of mind that would put you.

Side track:
Now, regardless of how well you try to raise your kids, you can still be tried for stuff they do. Imagine how the parents of Jeffrey Dahmer would feel. One more reason not to have any.

This one is close to home (literally)

Why I will respectfully counter you here is as follows:

- she bought him the gun
- she encouraged him to go to practice with it
- she texted with him (after he got in trouble at school) something equivalent to "stop drawing attention"
- the school called her the morning of the shooting - she came in - she did not mention anything about the gun nor did she check his backpack

There was some culpability as far as I am concerned.

[ponchi101]

Ah, didn't know the details.
She bought him he gun? Ok she is responsible too. I change my stance.

[ashkor87]

Interesting question about the fourteenth amendment- does Congress need to pass a resolution. Seems odd - if there is a law on the books, isn't it up to the Attorney General to enforce it? Appeals to the DC Circuit court could follow,but why should Congress be involved?

[ti-amie]

The problems the US legal/justice system are facing now were never conceived of by the men who wrote the Constitution or those that created the Bill of Rights/Amendments. Every situation has to be looked at and weighed to see how it would apply in a situation TFG has created out of whole cloth as the saying goes.

There is no way Clarence Thomas should be involved in deciding a legal issue that his wife helped create. The problem is unless he recuses himself there is no mechanism to make him. The SCOTUS added to the problem by accepting the case. Most legal scholars feel that was a huge mistake.

Anyway when it comes to amendments I believe, and I am not a lawyer let alone a constitutional lawyer, Congress does have to get involved. Back in the day the Supreme Court only reviewed strictly legal questions. Bush vs Gore ended that.

TFG is not saying he's not a crook. He's saying he has the right to be a crook.

[ashkor87]

Nobody is trying to decide whether the amendment is valid or not. That would be for scotus. Here the only issue is of applying the law..that is the job of the executive. Congress makes the laws, the executive implements them, the supreme court can decide whether the law is valid or not. The law is already in existence.

[ashkor87]

Take, for instance, the voting rights act. No action by Congress is required, the AG just enforces it. Or any other law, for that matter

[ti-amie]

Nobody is trying to decide whether the amendment is valid or not. That would be for scotus. Here the only issue is of applying the law..that is the job of the executive. Congress makes the laws, the executive implements them, the supreme court can decide whether the law is valid or not. The law is already in existence.

March 4, 2024 / by emptywheel

SCOTUS INVITES JACK SMITH TO SUPERSEDE TRUMP WITH INCITING INSURRECTION

The Supreme Court has not only held that states cannot enforce the 14th Amendment for Federal offices,

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

But it held that Congress must exclude insurrectionists from office.

The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.

It points to the predecessor to 18 USC 2383 as means to exclude someone.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383. [my emphasis]

Taken in tandem with SCOTUS’ punt on Trump’s immunity bid, this seems like an invitation for Jack Smith to supersede Trump with inciting insurrection. After all, SCOTUS has now upheld the DC Circuit opinion that says there’s no double jeopardy problem with trying someone for something on which they were acquitted after impeachment.

Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to this order. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/04/s ... urrection/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/04/s ... rint=print

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

if anyone needs to be impeached for incompetence, it is the AG Merrick Garland - he has left it too late. Once the orimary season begins (tomorrow), by tradition, the Justice dept will lay off. This avenue was always available, they just didnt take it. Of course, there would be rioting in the streets, and a new civil war, possibly, with southern states seceding (again!) if the AG had actually ruled that Trump is not eligible. But anyway, too late. The AG has put politics above his duty (just not in the way most people think!)

[Owendonovan]

The people in government are just too selfish to be able to see beyond their own needs and wants. They are not there for the public, especially the gop. It's got a bit of a "lost cause" feel.

[ti-amie]

I still feel that the US Justice system was not built for quick action. It's designed for deliberation which means things move slowly. Tiny, Leonard Leo (Federalist Society), Mitch McConnell (no SC noms during an election unless it's our person) and their ilk have taken advantage of that. This entire situation is a stress test for the entire US system of government.

What they want is everyone "other" being put back into "their place".

[ponchi101]

Sometime in the 1770's:
"What if, for some particular reason, some totally amoral set of individuals were to be elected not only to Congress or the Senate, but that the president himself would be a totally immoral person?"
Deep silence across the room.
"I am only joking, gentlemen!! That was in jest. Now, shall, or shall we not, add a comma HERE in this article..."