Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.
Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It’ll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They’d just declare BLM protests as “insurrection” and ban them from the ballot.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted for pointing this out. This is literally the flaw with the insurrection clause of yes 14th amendment and precisely why it wasn’t enforced. SC ruled that states don’t get to enforce it on their own authority, but failed to specify who does. If the amendment had specified an enforcement mechanism, there would be no need for interpretation.
The same way the minimum age limit for president is enforced.
So, by the supreme court?
Well, we’re fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado’s court ruling.
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
The Fifth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
Disqualification from holding office is not punishment for a crime. If it were, everyone under age 35 would have a 5th Amendment argument to make.
Try again.
Held to answer does not mean sentenced. It means held responsible, or convicted. Accusations or charges are insufficient for accountability according to the Constitution.
Otherwise, you could just accuse every President you don’t like of an insurrection and they’d immediately be removed from office.
“Held to answer” in this context, with the reference to a grand jury, is talking about criminal charges, convictions, and punishment.
Or are you suggesting that a 34 year old would have to come before a grand jury before being disqualified from the office of President?
Are you suggesting there’s logic to your argument? You can’t just say, “he was part of an insurrection” and disqualify him from office. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, anyone could accuse a sitting President of an insurrection and they’d be removed from office. Think about it.
There’s a difference between being thrown in jail without a trial and… Being barred from the highest office of the country - a position of public service.
You have a right to freedom, not to a specific job
Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?
Firstly, there’s a difference from being barred from the election proces, and already being in office and removed from it…
So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?
You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.
The fifth amendment doesn’t apply to impeachment, nor does it in the event of ballot qualifications. Like, the 5th amendment doesn’t apply to age restrictions on holding public office.
The law says,“If you engaged in insurrection, you are ineligible to hold federal office”. Just like is says,“If you are under 35, you are ineligible to hold the office of President”.
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
You watch them on TV doing it. And after you see them on TV doing it, they become unqualified for office, based on the due process afforded by the state attorney generals, and/or departments that manage who is and who isn’t qualified and can be placed on a ballot, per due process.
You don’t need a court to adjudicate being of improper age, do you? Certain items can be considered “prima facie”… Basically: You, and everyone else watched it happens is considered prima facie for processes like this.
We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.
You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.
Exactly. I’d doesn’t say convicted of participating in an insurrection. It says if you participate in an insurrection you are automatically intelligible for office unless the disability is removed by congress.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.
I wish that were true. Not only was he not convicted of having anything to do with an insurrection, he wasn’t even charged with it. His attempt to remain in power is not the same as an attempt to overthrow the current power of the government.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-didnt-charge-donald-trump-insurrection-rcna187578
It IS true.
Anderson v. Griswold:
WAS true. If you read SCOTUS’s ruling, you’ll see they came to the same conclusion that Jack Smith made. If Trump was part of the insurrection while he was the President, then it was not an insurrection. If he was not part of it, then it was an insurrection. They determined that you can’t violently overthrow the government in which you lead.