On January 26, twenty-five history professors filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did intend Section Three to cover presidents.
On January 26, twenty-five history professors filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did intend Section Three to cover presidents.
This looks bad for Quisling Biden.
Yes. It also looks bad for the Ravens.
Richard, I’ll take their arguments over yours, including that this isn’t anti-democratic.
It’s no more anti-democratic than minimum voting ages, minimum age to hold various offices, residency requirements, and for the president, birth requirements.
Of course they didn’t. President was taken out of the early drafts because it didn’t have enough support, even among the radical reconstructionist traitors.
Socratic, I have never expressed any opinion about whether Section Three covers president. It’s a surprisingly complex matter, with very learned people on both sides. But I would be glad if the US Supreme Court says Section Three does cover president, because then the Court would need to wrestle with the more interesting arguments. To me the most interesting point is that Section Three does not ban anyone from running; instead it bans someone from holding the office.
If it covered president, they would have left it in the text. It was taken out for a reason, after a debate.
Gadfly = Robert K Stock?
Could be. The comments are idiotic like Stock’s.
14-3. DERIVED FROM 1862 I/R LAW
CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF I/R LAW >>>> THEN — 14-3 STUFF.
CAN N-O-T DISQUALIFY BY MERE LAW WHERE QUALIFS ARE IN CONST.
Hilton Head and Pig Farmer are correct.
Except it doesn’t. It covers Presidential Electors, not the President.
And even if it did, it’s not self-executing, because of Section 5 of the 14th, the 5th, and 18 USC 2383.
A lot of professors nowadays are propagandists.