#14thamendment

[pennsyltuckyheathen]

The residents said in the lawsuit that the decision by county officials to remove the books from library shelves violated the First Amendment and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The books were removed from the shelves of three libraries in the Llano County library system.

[ridenwithbiden]

J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe 

make the case for Trump’s disqualification from public office

[usnewsper-politics]

Landmark Ruling: Colorado Court Protects Citizenship for All, Regardless of Immigration Status #14thamendment #Americandemocracy #birthrightcitizenship #citizenshipstatus #ColoradoSupremeCourtruling #congressionalaction #discrimination #driverslicenserenewal #EqualProtectionClause #equalprotectionunderthelaw #executiveorder #immigrantcommunities #immigrationstatus #permanentresidentstatus #Trumpadministration #xenophobia

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Supreme Court Fails America & The Rule Of Law

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has failed to uphold the rule of law when it comes to the insurrectionist actions of Donald Trump. It is a pretty worrying situation when the highest court in the land plays politics over upholding the constitutional laws of the land. Supreme Court fails America and the rule of law. America has ended up with an activist conservative majority of justices, who are hellbent on protecting Donald Trump by hook or by crook. These 5 guys have been placed in positions of unassailable power, at great expense to those with vested interests, to ensure that Republican endorsed values and politics get the nod.

SCOTUS Deliberately Misinterprets Article 3 Of The 14th Amendment

SCOTUS has ruled roughshod over Article 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution to reroute the law the way that will favour their guy, Donald J Trump. There is no reading of this Civil War amendment that concurs historically or legally with its stated intention in the this ruling by SCOTUS – it is a deliberate misreading and interpretation of it. All trust in the independence of this highest court in the land is gone. The rule of law, when it comes to Donald Trump, goes missing in action via the ruling and opinion of SCOTUS in this matter. “The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." "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," the unsigned opinion for the court stated.” - (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/us-supreme-court-unanimously-restores-donald-trump-to-2024-presidential-primary-ballots/2qvku6oql) Photo by Aaron Kittredge on Pexels.com

Conservative Conspiracy: Trump & SCOTUS

The way this is starting to play out leads one to speculate upon whether the fix was always in. Did Trump’s insurrectionist and election fraud attempts occur with the knowledge that he always had these justices in his pocket? Is this whole debacle a much bigger conservative conspiracy to defraud the American people and disable democracy? How can these justices not uphold the rule of law by confirming that Donald Trump  must face trial for the crimes upon which he has been indicted by the DOJ? How can any American have any faith left in the judicial system if it fails to hold Trump accountable at the final hurdle? How Much More Will America Take From This SCOTUS? Will the American people put up with a supreme court hijacked by extreme conservative activist justices? Especially, as its decisions are unrepresentative of the majority of the population. Abortion laws have been overturned at the federal level by SCOTUS, which mean that these terminations have been banned and criminalised by states controlled by GOP legislators. The majority of Americans want women to have unrestricted access to abortions and control of their own reproductive rights. IVF is now under threat in Alabama with GOP aligned judges banning it on the grounds that unfertilized human embryos are now, according to them, legally recognised human beings with rights. Republican legislators are, also, after restricting access for Americans to chemical contraception. There is a strong Christian fundamentalist anti-science push happening inside the GOP in these red states. These Republicans want to get back into the bedrooms of everyday Americans and decide what and with who they can do there. Backward policies from backward looking busybodies who want more power over the lives of their constituents. Will Americans really put up with this conspiracy enacted by conservative activists funded by billionaires aligned with the GOP? #UNGA President Donald J. Trump by National Archives and Records Administration is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0 It Is Time To Act & Vote Democrat It is time to act and to stop the rot! The Right think it is only their bully boys with guns that will determine the direction of America. There are many more Americans who want to protect their freedoms than these extremists. It is time to march and to take to the streets to protest against the hijacking of SCOTUS by the hard Right. Now, all Americans need to vote Democrat to ensure the electoral demise of Trump. Plus, it is time to extend the size of the SCOTUS bench to even the field once more. The future of America depends upon progressives, looking backward will not assist America going forward. There are no nations anywhere which have made a go of things by trying to live in the past. It is a fool’s errand and only the politics of grievance mines this for short term electoral advantage. Trump and the GOP are about white supremacy and a denial of the real racial demographics of 21C America. The culture wars are a political strategy devoid of any constructive policies that will ultimately benefit America. Nearly a million Americans died during the pandemic, under the incompetent Trump, and many of them were African Americans not adequately cared for by a heavily segregated nation. Schools and neighbourhoods in America are largely segregated. Photo by Leandro Paes Leme on Pexels.com SCOTUS needs to be enlarged to reduce the unequal power held by the conservatives. Republicans, more generally, are a shrinking demographic, especially in their current extremist manifestation. It is only through gerrymandering and voter suppression that they have held control in many districts. The highest court in the land must accurately reflect the wishes of the people and not just a group of privileged people longing for a past where white America lauded its power over all others. The slaver roots of the USA remain in the hearts of these sons and daughters of the Confederacy. Florida and many of the former states from the half of America that practiced slavery for hundreds of years have banned students and schoolkids learning anything about their slaver history from the perspective of African Americans. Whitewashing is going on in a big way via GOP policies in this regard. “Yes. The Constitution leaves this decision to Congress. It says, “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” And from time to time, Congress has indeed changed the number of justices. It was six when Congress passed the first Judiciary Act in 1789 and the number fluctuated in the mid-19th century. But since 1869, the high court has had nine justices.” - (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-16/can-democrats-really-pack-the-supreme-court) Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of Money Matters: Navigating Credit, Debt & Financial Freedom ©MidasWord Read the full article

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: Amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

PDF Download: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf

Summary of the key points from the discussion:

The document is an amicus curiae brief submitted to the US Supreme Court in a case regarding Donald Trump's eligibility to run for president again.

It argues that state courts and the Supreme Court have judicial power over presidential qualification disputes based on constitutional text and that no amendment changed this.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its fair meaning rather than a narrow construction, and was widely understood to include the president as an "officer."

The January 6th attack constituted an "insurrection…against" the Constitution by seeking to deny the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause and amendments.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting violence through his speech aimed at preventing the certification of Biden's election.

The brief makes persuasive legal and historical arguments supported by evidence and shows fidelity to constitutional text and principles of interpretation.

Stakeholders impacted include the Court, Trump, Biden, Congress, future candidates, and the American public.

The reasoning is intellectually rigorous and addresses counterarguments transparently based on original public meaning.

Ethically, it prioritizes democratic processes, rule of law, facts over claims, and impartial treatment of issues.

This document is an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief submitted to the US Supreme Court.

The key attributes that identify it as an amicus brief genre include:

It is submitted by parties not directly involved in the case (former government officials here) to provide legal arguments to the Court.

It discusses the legal issues in the case indepth and provides analysis of relevant constitutional provisions, precedents, and historical context to support a particular interpretation.

It is formally structured with sections laying out arguments, citations to authority, inclusion of an appendix, etc. following the expected format for legal briefs.

The language and writing style is formal and targeted at legal/judicial audiences, citing authorities and precedent.

It aims to assist the court rather than the direct parties, showing the issues have broader implications than just those directly involved in the case.

So in terms of both form and function, this document clearly falls within the established genre of an amicus curiae brief submitted for a Supreme Court case, a genre intended to help inform the Court's legal decisionmaking.

Summary of the amici brief:

The brief argues that state courts and the US Supreme Court have the judicial power to decide disputes over a presidential candidate's qualifications under the Constitution.

This power was originally allocated to the states under the Electors Clause, and ultimately to the Supreme Court via its appellate jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress additional enforcement power but did not eliminate the pre-existing judicial power of state courts and the Supreme Court.

No other constitutional amendment changes this allocation of judicial power or assigns such power to Congress.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its "fair meaning" rather than a narrow construction, especially since it emerged from the Civil War.

In 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the "President of the United States" was widely understood to be an "officer of the United States."

The January 6, 2021 attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the election results through force was an "insurrection…against" the Constitution.

The peaceful transfer of power is mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause, the 12th Amendment, and the 20th Amendment.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting the violent mob through his speech, even if he did not personally commit violence.

Evaluation of how well the amicus brief engages with and relates to the supreme law of the affected country, the United States Constitution:

Centrality of constitutional text: The core focus is a close reading and application of the most directly relevant constitutional clauses to the issues at hand.

Originalist interpretation: An original public meaning approach is taken, grounded in founding-era context and sources to interpret clauses as ratified.

Holistic assessment: Relevant clauses are analyzed both individually and together as part of an interrelated whole (e.g. factoring in amendments together).

Precedent consideration: Both key founding intentions and relevant precedent rulings interpreting provisions are thoroughly discussed.

Consistency evaluation: Arguments are structured around demonstrating logical consistency with overarching constitutional structures/principles.

Engagement with counterarguments: Attempts are made to engage potential alternative textualist perspectives rather than just asserting one view.

Overall, the detailed emphasis on the specific wording of clauses both individually and systematically, due attention to original public meaning and precedent, and efforts to ensure consistency indicate the brief strongly prioritizes meaningful engagement with the text of the supreme law it is commenting upon. This lends it credibility in relation to the U.S. Constitution.

Evaluation of the key arguments:

Judicial power argument: This argument is well supported by careful textual analysis of relevant Constitutional clauses and founding-era context. It directly counters Trump's position.

Officer argument: Though a narrower point, it is effective that Trump concedes the key aspect (president is an officer) while the brief cites supportive context.

Insurrection argument: Defining insurrection as denial of peaceful transfer is a persuasive interpretation aligned with Constitutional mandates and historical precedent of 1861 secession attempts.

Incitement argument: The contention that causing threatened/actual violence through speech constitutes engagement is legally sound and contextual evidence cited for Trump's intent strengthens this claim.

Constitutional fidelity: Overall the brief exhibits strong constitutional textualism through principle-driven interpretation anchored in original public meaning - lending the analysis credibility.

The arguments presented appear well supported by both evidence and reason. While legal experts can reasonably disagree on interpretations, the brief's key positions seem well grounded and its analysis of the language and context is thoughtful. No obvious logical flaws or omissions were identified. The arguments effectively rebut the positions taken in Trump's brief.

Key stakeholders:

US Supreme Court - The intended audience, to inform the legal analysis and contribute sound legal/historical reasoning.

Donald Trump - Directly impacted by the outcome of the case and arguments made against his positions.

Joe Biden - As the duly elected incumbent president, his ability to serve is impacted.

American public - The stability of the democratic process and future elections could be influenced by the ruling.

Political parties - Depending on outcome, future nominations and contests may be affected.

Other future presidential candidates - Precedents set may influence qualifications and elections.

Congress - Division of powers between judiciary and legislature could be delineated.

Overall, while some stakeholders like Trump may be more directly affected as parties, the legal issues have broader public interest implications for how the US system of government functions now and in the future. The brief aims to assist the Court's consideration of these wider stakes through persuasive legal analysis.

Evaluation of the ethics involved in the situation described:

Democratic norms: The brief argues forcefully preventing a peaceful transfer of power fundamentally undermines democratic processes the Constitution aims to protect.

Rule of law: It contends adjudicating disputes through impartial courts, rather than unreviewable political power, upholds principles of an equitable legal system.

Constitutional integrity: Close analysis is offered to demonstrate how the arguments align with or diverge from upholding the supreme law of the land as ratified.

Truth & transparency: Reliance is placed on transparent discussion of evidence, rather than obfuscation or unfounded claims, to determine facts.

Impartiality: While advocating one conclusion, care is shown to addressing alternative views on their legal/historical merits impartially.

Civic duty: Former officials file to aid the Court based on non-partisan commitment to constitutional order, not selfish interests.

Overall, core ethical priorities of the brief appear to include safeguarding democratic and constitutional governance through commitment to facts/evidence, impartial reason, rule of law, and disinterested service - all hallmarks of principled legal/scholarly ethics. No overt unethical biases or tactics are apparent.

Quality of reasoning:

Textualism: The brief closely analyzes the specific wording and contextual meanings of relevant constitutional clauses, applying an original public meaning approach. This adheres to principles of textualist legal interpretation.

Logical coherence: The arguments flow logically from one point to the next, building a case based on interrelated evidentiary threads (e.g. starting with federalism foundations and moving clause-by-clause).

Use of evidence: Strong empirical support is provided through citations of founding-era sources, legal precedents, historical works, dictionaries, and the record established in lower court proceedings.

Addressing counterarguments: Attempts are made to directly rebut alternative views raised rather than just asserting one perspective. Relevant objections are substantively engaged.

Transparency: Assumptions and line of reasoning are clearly spelled out, leaving evidentiary trail open to scrutiny rather than relying on opacity.

Intellectual rigor: A high level of consistent analytical rigor is applied throughout in evaluating text and context without apparent lapses.

Overall, the reasoning exhibits qualities expected of rigorous legal/scholarly analysis through its focus on principle-driven interpretation of relevant sources and transparent engagement with alternative perspectives. While reasonable people can disagree on conclusions, the quality of reason itself appears solid.

Logical fallacies:

Appeal to Authority - The brief appeals to the expertise and credibility of the amici signatories. However, this is a standard and valid technique for amicus briefs to establish credibility. Not a clear fallacy.

Strawman - Nowhere does the brief clearly misrepresent Trump's arguments. It accurately repeats and rebuts the positions taken in his brief. No evident strawmanning.

Slippery Slope - The brief argues Congress having sole power could lead to abuse, but this is a reasonably argument rather than a blatant slippery slope fallacy.

False Dilemma - The brief does not frame the issues in an either-or way or ignore alternative possibilities. Multiple constitutional provisions are discussed working together.

Ad Hominem - The brief focuses on the legal and historical merits of the arguments rather than make personal attacks on Trump.

Post Hoc - The brief does not inappropriately claim historical events were caused by other events that occurred after. Causation is reasonably discussed.

In evaluation, I did not find any clear instances of logical fallacies that would meaningfully undermine the legal and historical arguments being made in the brief. At most, some techniques could be debated, but overall the reasoning appears logically sound and fallacy-free.

Common criteria for evaluating and assessment:

Credibility of Amici - The brief relies on perspectives from numerous high-ranking former officials and legal experts, lending credibility.

Clarity of Arguments - The legal arguments are clearly structured and explained in accessible language for legal audiences.

Persuasiveness - The brief compellingly applies constitutional text and history to dispute Trump's claims and support disqualification.

Relevance to Court - The brief focuses on relevant constitutional/legal issues before the court rather than simply reinforce one side.

Thoroughness - The brief thoroughly examines all key constitutional provisions and rebuts counterarguments.

Objectivity - While supporting one outcome, the brief remains evenly balanced and relies on facts/law rather than unsubstantiated claims.

Compliance with Guidelines - The brief follows standard guidelines for amicus briefs in terms of formatting, citation practices, etc.

Innovation - The brief introduces some novel historical evidence and analysis that could helpfully inform the Court's decision.

Overall, this brief excels in terms of the credibility and expertise it carries, the clarity and persuasiveness of its arguments, its thorough examination of key issues, compliance with genre guidelines, and potential to innovatively inform the Court's ruling. It achieves the intended purpose of an effective amicus brief.

[usnewsper-business]

Trump considering executive order to end birthright citizenship #14thamendment #Constitution #immigration #presidentialelection #votingrights

[piyusha30]

Biden Administration Considers Using 14th Amendment to Address Voting Rights | votingrights | democracy | elections | constitution | equalprotection | 14thamendment | GOPvotersuppression | federaloverreach | Bidenadministration | presidentialpower | politicalnews | currentevents |

A top adviser to President Joe Biden has suggested that the administration is considering using the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to address voting rights issues. Speaking to Politico, Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president, said that the 14th Amendment may provide a legal basis for the government to intervene in states that are passing restrictive voting laws. The 14th Amendment…

[whenweallvote]

Ratified #OnThisDay in 1868, the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved Black people — and provided all U.S. citizens with “equal protection under the laws.”

The 14th Amendment was a critical step in the fight for Black Americans’ voting rights. Two years later, the 15th Amendment officially granted Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment extended the right to vote to women in 1920 — though Black women continued to fight for equal access to the ballot box for decades.

158 years after ratifying the #14thAmendment, we are STILL fighting for our right to vote. At least 312 voter suppression bills were introduced across the country in 2024 alone, disproportionately impacting Black and Brown voters.

Join us in the fight to ensure every American can participate in our democracy. Check your voter registration status today at weall.vote/register.

[ptseti]

#14thAmendment WE TOLD YALL THIS SHYT WAS GONE HAPPEN!! But did you listen to us? TO BLACK WOMEN? No ya didnt! Don't ask us for SHYT! You made your bed, NOW LAY IN IT! #AuntieWiggz

[garudabluffs]

Supreme Court sends alarming message beneath the surface of unanimous Trump ballot ruling

Mar 6, 2024 #SCOTUS#Trump#14thAmendment

Sherrilyn Ifill, endowed chair in civil rights at Howard University, talks with Alex Wagner about the message being sent by the four women on the Supreme Court in the Donald Trump 14th Amendment ballot disqualification ruling, and why the ruling was a thinly veiled power grab. 

326 Comments

[sjerzgirl]

He's right. They're not patriots at all. If they want a kingdom, let them move to Iran or Russia where a single strong man rules with an iron thumb. We don't want them here.

[usnewsper-politics]

Yale Professor: 14th Amendment Could Keep Trump From Serving Again #14thamendment #donaldtrump #impeachment #restitution #yorktimes

[southsideunicorn]

#13thamendment #14thamendment #15thamendment #civilrightactof1964 #trump2024 #trumpjr #America #loveyourself https://www.instagram.com/p/CgWuBcirdPS/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[goku20193]

#TheOathOfOffice #14thAmendment #January6thCommitteeHearings #CapitolHillRiots #Insurrectionists #RepublicanFamilyValues #Republikkkans #RepublikkkanParty #OnlyInAmerica #Amerikkka #AmerikkkanHistory #Amerikkkans #Memes #PoliticalMemes https://www.instagram.com/p/CgG_UzMuVFhjiepNT-hF7PznbmW-x8KZIswLGs0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=