Bidenomics is unsustainable. At some point the world will not support this level of borrowing. When this happens we will see inflation and interest rates skyrocket.
This Court should reverse on both grounds.
First, Griffin's Case settled the meaning of Section 3, is consistent with the longstanding sword-shield dichotomy in federal courts' jurisprudence, and reflects a core premise of reconstruction: Congress, and not the distrusted States, was empowered to enforce Section 3.
Second, the four provisions of the Constitution of 1788 that use the phrase "Officers of the United States" do not refer to the President. And the Framers of Section 3 used that older, extant, limited language, in particular the Oaths Clause, and in doing so carried forward the meaning of "Officers of the United States" from that "old soil." In 1788, 1868, and today, "Officer of the United States" in the Constitution extends exclusively to appointed positions and not to elected positions.
In conclusion: Neither this brief nor any other submission in Trump v. Anderson provides a plausible originalist argument that Section Three prevents the people from choosing their president. (1)
(1) https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/29/section-three-and-the-first-insurrection-that-wasnt/
https://x.com/moxlosllc/status/1745430379173925266?s=46&t=Y4fVsDnz2q8uZ3VNKeco4A
There was no insurrection
Insurrection - would require a Federal charge and conviction under USC 2383: Rebellion or Insurrection. To date no one related to Jan 6 has been charged with, let alone convicted, of this crime.
Despite the claims to the contrary the employment and jobs situation is not quite what you may hear.
First, there is still a problem of employment participation where we see a significant number of people that had yet to return to the workforce.
Second are the claims of "record" numbers of jobs created. This claim is out of context and much less impressive than it may sound because it is distorted by the unusual number of jobs that were recovered, not created, after the pandemic shutdown. Trump "created" many more jobs per month than Biden "created" if you want to ignore the effect of the shutdown.
With Bidenomics, we have seen the US interest costs essentially double adding ~2 Trillion dollars per year. The fiscal situation of the US is unsustainable and Biden continues to ignore the problem and propose more spending.
On the other hand Biden continues to allow a porous border for illegal immigrants.
Even if you think the 14th Amendment applies to the Office of the President, which it doesn't because it that would potentially allow the equivalent of by-passing the impeachment process, and
even if you think the President engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or gave aid or comfort, neither of which has any person been charged or convicted of,
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment only gives enforcement power to the Congress: not the States, not a State, not a State Supreme Court or not even a State Secretary of State.
As much as I do not want Trump to be the Republican nominee, I think it is even more important to stop politicizing the judicial process.
For everyone suffering from TDS that is celebrating the Colorado Supreme Court ruling you need to regain a modicum of logic and STOP THE NONSENSE.
First, Section 5 of the Amendment gives only Congress the power to enforce the Amendment. Not the states or a state. “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Second, it is obvious that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President. This is obvious because if it did, it would be an alternative method to remove a President. If you ignore Section 5 then it would only take some court somewhere to decide a sitting President within Section 3 making them ineligible. Alternatively, if constrained by Section 5, a one party House and Senate with the help of a President of the same party could pass a law allowing only majority of Congress to to find future President within Section 3 . There’s nothing in the text nor history of the drafting of the 14th amendment that Supports the view that it could be used to remove a president.
Third, nobody, not any January 6 rioter, nor Donald Trump, has been convicted of, or charged with, insurrection or rebellion.
Stop the nonsense.
It is ludicrous to think you can allow a partisan state Supreme Court to determine that there has been an insurrection when there has been no charge or conviction of an insurrection and that such a determination can prevent someone from holding office. It would open the door to a range of claims such as: Kamala Harris provided aid and comfort to insurrection and rebellion when she bailed out violent rioters; or a state court arbitrarily and unilaterally claiming that not enforcing the law allowing millions of illegal immigrants is a rebellion, and invalidate Biden’s ability to be on a ballot.
US President Joe Biden told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US will not aid any Israeli counterattack on Iran , US media report,...
