Likely? Try definitely. Or did PolitiFact forget who controls the House?
Of course they won’t, but damn they should.
Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.
deleted by creator
We actually don’t know who controls the house, yet. Republicans need 7 more representatives, Democrats need 17, votes are still being counted.
That doesn’t take effect until January
Ah yeah, thats right, ty.
I think we know.
Didn’t the supreme court say they didn’t give a fuck about the constitution?
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case
Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.
There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.
Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.
As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.
Who watches the watchmen?
The Democrats have had an entire decade to offer some kind of meaningful opposition and didn’t bother. Why would they start now?
That’s incorrect. There’s a lot of obstruction from Republicans to allow Democrats to do anything since most decisions required 2/3rds vote to pass. Democrats could not convict Trump of impeachment with 57% of the vote since they needed more Republicans to push it over 2/3rds.
That’s just the excuse Democrapitalists have always used to maintain the status quo, even when they had a majority some years back, they still then claimed repubs held them back. It has always been their tactic to win votes, get into power, do nothing. (There are a few exceptions like Sanders, Warren, AOC, Michael Bennett, but few and far between.)
I don’t think you understand American politics. If Democrats control 60% of the Senate, they still do not have the majority needed to pass laws. They need to control at least 67% of the Senate to pass laws. Otherwise Republicans can block their vote. That’s why the Democrats could not convict Trump on impeachment even though they controlled more than 50% of the Senate at the time.
The senate only needs a simple majority to pass a bill. They need 60 for the cloture vote to end a filibuster. 67 votes are needed for conviction in an impeachment trial. A two-thirds vote is also needed in both the House and Senate to override a Presidential veto.
Thanks for the corrections!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
Mitt Romney’s at it again – shading the truth on CBS News’. He’s perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.
Lol, as if there aren’t a million other things the fucker could be processed for. We got a…
-
Convicted rapist (oh sorry… “responsible for” rape, not a conviction, MY BAD!?!), someone who can’t stop making sexual remarks when his daughter is next to him and was close to Epstein back in 2002, saying he was a terrific guy and even knew about his interest in women “on the young side”.
-
Someone that has committed more acts of treason than we could know, including: giving Putin classified documents, like lists of SS agents that are now dead. The SS has tracked down a murdered people for FAR less, the fact that he isn’t on a hit list is beyond damming for the US as a “world power”.
-
I feel like I barely even have to mention is all of his fraudulent “businesses”. I mean that’s the only thing he actually got convicted of, because it’s so blatant and easy to do.
The fact this guy not only isn’t behind bars, but isn’t on a international wanted DEAD list, tells ya everything you need to know.
How do you know he isn’t on the intel communities hitlist. They still have time. Vance for pres in 2025.
What makes you think Vance wouldn’t be worse? He’s knee deep in Project 2025 and seems more than willing to see that through to the end.
Vance doesnt have Trumps cult of personality for one, for two once the orange fuckwit dies there will almost certainly be a feeding frenzy to fill the power void. Its entirely possible he could be a lame duck by default simply because the other Republicans are stabbing each other and wont listen.
Vance is just ambitious, he doesn’t idolize hitler, putin and kim
-
He’s eating the sections. He’s eating the amendments. Of the people that live. There.
As much as I would love to see that, it would 100%, without a doubt, cause blood in the streets. Jan 6th would look like a beach vacation compared to what they would do if congress blocked it.
Should we accept that the threat of violence get in the way of justice?
There was a window to bar him from office using a technique like this and it was before the election.
Unless the theory is something substantial changed between 11/5 and now this is an absolutely awful idea.
That does not answer my question.
In a perfect world, yes, justice rules supreme for everyone.
In our actual world, if congress overturned the election (which is exactly what it would be), you think the already frothing at the mouth far right wouldn’t go apeshit? Imagine if the far right overturned a democraticly elected Democrat. We would lose our shit.
I am all for using every law and policy available to stop fascists. Overturning a seemingly fair election outcome, where the president elect was voted in by electorate AND popular vote is NOT one of those ways.
If there was a Democrat who did what Trump did, I’d not hesitate to enforce the law because I was afraid of the consequences.
As opposed to…blood in the streets over a four year period and then also after?
On J6 one piece of their trash was taken out and they all immediately ran. If anyone should be scared about what happened on that day it should be MAGA.
It could prevent more blood being spilled over a larger time period however. Definitely a “nuke vs ground invasion” dilemma where there are no good options.
Down. Let’s fuck em up.
If they did that ud have civil war.
deleted by creator
I appreciate the enthusiasm for social upheaval, but I wouldn’t call a civil war a good time.
Would an undisputed Trump presidency be less violent than ripping off the band aid? Dont choose more violence simply because it happens slower.
I’m a pacifist, but if they’re going to kill me I’d rather it be for something I did instead of something I have no control over.
Go for it.
I’d rather go out loud and proud than in a camp. I’d rather not have to though.
And then we get Vance. Joy.
NGL, I’m more scared of Vance than Trump.
Then we can bitch and moan that Vance got no votes in the primary and was anointed the presidency.
No shit?
What a pointless article. Congress won’t, shouldn’t, and likely can’t, despite what the article says.
Congress definitely can and should ban him from office but obviously won’t.
I’m a little confused… Did you read it?
Yes!! Let’s fight facism with facism
Enforcing the law isn’t fascism. Insurrectionists aren’t permitted to hold office.
Edit to add, it’s not like President Vance would be any better.
Rich people faced with repercussions, or even accountability, is fascism to their supporters.
Isn’t that… Populism?
He was never actually charged for the insurrection though, was he? Just all the fraud, for which he’ll never be held accountable because our garbage-ass justice system had to treat him with fucking kid gloves. Not that they really bothered doing anything about the rank-and-file bootlicker scumbags who did participate, anyway.
Best I can hope for now is that the fucker ends up with locked-in syndrome or something. But, to your second point, you’re right, none of it matters because Vance is a sack of human waste too.
He was never actually charged for the insurrection though, was he?
That’s not a requirement according to the amendment. This is also why they’ve spent so much effort on downplaying it, trying to call it anything other than what it was. The Congressional inquiry determined that it was in fact an insurrection and it has been defined as such officially. As written, the inability to hold office should be self-enforcing, the Supreme Court went out of their way to interpret it in a way that it most definitely does not say.
Welp, got my number; I wasn’t fully aware, and that’s my mistake. In that case, yeah, by all means, fourteenth that bastard the hell out of office. Too bad our legislature comprises cowards, halfwits, and enablers.
Can you describe how preventing trump, who participated in an insurrection, from holding office is fascist?
