Why Everyone Hates the Supreme Court's Decision on Insurrection & the 14th Amendment

Рет қаралды 809,399

2 ай бұрын

Trump vs. Biden 2024 rematch is coming soon. 📰 Try GROUND NEWS today and get 40% off your subscription by visiting ground.news/legaleagle ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

Пікірлер: 5 600

@LegalEagle 2 ай бұрын

Are you surprised? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam

@davea6314 2 ай бұрын

Trump for PRISON 2024!!!!

@jessewar 2 ай бұрын

I've course not. This was the correct decision. You cannot charge somebody with insurrection who has not been charged are found guilty of insurrection. 0-9 EZ.

@bodyloverz30 2 ай бұрын

Everyone DOES NOT hate the Supreme Court decision: the Supreme Court, saved the American people, while the legal community (such as yourself) tried to destroy it.

@kordellcurl7559 2 ай бұрын

In fact no because I agree that states shouldn’t be allowed to disqualify people from running for president since they’re states and not the federal government. By letting states decide just causes chaos and nothing would happen near. Only the federal government can dictate what happens with candidates who have broken laws. It just makes sense.

@bodyloverz30 2 ай бұрын

@@jessewar 100% agree!

@ThisAintAStupidName 2 ай бұрын

Ah, of course. Let's make it so that only Congress can hold Congress accountable. Surely, they won't abuse that discretion at all...

@donkeykong315 2 ай бұрын

Time for another salary raise in congress!

@nydydn 2 ай бұрын

@@donkeykong315 this isn't possible though because the congress, by constitution, can only decide the salaries of the next congress.

@fos1451 2 ай бұрын

Congress and executive is different

@Baddaby 2 ай бұрын

@@nydydnwhich is the same congress, since they can run forever and ever

@armorhide406 2 ай бұрын

like TSA but worse

@LifeWulf 2 ай бұрын

The President not being an officer of the United States is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

@adamchristensen2648 2 ай бұрын

Pretty sure they still salute whoever is in the, uh...not office.

@NinoCristianini 2 ай бұрын

Exactly, why would a person who is not an officer, have to take an "Oath of office"?

@NinoCristianini 2 ай бұрын

@@JDremyrez13 no it doesn't magically, because magic doesn't exist. It does make you an officer though lol

@TheTrey5027 2 ай бұрын

@@JDremyrez13I would argue as the leader of the free world, the commander of the strongest navy and military on the planet, and a hand in one of the greatest spy networks on earth, you should have a vested interest in the countries’ interests. Giving a person like that free reign would be disastrous.

@muddro420 2 ай бұрын

He's not an officer. He just does his work in an oval office, and everyone refers to having his job as holding office. But he's not an officer tho. Yeah I don't know why they call it the oath of office.

@chrise8275 2 ай бұрын

We seriously need to stop this “Is The President Considered An Officer?” Shit. It’s the OFFICE of the president, HE’S AN OFFICER!!!!!

@Zo3yX 15 күн бұрын

Fr but common sense isn't as common anymore

@dion8895 2 ай бұрын

The office of the presidency not being an office is basically "we don't think this counts because we say so". The level of absurdity is basically a refusal to acknowledge the rule of law at all.

@rigelb9025 2 ай бұрын

Completely. And it seems to be working like a charm.

@robinwashington4948 2 ай бұрын

NOPE SORRY THERE IS NOT A I IN WE AND I WAS NOT AND STILL NOT NOR WILL NOT EVER BE A WE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS TYPE OF CRAP.

@Harlem55 2 ай бұрын

The problem with the presidency being an office: The law requires that no active duty member of the armed forces may hold any office of the United States unlese retired or subject to reserve status, etc. The Constitution says the president is commander in chief of the millitary. Therefore, The president cant hold office of the United States. Rather, the idea is that the constitution's language always singles out the presidency because of its unique powers in contrast with the other federal offices.

@rigelb9025 2 ай бұрын

@@Harlem55 If so, then why do we refer to the president as 'holding office', 'running for office', and 'swearing an oath of office'??

@MrSlowestD16 2 ай бұрын

Eh, there's more to it than that. If you read the full text the way it's worded in an adjacent section makes it sound like the president is not an officer. You can look up the exact wording yourself but the wording was something along the lines of "The president or an officer of the United States...", which definitely implies the president is not an officer. There was some other basis too for the claim. You may not agree with the decision, but claiming that it doesn't "acknowledge the rule of law" as if these parts don't exist and it's 100% cut & dry means your argument isn't in good faith.

@ZappBranniglenn 2 ай бұрын

"Courts shouldn't decide this. Congress should." Right because Congressman in a two party system would have so much incentive to vote against one of their own. It's an obvious conflict of interest: "We have investigated our own candidate and have found no wrongdoing"

@AHeinermann 2 ай бұрын

The supreme court is an extension of this so there's really no difference.

@woodysmith2681 2 ай бұрын

"But the Courts should closely double-check the legislation Congress passes to make sure it meets our unwritten standards, and the Courts should also closely-double check the Legislature's decisions and process as applied to meet our separate unwritten standards for how to apply the law."

@chazmccrea8451 2 ай бұрын

Here is the issue in letting states do it... Red states will say, biden committed treason against the US because he made the border situation worst; which in turn has far more people crossing into our country illegally and he is refusing to take action to stop it.. this in turn is getting every day americans killed; and as such should be seen as treason.. Now every republican state has the means to remove any democrat from the ballot... and as such, every voter in those states has now had their right to vote for who they want to; stripped from them. This is a two way street and if the SCOTUS ruled the other way, this would have had far reaching and damaging effects on the country as a whole. They made the right decision in telling the state that they are not allowed to do this.

@dwaltjj 2 ай бұрын

This is essentially exactly what happened with McConnell saying that it's up to the courts to decide, not congress, but the courts are saying its congress, so the catch22 of ths fist time event gives Trump a get out of jail free card. Just my perspective.

@troubadour723 2 ай бұрын

@@dwaltjj No, you're just posting an observation of our objective political reality.

@RustyCyler 2 ай бұрын

“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law” -Trump August 16, 2016

@tuxtitan780 2 ай бұрын

Politicians gonna politic

@TWDub 2 ай бұрын

Ya gotta love the ol' hypocrisy.

@LilGamingYes 2 ай бұрын

He declassified the documents he had... in his mind. We just didn't know because we're unworthy of his divine existence.

@devcrom3 2 ай бұрын

Asterisk

@xxxmina 2 ай бұрын

He did, all this happened after he left office. After his administration left office. The document "ISSUE" didn't come to be until Biden became president. When Trump was president (Under his administration) he was legally allowed to have all those documents. It's only when Biden took over did it became "Questionable"

@CartoonHero1986 2 ай бұрын

The fact that NO ONE has pointed to history and said "But Lincoln won his first election despite several states refusing to include him on their ballots" when talking about Presidential Elections and a State's right to refuse to list certain candidates is insane to me. Literally less than 10 years before the 14th amendment was penned not only did States exercise their right to who they listed on their ballots and did so simply because they feared Lincoln would push for abolish of slavery (even though he wasn't an abolitionist he was just from the North and a Free State). But also the founding leader of the very Party that would be in power over when the 14th amendment was written (Lincoln having been killed a little over a year before the 14th amendment was written) You already have an example of a Candidate winning regardless of the States choosing to include them in your own national history. Not to mention several examples of people still become their parties candidate despite losing the caucus and primary selections in each state for the GOP and still going on to be president. Even better: this interestingly enough happened to 2 of the GOP's favorite poster boys. Lincoln as mentioned for winning even though states left him off the ballot, and Reagan being made the GOP candidate even though he did terrible during the caucuses and primaries for the GOP. This proves keeping Trump off the ballot wouldn't be chaotic or even insure he'd lose... it's just Trump's GOP knows he doesn't have the personality or principal to win if he's not listed, and it would require a massive education campaign from the GOP to explain to their base they can still do write ins and this is how they've won major victories in the past and they like their base uneducated.

@simoncohen9323 2 ай бұрын

The problem after Lincoln was elected and after the civil war the federal government took alot of states right away and limited them to prevent another civil war

@ramblingsofadash5159 2 ай бұрын

@@simoncohen9323 Which Sate Rights in particular?

@pauldraper1736 2 ай бұрын

Whether someone can or cannot win when losing some ballot access doesn't matter in the slightest. Trump is going to lose Colorado whether he's on that ballot or not, that's not the question.

@cerebrumexcrement 2 ай бұрын

that right is still exercised by states tho. every state has its own rules for candidates to meet in order to be on their ballots. thats why this case is bs.

@autumnjacaranda106 2 ай бұрын

@@simoncohen9323states‘ rights to do what?

@rowynnecrowley1689 2 ай бұрын

Their entire argument pisses me off. "Why should one state get to decide?" They shouldn't! That's what YOU'RE for! They were asking the wrong question. The question wasn't whether Colorado can disqualify Trump, the question was whether he should be disqualified. They punted, cuz they're too scared to make a real decision.

@cainau 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, and the whole slippery slope "Republican states will just disqualify Biden" argument is also stupid. No court would allow that, since Biden hasn't engaged in insurrection.

@Justanotherconsumer 2 ай бұрын

Scared? Generous interpretation.

@Novocane23 2 ай бұрын

Why shouldn't a few states get to decide if they hold more than half of our population? We already know that the electoral college gives too much power to ass backwards states with a 10th of the population of other states. The ratios are not fairly apportioned. California, despite having 11 times the population of Iowa, only has 8.5 times as many electoral votes. New York has 6.5 times the population of Iowa, but only 4.5 times as many Electoral Votes. This is the case across almost all low population heavily Republican states - they have more electoral votes in regards to their population than ANY of the large blue states.

@alisa9040 2 ай бұрын

@@cainau "no court would allow [disqualifying Biden] because he didn't engage in insurrection"? Oh man, I love your optimism, but oh man, I don't believe that for a second.

@lordbiscuitthetossable5352 2 ай бұрын

It's probably worth watching the Roman civil war on King and Generals and other sights. Because what started Julius's civil war was their looking to convict him of crimes he committed in office. In a sense not much as changed, beyond the fact that modern states do not allow generals to have both military and civillian powers, probably for the reasons that allowed Julius to march on Rome. Exactly the same thing happened there. Want to convict Ceaser? What about Pompi?

@ZrinNZ 2 ай бұрын

It's fascinating to me that the argument is that the Presidency isn't an "office" and the President isn't an "officer" but everyone on the planet refers to the current President as being "in office."

@tylerbranson2099 2 ай бұрын

That was actually the Colorado lower courts ruling. The Supreme Court's ruling seems to be that only Congress has the power to bar Candidates who are running for Federal Offices from ballots, since States having that power would lead to chaos (Every Blue State bans the Red Candidate and vice versa). They're probably right, but that doesn't help everyone questioning their motivations for that decision, since a number of them were appointed to the court by the man who is currently under fire and would have been barred had the court ruled otherwise.

@Yoshemo1 2 ай бұрын

Plus, as Commander in Chief the president is the highest ranking officer in the military

@ladeao1552 2 ай бұрын

@@tylerbranson2099 I think this is the main problem. The SC changed the 14th amendment from self-enacting to an active choice by Congress, which effectively negates its existence.

@theshadynorwegian6036 2 ай бұрын

in fact he's in the oval office is he not?

@henrychurch6062 2 ай бұрын

That oath the president takes before taking the office is literally called the "Oath of Office"

@dcgamer1027 2 ай бұрын

If the Court's goal was to further errode the people's faith in their institutions then they did a bang up job of that.

@dcgamer1027 2 ай бұрын

I didn't even think Trump should be taken off the ballot, this whole deicisons is just such an obvious mess of bias, hypocrisy, and corruption.

@IRuinEvrything 2 ай бұрын

@@dcgamer1027 trump dances ballet? (the word is ballot)

@NOOBKILLER052 2 ай бұрын

Ah yess, letting a state tell people who can run in a federal election was a good idea

@Dan55888 2 ай бұрын

@@dcgamer1027it's not bias when Trump incited an insurrection and denied the results of an election. And that is after 4 years of his failure and making the world look at the states as the stupid place it is to elect him

@DerpyDerp254 2 ай бұрын

Sooooooo you WANT states telling you who you can vote for?

@polyeder2000 2 ай бұрын

As a programmer, I never understand, how these decisions can be made. Are Judges really just that stupid? The text is very clear and easy to understand. It says, if you have taken an oath (on the constitution) and were part of an insurrection in any form or function, you cannot take an office unless congress lifts the ban with a 2/3 majority. So did Trump take such oath? -> Yes. Did he participate in insurrection? ->In my opinon, Yes (This is something you could debate by questioning what defines insurrection and what defines aid and comfort) Did Congress lift his ban? -> No. Thus Trump can't become president again, even if the majority votes for him. The Scotus decision is crap.

@J-kd2qc 2 ай бұрын

Try actually reading the constitution for once in your life. Section 5 of the 14th amendment. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. They already passed legislation, 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Charge Trump, convict Trump and you can take him off any ballot you wish. Otherwise, go cry in the corner with all the rest of the Democrats (And they thought icebergs were going to raise the water levels)

@liarwithagun 2 ай бұрын

SCOTUS has always just ruled by whatever the societal zeigeist of a subject is at the time, and they get flipflopped even if no wording changes. Are "brown people" people or property? Is such and such X or Y? Does this article say this or that? etc. It's how the entire judicial process works really, and it is 'supposed' to work off good faith attempts at their job, but it never ends working like that in reality because it is extremely hard to impossible for people to be unbiased about things. There is no part of the government I hate more than judges. They are the most untouchable of any of the governmental agents to my knowledge.

@Halofreeeeak 2 ай бұрын

He was never charged with insurecction. Doesn't matter what someone's opinion is. You can't remove him for insurecction if he's only considered to be involved in an insurecction by a select few.

@erniemenard7727 2 ай бұрын

@@liarwithagun Hold my beer.

@t.dickinson7942 2 ай бұрын

They are bought

@wzpatman 2 ай бұрын

What's funny to me is that states have used all kinds of laws and requirements to keep third-party and independent candidates off the ballots for years, such as requiring ever increasing numbers of petition signatures, etc. Why can states pass laws like that, which have the same effect of keeping federal candidates off ballots, but this kind of accountability is suddenly a bridge too far?

@ps.2 2 ай бұрын

If that's what Colorado had done, they might have had better luck in court. Though it's hard to see quite how you'd write a ballot access law that (a) would've disqualified Mr. Trump but not other candidates, but (b) wouldn't have been challenged in court as being crafted to discriminate against a specific person or group. Not saying such a challenge would be successful, but it's pretty hard to satisfy (a) without leaving any grounds for a challenge on the principle of equal protection. Anyway, it's not what they did. They hung their hat on the 14th Amendment, Section 3, so the Supreme Court is like, OK, you want to talk about Federal law, we've got thoughts on Federal law.

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

But this one is inconvenient for Orange Jesus, the RINO that ate the GOP.

@calomie 2 ай бұрын

Are we supposed to pretend that a state's electoral system setting up a set of criteria by which a candidate is eligible (like whether he has enough of a support base among the people) is the same as a state court trying to just decree the candidate they don't like is guilty of something they have no jurisdiction to prosecute when he's never been charged of it, must less tried in card and convicted and then just deciding he must be removed from the ballot. What does the 5th section of the 14th Amendment say? What is the last sentence if the 14th Amendment's 3rd Section? Also, the same 14th Amendment gaurantees the right of U.S. Citizens to *due process of law* before any rights or privileges can be removed. What Colorado was trying to do was not giving Trump "due process." at all. The only reason you're all in a tizzy is because you know you guys have a festering terd who is incredibly weak in the polls and is losing support on all sides. That's all this is. And you guys want to accuse the GOP of voter disenfranchisement.

@wilberwhateley7569 2 ай бұрын

Because reasons…

@captainrev4959 2 ай бұрын

Because the Democrat and Republican parties are the only two parties with widely recognized status.

@silverthorngoodtree5533 2 ай бұрын

When the president swears their oath, it specifically says OFFICE of the president.

@devcrom3 2 ай бұрын

Shhhh...shut up tho.

@erichurst7897 2 ай бұрын

"Office of the President" is used all over the place. Claiming that the holder of that office isn't an officer is illogical. Of course the President is an officer, it's right there in the title of the position.

@GamingWithNikolas 2 ай бұрын

@erichurst7897 Apparently a legal justice is to stupid to realize that.

@kdog2646 2 ай бұрын

Well the Supreme court didn't make that ruling so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.

@Ford_prefect_42 2 ай бұрын

Brave of you to think the supreme court knows how to read

@RandiRain 2 ай бұрын

GOP: "States rights! states right!" Others: "What about Trump?" GOP: "Oh, never mind."

@username7763 2 ай бұрын

The push to keep Trump off the ballot was started by republicans and conservatives. Norma Anderson is a Republican who was a plaintiff in Colorado. The supreme court which decided states couldn't remove him consists of judges, not republicans. Trump running for office pushes many Republicans to vote Democrat (not enough sadly).

@autumnberend828 2 ай бұрын

States rights exist where federal power doesn't exist. Trump was not found guilty of insurrection. Therefore, barring him on that is wrong since he was never found guilty of it. Be honest, Colorado and others clearly did because of the political bullcrap that's within our country today.

@osmosisjones4912 2 ай бұрын

So they should take in National elections.

@dsproductions19 2 ай бұрын

This is about national elections, not state ones. It's the federal government's jurisdiction.

@SundayPancakeBreakfast 2 ай бұрын

Why are you against democracy?

@mikemyers2551 2 ай бұрын

I love the way a reporter/writer put it: "THE SUPREME COURT CLAIMED ILLITERACY".

@cainau 2 ай бұрын

4:05 - Objection: The enforcement act of 1870 did not disqualify confederates from office. They were already disqualified by the 14th amendment. The enforcement act simply provided a mechanism to remove confederates from offices that they already held before the 14th amendment took effect. Edit: Related to that, the Justice Chase decision in the Griffin case (mentioned around 11:30 in this video) was also specifically about removing confederates from offices that they already held. It said that legislation from Congress would be required to remove confederates from office (i.e. the enforcement act of 1870), it did not say that legislation would be required to keep confederates from running for office. Relevant quote from the Griffin decision, with emphasis added by me: "It results from the examination that persons in office by lawful appointment or election *before the promulgation of the fourteenth amendment,* are not removed there from by the *direct and immediate effect of the prohibition to hold office* contained in the third section; but that legislation by congress is necessary to give effect to the prohibition, by providing for such *removal."*

@Mark_Bridges 2 ай бұрын

Ok so why didn't you get yourself appointed as a supreme court judge? (Yeah it doesn't work like that, I get it). Assuming your stated facts are correct, you just made a whole lot of sense.

@helpumuch6887 2 ай бұрын

Apparently the whole amendment is useless. Idk how offering aid and comfort to people that PLEAD GUILTY to insurrection doesn’t bar you from running for office

@NybergCarl 2 ай бұрын

"Conservatives" pretty much hate the entire 14th Amendment, including Equal Protection and birthright citizenship.

@koenvandiepen7651 2 ай бұрын

Of course it's pointless. Ppl whit not enought support will not get elected annyway. And barring ppl whit enough support will lead to a massive conflict. So either way the amendment is not going to work out in practice.

@JDUBB2399 2 ай бұрын

He was never found guilty of insurrection.

@RHCole 2 ай бұрын

@@JDUBB2399 Being guilty is not part of the wording, now is it?

@markwilliams2620 2 ай бұрын

@@JDUBB2399 Because his hand picked judge keeps delaying it. Neither was Thadeus Stevens, yet he got the boot. Ergo, your point is moot, Trumpanzee.

@ghulsey45 2 ай бұрын

The law in GA prohibiting giving water or food to people standing in line to vote was under the guise of trying to influence or buy someone's vote. But that law precludes anyone, even family members or friends from doing it. In reality it's to deter people, particularly older people, from standing in long lines waiting to vote and discourage them from waiting in line before leaving or showing up to vote at all. Georgia is notorious for not having enough voting booths in rural, poor, and predominately minority neighborhoods. Mail in balloting made that all moot. Now these same people that were discouraged to vote before do now.

@Snipergoat1 2 ай бұрын

As do dead people and people who have never voted in their life. Mail in voting is a joke. The scenarios makes no sense in that old people have always voted at massive rates. Also (and this is just speculation, I know nothing of the specific law you are talking about) but if the law prevents you from giving food or drink to those waiting in line it does not seem to prevent someone from giving these out somewhere nearby and clearly visible to the line. This is not, as it may seem, just an attempt to skirt the rule but it should fall in line with both the spirit and the word of the law. It required that the person exert and effort and approach you as opposed to you going up to them. Who approaches whom is a big deal in these sorts of things.

@jackxiao9702 2 ай бұрын

The law is silly, but don't older people vote conservative?

@michaelmiller3012 2 ай бұрын

@@jackxiao9702 Silly person! White folks don't have to stand in long lines to vote! THEIR neighborhoods have PLENTY of voting places.

@lazyperfectionist3978 2 ай бұрын

it's a completely stupid argument, sausage sizzles and bake sales are literally the only thing we aussies get excited about during election season, regardless of alignment. It's the only reason most of us able-bodied bother showing up in person instead of doing mail in voting. Georgians deserve better treatment than this nonsense

@honestabe411 2 ай бұрын

That’s why they are opposed to vote by mail as well. No need to stand in line

@Raven-Creations 2 ай бұрын

This is a disgraceful ruling that signifies that the justices need to resit English. Section 5 grants Congress the power to implement the other sections. It says "The Congress shall have the power...", it does NOT say "Only Congress shall have the power...". If you say Jack may go to the movies, it does not imply that nobody else may go. Section 5 is in there because the 10th Amendment would otherwise have precluded Congress from enforcing the other sections. Sections 1-4 were clearly meant to be self-executing, and section 5 was to ensure that Congress had the ability to enforce it. As you pointed out, if Congress is the only means of disqualifying a candidate, then why does section 3 grant them the right to lift the disqualification? The justice who claimed J6 was just a riot is plain wrong. The insurrection was against the Constitution, because its aim was to prevent Congress performing its Constitutional duty, which was to certify the votes. It accomplished that, because the certification was delayed until J7. That was insurrection as described in section 3.

@MichaelWoodwardxlxMethosxlx 2 ай бұрын

You're missing the distinction between "may" and "shall" in the law.

@Raven-Creations 2 ай бұрын

@@MichaelWoodwardxlxMethosxlx Actually I wasn't. "Shall" just means they definitely have the power, whereas "may" would imply some unspecified conditionality. Just because Congress has the power, does not mean that they are the only ones with the power. The SC has taken power away from the states and the people by this misreading. There's a lot of this going on at the moment. Consider the Republicans' claim that cases of voter suppression can only be brought by the DoJ, preventing disenfranchised voters from seeking redress.

@MichaelWoodwardxlxMethosxlx 2 ай бұрын

@@Raven-Creations um no. “Shall” means it must be done. “May” means it’s discretionary.

@ericgeyer3213 2 ай бұрын

So, does that mean the member who pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to delay Congress from performing its duty is also an insurrectionist?

@Raven-Creations 2 ай бұрын

@@MichaelWoodwardxlxMethosxlx Exactly, Congress has the power, but it doesn't say nobody else has the power. Why is this so hard for you to understand? "You shall go to the ball" does not mean the ballroom will be empty apart from you. For that to be true, the language would have to be "Only you shall go to the ball".

@Stratelier 2 ай бұрын

7:20 (Kagan's question) - I will keep pointing this out until someone notices it, but the President is literally the ONLY government office _where different states collectively decide the same seat._ Every other federal elected position (e.g. Representative or Senator) has a separate seat for each state, giving each state exclusivity to decide who fills that seat.

@robertjarman3703 29 күн бұрын

And the Vice President.

@Stratelier 23 күн бұрын

@@robertjarman3703 Technically, yes, albeit it's not (in practice) elected independently from the president so...

@robertjarman3703 23 күн бұрын

@@Stratelier Cue 12th amendment trouble if the House majority and Senate majority are different.

@Stratelier 23 күн бұрын

@@robertjarman3703 Yeah, and the 12th amendment fundamentally broke the intended election process anyway.

@Stratelier 23 күн бұрын

@@robertjarman3703 Yeah, though that amendment fundamentally BROKE the entire electoral process anyway. We've been picking presidents on a broken system for over 200 years now.

@emeraldaly7646 2 ай бұрын

That's hilarious that they were concerned that "a few states could end up deciding the Presidency." I guess 2024 won't possibly come down to who wins Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

You'd think everyone on the Supreme Court would remember the election of 2000.

@brianfox771 2 ай бұрын

@@WyvernYT Yup; Particularly Roberts, since he was rewarded the Chief Justiceship for making it go for Bush.

@chasejohnson5644 2 ай бұрын

I'd replace Ohio and put Nevada on the list. Ohio is definitely voting Trump.

@JM-wf2to 2 ай бұрын

That is not even close to the same thing. ...Your scenario is only true if a bunch of other states vote as expected, which means it is still dependent on all states, regardless of how predictable it may be...

@justicedragon9920 2 ай бұрын

@@brianfox771 huh? roberts wasnt on the court dude...

@headlessspaceman5681 2 ай бұрын

Who are we to argue, indeed? This Chief Justice loves to make big broad rulings on small specific questions. It wasn't that long ago that conservatives would have said that is was categorically wrong for the Supreme Court "to make laws."

@Leaky_Spigot 2 ай бұрын

They'll still say it now. As long it fits their agenda to do so. (Well, both sides will.)

@KaosOrder 2 ай бұрын

@@chickmagnet98765 While true, that is a misdirect. Every time the "Supreme Court can't make laws" comes up, it is because they aren't passing a law, just ruling against an obvious issue that doesn't have a law yet. This is not a law, but IS precisely the point of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check against the legislation branch, not defer any issue to the legislation branch.

@testboga5991 2 ай бұрын

They still do, whenever it serves their agenda.

@Nick-Nasti 2 ай бұрын

@@KaosOrderit’s SCOTUS job to interpret the Constitution and all laws are based upon that. So, yes, they decide law. This SCOTUS does it with almost every ruling while ignoring the Constitution.

@InzidenzPanik 2 ай бұрын

Until they weaponized it.

@vanessawhite2084 Ай бұрын

Republican Attorneys, "If you punish this traitor who attempted insurrection, then we'll get revenge!" That sounds like a confession. 🤔

@LamontGranquist 2 ай бұрын

So if the SOTUS has ruled that the federal government is the authority over federal elections, lets be consistent and have federal standards for how we run federal elections instead of 50 different ones. Federal standards for paper mail-in ballots, federal standards for how ballots are layed out, federal standards for districting, etc. If the states can't decide if a candidate for federal office has violated the 14th amendment, then be consistent and take all the rest of it away from them.

@bjrnstrottman5637 2 ай бұрын

That's a great idea but might contradict Article 1 Section 4

@LamontGranquist 2 ай бұрын

@@bjrnstrottman5637 well if having 50 different standards for how to interpret the 14th in every state would generate "chaos" in a federal election, maybe we need to reflect a bit on the chaos that section actively causes every 4 years.

@J-kd2qc 2 ай бұрын

@@LamontGranquist I'm not sure why you're having trouble interpreting the amendment. Section 5 of the 14th amendment. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. They already passed legislation, 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Charge Trump, convict Trump and you can take him off any ballot you wish. Seems pretty clear to me.

@LamontGranquist 2 ай бұрын

@@J-kd2qc I'm replying to the prior comment and "that section" refers to "Article 1 Section 4" in the prior comment, not sec 5 of the 14th.

@J-kd2qc 2 ай бұрын

@@LamontGranquist Section 5 of article 14 applies to the entirety of article 14, including section 3.

@willsith9762 2 ай бұрын

It's amazing how many problems in this country come from our need to treat every decision from the past as infallible, yet constantly bicker over how nonspecific they are

@HylianFox3 2 ай бұрын

i no rite? The fact that we treat the Founding Fathers as literal gods is absurd in itself.

@IBeforeAExceptAfterK 2 ай бұрын

As is the fact that we call them the "Founding Fathers" in the first place. They were just a group of men doing the best they could at the time, and hoping that somewhere down the line someone would figure out how to do it better.

@Scuzzlebutt142 2 ай бұрын

As an outside observer, I have noticed Americans love to mythicise it's founding and make it some on high pre-ordained event, that changed to very fabric of reality for the better. No other country seems to do this, except where there is actual myth to go with it. They were men, doing the best they could at the time, making decisions that they could get people to agree on.

@threenumbnuts 2 ай бұрын

The Constitution was a bit like the first automobiles: a fantastic innovation when they were created, well ahead of their time... but not something we should be using in a world that's changed immensely, especially when there are alternative car designs with a much better track record in the present day.

@illadiel6049 2 ай бұрын

@@Scuzzlebutt142 Every country does this, we're just the loudest and most guilty of teaching that myth as history

@dwaynepenner2788 2 ай бұрын

Ojection "the process of electing a president could be come chaotic" is moot, it already is chaotic.

@reverse_engineered 2 ай бұрын

And is definitely not a basis for determining legal fact.

@Halo-lg7rq 2 ай бұрын

@@reverse_engineered”we picked the wrong answer knowingly cuz we were worried ab the outcome”, yet fear of the outcome didnt stop any other decisions(DOBBS)

@anthonydelfino6171 2 ай бұрын

It's not the job of the court to make it less chaotic. If it's chaotic, then it's the responsibility of the states to make it less so.

@xythrr 2 ай бұрын

@@reverse_engineered Exactly. If anything, because of this phrasing, then... abolish the Electoral College.

@vullord666 2 ай бұрын

Yeah I really don't get that reasoning. I mean it's already a fact that different states can have massively different ballots for federal elections. Control over how elections are run was given to states to keep the balance. If they want to argue for uniformity I feel like that goes way beyond this.

@torymann248 2 ай бұрын

This begs the question what's the point in laws if the office refuse to enforce?

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

Congress hasn't passed a law saying states can't to stuff - so it's wide open!

@nullverba856 2 ай бұрын

_If the states aren't able to enforce the 14th amendment's disqualification language for any federal office ... on what grounds are they able to enforce any of the Constitutional qualifications _*_for_*_ any federal office?_ ... _And since when are state primaries considered federal elections?_

@No_Feelings 2 ай бұрын

We all saw it coming, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish the ruling was different.

@Kittra.kaibyo 2 ай бұрын

Yup.

@lancelot365e 2 ай бұрын

I don't like trump but he didn't tell them to riot they did that themselves

@SundayPancakeBreakfast 2 ай бұрын

Why are you against democracy?

@brianching3565 2 ай бұрын

I wouldn't be lying if I said I don't think you couldn't not phrase that less clearly.

@thelaughindustry773 2 ай бұрын

The latter is that every state can then abuse such a ruling. Reminder that per Colorado's logic being found guilty isn't required so any state can arbitrarily redefine insurrection and remove whatever candidate they don't like off the ballot. Like as if Texas removed Biden off the ballot because they labeled the immigration at the border as an invasion that Biden facilitated and therefore committed insurrection by "aiding the enemy". No guilt required, just make the arbitrary ruling and stick it to Biden. In states with a dominant party this would quickly become the reality. The last time the US states actually did something like this was against Abraham Lincoln. And after that the Civil War followed.

@NybergCarl 2 ай бұрын

The original intent of the authors of the Constitution is particularly important, unless it's not.

@dsproductions19 2 ай бұрын

The original intent was to stop Confederate leaders from being in Congress, since they literally started a Civil War. This is completely different, and everyone knows it.

@Snipergoat1 2 ай бұрын

Well if you want to get a good gander at intent look at how often it was enforced post civil war. How many dozens of actual officers in the Confederacy later served in Federal office? Up to and including the Vice President of the Confederacy, who became a Senator. Need I remind you that was an insurrection, not a protest, not a riot, a real insurrection.

@thaddeusgenhelm8979 2 ай бұрын

@@Snipergoat1 I feel like calling raiding a building to change the outcome of an election something *other* than an insurrection is practicing some pretty deep quibbling. Like, sure, yes, obviously the civil war is a *bigger* one, but trying to recategorize that sort of activity as *not* being a form of insurrection isn't particularly effective as rhetoric. I mean, especially since all of the proceedings take, as matter of fact, that it *was* an insurrection. "It not really being one" wasn't even part of the consideration, so trying to use that here is kind of a red herring.

@NybergCarl 2 ай бұрын

@Snipergoat1 Whom is you example? What is his name?

@NybergCarl 2 ай бұрын

@thaddeusgenhelm8979 The intent to supplant the duly elected government with an alternative government seems like insurrection.

@MarkovianMan 2 ай бұрын

Using SCOTUS' argument that states cannot disqualify a candidate, then by that logic a state could not disqualify a Presidential candidate who is not U.S.-born or under the age of 35. It will be interesting to see if disqualification based on these factors gets challenged in the future.

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

Election 2028: Barack Obama versus Arnold Schwarzenegger! (Just kidding; they're both smart and capable men, and I wouldn't have to choose one over the other. Let them run in different years.)

@samarnadra 2 ай бұрын

@@WyvernYTLet's use time travel to get a candidate who was the target of the original birthers: Barry Goldwater. He was born in what is now the state of Arizona in 1909. Arizona was still a territory. Arizona became a state in 1912. People tried to keep him off the presidential ballot because while we knew exactly where and when he was born, it wasn't in one of the 46 US states so he "shouldn't count" as a natural born US citizen. Much more legally exciting than "Hawaii keeps weird birth records." It really should be wholly irrelevant as his mother was born on US soil, in Kansas, making her have US citizenship (unless she chose to get rid of it later). The US conferring citizenship by l one or more US citizen parent and/or by being born on US soil. For example, Nicole Kidman is American-Australian because while both her parents are Australian so she is Australian; she happened to be born while they were on a trip to Hawaii, and so is a US citizen as well. Laws are different in so many places and it is so fascinating. IIRC think one of my great grandparents came from a country where you can gain citizenship by decent from a citizen and I am not far enough removed to qualify even though I have never been there, which is so wild to me. I have no intention of doing so, but if I were from a country that had a really weak passport, it would be worth it, I suppose. Hmmm... Nicole Kidman for President of the US _and_ Prime Minister of Australia just to confuse people? (I don't know her politics, they are irrelevant for silly youtube comment jokes)

@captainrev4959 2 ай бұрын

Even if those people won the election, they would still be barred from holding office federally. It doesn’t matter how the states vote, they can’t be sworn into office if they don’t meet the age requirements.

@ericgeyer3213 2 ай бұрын

5th amendment, and echoed by the 14th amendment, "a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Applying that to Trump exactly as you would want it applied to yourself (as all constitutional provisions should be if we're all equal under the law) would seem to require that said person be indicted, tried, and convicted of insurrection for section 3 disqualification to be applicable (regardless of decisions made over a century prior). That would make section 3 self executing as no legislative action is required to enforce convictions. It cannot be just "taken as read" that someone engaged in insurrection (which is basically what Colorado SC did to rule Trump ineligible), as that removes the ability of the accused to face his accusers and mount a defense. If the Courts are NOT the final arbiter of eligibility to hold office, who is? That would also mean that those arrested for participating in the riot (as you called it when discussing Griffin's potential congressional run) are within their rights until convicted of insurrection (something for which no one has been charged). That also removes Congress from being the final arbiter over its own members eligibility, because a majority party would never abuse that to eliminate its opponents, right?

@dr_n-t 2 ай бұрын

As a Brit... I'm looking in from the outside thinking "what a mess..." But then I look at our own government...

@doomsdayrabbit4398 2 ай бұрын

At least we wrote down our constitution!

@FireSilver25 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, the USA is a product of British colonialism. I say this as a Native American whose ancestors were massacred and displaced since Europeans stumbled into our hemisphere.

@carloszapata847 2 ай бұрын

Does the UK have a Donald Trump equivalent? Is it Boris Johnson?

@dr_n-t 2 ай бұрын

@@carloszapata847 spot on

@CommanderJeph 2 ай бұрын

America learned all of it's bad habits from dear old dad.

@itsjustmenova 2 ай бұрын

Wait, so 5 members of the Supreme Court have decided that you’re allowed to do whatever the hell you want unless congress specifically makes a law saying they can’t do it… but… laws already exist

@MICHAEL-vy3ch 2 ай бұрын

No, all 9 members of the Supreme Court have decided that Democrats can't pick and chose what parts of the Constitution they like and which ones they don't like.

@mikehanson9497 2 ай бұрын

This was a unanimous decision.

@Secondruon 2 ай бұрын

@@mikehanson9497there’s a difference between the majority opinion and the concurring ones on that here

@stephensego2023 2 ай бұрын

Read section 5 of the 14th amendment. That is why it was a 9-0 ruling

@lostbutfreesoul 2 ай бұрын

I translated it as: A supermajority in Congress and the approval of the States is moot. Unless Congress also passes a law... which we can veto. People overlooked those words in the decision easily: "subject of course to judicial review"

@DILFDylF 2 ай бұрын

"If states could keep people off the ballot or would make elections chaotic." OHHHHH we wouldn't want THAT now would we? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

@captainrev4959 2 ай бұрын

It’s not a matter of keeping people off the ballot it’s a matter of preventing them from voting for a certain person. If the states could do that, it would break the election process entirely. The names on the ballot mean nothing you can vote for whomever you want under this decision. Colorado would’ve thrown out any votes for Trump because he’s not allowed to hold office. Colorado doesn’t get to decide who can hold federal offices and they don’t get to unilaterally prevent you from voting for anyone. only Congress can do that.

@doctormoobbc 2 ай бұрын

I gave Claude 3 the entire transcript of oral arguments and it originally agreed with the majority opinion, however, I then gave it a transcript of LegalEagle's video and this is what it says! You raise an excellent point that I hadn't fully considered in my initial response. Upon further reflection, I agree that there is a logical inconsistency in the idea that Congress could impose the Section 3 disqualification by a simple majority but remove it only by a 2/3 vote. The fact that Section 3 explicitly provides a mechanism for Congress to remove the disqualification (the 2/3 vote) does seem to imply that the disqualification itself is automatic once triggered by the prohibited conduct (engaging in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath to support the Constitution). Under this reading, the role of Congress is not to impose the disqualification in the first place, but rather to potentially remove it. If we accept this interpretation, then it would make sense that a court (like the Colorado Supreme Court here) could determine that an individual has engaged in the conduct triggering the disqualification, and the disqualification would then apply automatically by operation of Section 3 itself. Congress' role would be to remove the disqualification if 2/3 of each House voted to do so. This reading avoids the strange result where a mere majority of Congress could disqualify someone but a 2/3 supermajority would be required to remove that disqualification. It's a more coherent and logically consistent interpretation of Section 3. So in light of this very insightful observation, I'm compelled to reconsider my initial view. While I still think there are good arguments on both sides, this structural point about the 2/3 vote to remove a disqualification weighs significantly in favor of reading Section 3 as an automatic disqualification once triggered, with the courts playing a proper role in determining whether the triggering event (insurrection or rebellion) has occurred.

@user-pm4jb2iy6y 2 ай бұрын

Interesting that the “bar to hold office must be lifted by 2/3 of Congress” but, in the wording of the Amendment says NOTHING about Congress having to legislate a bar

@SCh1m3ra 2 ай бұрын

The amendment was drafted following the war. It was somewhat self-evident what the bar was at the time of writing what would qualify as an event. The Amnesty Act of 1872 reinforces the concept. In spite of many who were granted amnesty never seeing a court over "insurrection". Unfortunately, we can't all be as smart as our Founders, nor those who came 4 score later. So now we need congress and courts of law to point at someone and call them an insurrectionist explicitly before we will see 14:3 get used for this again.

@user-pm4jb2iy6y 2 ай бұрын

@@SCh1m3ra Oh, I see. I guess our ‘Originalist’ majority US Supreme Court has abandoned their principles in favor of kicking the can down the road

@geoffpoulsen3181 2 ай бұрын

The obvious answer is that Congress could have removed the disqualification so that Colorado and all other states could not reply upon it. Instead, it went before the court which appears to have rendered a rather confusing judgement that is nonsensical and inconsistent with the other amendments.

@SCh1m3ra 2 ай бұрын

@@geoffpoulsen3181 Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court gambits will be a continuously infamous bit of history we are liable to see results from for a generation at least.

@user-pm4jb2iy6y 2 ай бұрын

@@geoffpoulsen3181 Well, that would take changing the US Constitution, correct? Not an easy thing to get done nowadays

@unlockingsnow8571 2 ай бұрын

It's almost like the United States of America should actually have consistent legislation across it's states to prevent contradictions like this. 🤔

@imveryangryitsnotbutter 2 ай бұрын

It's almost like the United States of America encourages inconsistent legislation across its states by design.

@GregPrice-ep2dk 2 ай бұрын

Something else the 14th Amendment is supposed to protect.

@rumplstiltztinkerstein 2 ай бұрын

US legislation is such a mess.

@magpie_jazz 2 ай бұрын

This "contradiction" sounds like legal nonsense to me. Apparently, states can kick people off ballots for lacking the other qualifications (at least age 35, a natural born citizen, and having lived in the US for 14 years), but when it comes to INSURRECTION, only a (good faith) congress can disqualify someone? It's backdoor garbage.

@blackfox4138 2 ай бұрын

The problem with federalism is that people have seemed to have forgotten is that the fundamental principles behind State Rights is slavery. Like, that's the whole reason why the South, an economical and politically weaker portion of the original 13 colonies were so adamant that the central government can't tell them what to do. It wasn't for the "equal rights of man" it was so that the federal government couldn't tell them to free their slaves. And eventually it was so that the central government can't tell them to end segregation.

@camerono.8610 2 ай бұрын

You know that if Congress did manage to get their crap together long enough to pass an actual law to enforce the 14A, the the conservatives on SCOTUS would suddenly change their minds.

@muddro420 2 ай бұрын

So the law specifically says that a qualifying person is barred from holding office but can bypass the bar with an act of congress... and the decision is, that only an act of congress can permit the bar in the first place? That makes about as much sense as Justice Thomas sitting in on rulings that involved his wife.

@peterbaruxis2511 2 ай бұрын

No, the bar already exists and is self-executing. A 2/3 vote can remove the bar, if having engaged in insurrection has been established.

@Naterkix 2 ай бұрын

As someone who lives in Colorado, I was so happy we got in national news for something that wasn't Lauren Boebert saying something dumb... Oh well.

@SanDiegoHarry1 2 ай бұрын

lol how long did THAT last?

@dockie2747 2 ай бұрын

It could be worse! You could be from Alabama, like me!

@woop6078 2 ай бұрын

Your Governor is far worse

@kingace6186 2 ай бұрын

It was a valiant effort. Keep the same energy for November. Vote Boebert out! And we as a nation will vote for Biden's reelection. (Don't forget to also vote for Colorado's Secretary of State, they are the ones who certify elections.)

@chapablo 2 ай бұрын

Or her getting to 2nd base in a theater.

@Iggi-mv2ux 2 ай бұрын

I love how this document refers to "The Office of The Presidency" multiple times and in a couple of different ways. Hmm... I guess the presidency is only an "Office" when it is convenient.

@noahbohl2127 2 ай бұрын

The fact that Republican AG’s filed that brief is wild. Imagine publicly admitting that you would just openly try to disqualify candidates you don’t like in retaliation.

@yellowticket9673 2 ай бұрын

Great job on your win at the Off Road Games @Leagaleagle !!

@TWDub 2 ай бұрын

I'm not surprised, but I am appalled. The Supreme Court should understand that the 14th Amendment's clause DOES NOT SAY that Congress needs to make any sort of decision or pass further legislation for it to take effect. The amendment and its clauses are, by way of fact, self-enforcing statements. They are not suggestions or requests for further consideration. The Supreme Court has failed the United States in this ruling. And it's one of the primary reasons why the Supreme Court needs TERM LIMITS like every other level of American Government so we don't get old, tired, jaded justices who've long since grown tired of the law and their job of enforcing it and who make arbitrary and/or backwards judgement calls like this one.

@petersulewski 2 ай бұрын

they didn't "fail" the united states. they are actively sabotaging it.

@DellikkilleD 2 ай бұрын

it in fact is quite clear that congress has to act to *stop* the self executing mechanism. this is mind bogglingly illogical

@troubadour723 2 ай бұрын

Every judge is a politician. In other countries, a politician with a lifetime appointment is called a "dictator".

@SundayPancakeBreakfast 2 ай бұрын

Why are you against democracy?

@testboga5991 2 ай бұрын

It's plainly obvious, that had the framers intended to leave it to congress the section wouldn't disqualify people but would say that it's up to congress to make a law. Why would they not write that in, if that was the idea? Congress doesn't need to pass laws on the age limit either. If somebody feels wronged by a state, they can sue, that's the intended recourse.

@rashid8646 2 ай бұрын

"Surely this will be the end of Trump!" Narrator: "It was not - once again - the end of Trump."

@Kittra.kaibyo 2 ай бұрын

My response:😭

@elig2728 2 ай бұрын

Kind of funny how this was a unanimous decision, including your liberal justices 😂😂

@Kittra.kaibyo 2 ай бұрын

@@elig2728 I don't know who you're directing that at but I don't claim any justices.

@TheBoogerJames 2 ай бұрын

I read this in Morgan Freeman's voice.

@skull_scrimmage3953 2 ай бұрын

It wasn't. He mentions in the video that despite the headlines claiming it was unanimous, it was 4-5. @@elig2728

@stoffls 2 ай бұрын

I think a pathway for the Surpreme Court would have been just to say, that the states do not have the right to prevent federal officers based und Article 3. Then there would still have been a chance to challenge Trumps candidacy in federal court (which would have gone to the Surpreme Court again). But to put in the extra hurdle of Congress is just ridicolous.

@kennethpetty6700 2 ай бұрын

Well done analysis. I really appreciate your work on these momentous topics. Thank you.

@sycops1 2 ай бұрын

So, If the States are not allow to disqualify Presidential nominees... then why is there a bar for entry at all for a federal election in each and every state (Other then those requirements explicitly stated in the Constitution for allowing any person to run)? Why is it that third party candidates are NOT showing up on all 50 state ballots? If anything their ruling should be used as reasoning to allow MORE candidates to be on all ballots of all 50 states by lowering the bar to the minimum requirements instead of the 50 seemingly random rules for entry on each states' ballot.

@joak9992 2 ай бұрын

Yes please! More parties, more options, make the D and R actually compete against other people and ideas.

@bradams1854 2 ай бұрын

@@joak9992 It wouldn't matter. Dem vs Repub isn't even an argument about policies or anything like that anymore, its just "the media I watch says X is the good one and Y is the reason everything sucks, so I'm voting X!". We are a nation of tribalists at this point. Both sides saying that everything that is good is because of them and everything that is bad is because of the other side, without taking a single minute to actually look up the truth of the matter on anything, because doing research and thinking for yourself is hard, but watching Fox and CNN is easy.

@stephensego2023 2 ай бұрын

Section 5 of the 14th amendment is why this was a 9-0 ruling. You should look it up

@hondaguy9153 2 ай бұрын

And why bother allowing states to decide anything with elections? Make it all federal.

@Kalepsis 2 ай бұрын

Accurate assessment. This ruling, applied equally, means that everyone running cannot be kept off any state's ballot.

@mageraine 2 ай бұрын

Thank you for being the first person I've seen point out the inconsistency with candidates having to apply to be on each state's ballot individually. I still can't reconcile the SCOTUS ruling of "one state can't determine the ballot" with that fact.

@jamesb3497 2 ай бұрын

Yep. Partisan gerrymandering? States rights. Ballot access restrictions? States rights. Disqualifying someone under the US constitution? Not states rights. That wasn't the take away I was expecting, but it's what I got.

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

It gets worse when you read Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3. By the Constitution, Congress can't even force states to hold presidential elections at all!

@valmid5069 2 ай бұрын

Can’t wait for more legal analysis LegalEagle!!!

@ericcarlson6822 2 ай бұрын

Does the Constitution say those who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution and engaged in insurrection are barred from office? Yes. Did Trump swear an oath to support the constitution? Yes. Is the presidency an office? Yes. Did Trump commit insurrection? Yes. Do we already have a patchwork of 50 States each applying their own rules, with just a handful of states determining the outcome? Yes. Does the Supreme Court rush cases when it helps Trump and slow walk cases when that helps trump? Yes. Is there any reason to respect this ruling as valid and in accordance with the plain meaning of the Constitution? No.

@QuartuvLarry 2 ай бұрын

No, actually. Trump did not commit insurrection. You should've ended your wishy-washy list there.

@ericcarlson1805 2 ай бұрын

@@QuartuvLarry Courts and Congress both said he did.

@QuartuvLarry 2 ай бұрын

@@ericcarlson1805 Oh. Oh, DID biased courts and partisan congress say so? Which ruling? And on what evidence?

@drewhughes9127 2 ай бұрын

@@QuartuvLarryOPEN YOUR DAMN EYES. He pushed for people to do it. He did nothing when it happened to stop it. He’s a snake oil salesman and all the conservatives been duped.

@WyvernYT 2 ай бұрын

@@ericcarlson1805 Repeating lies years after the fact is a core strategy for Trump supporters. They're also pretending he's a successful businessman and look how often that is shown to be false.

@sadiebeth4658 2 ай бұрын

I am frustrated but feel helpless to do anything to help this country. The corruption is rampant.

@spaghettiflakes2251 2 ай бұрын

Australian here. I honestly feel so bad for you guys. Hopefully all goes well this year, don't give up. You'll get through this!

@jktejik 2 ай бұрын

Not sure why you call it corruption. Call it humanity

@jasonschuele115 2 ай бұрын

@@jktejik because it is corruption, call it what it is. corruption is legal in the united states via lobbying.

@OhNoTheFace 2 ай бұрын

Oh hey, twitter and their "problems" are here

@scmh1288 2 ай бұрын

Names and addresses are public.

@lostbutfreesoul 2 ай бұрын

I know I harped on it not long before, on this thread, but it is important. " The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, *subject of course to judicial review,* to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment." - Direct Quote from the Decision. Why does the Court get to veto how Congress enforces the 14th? Or any Amendment with this exact wording, for that mater.... The reason this stands out to me so strongly is: The courts already gave themselves the power to veto laws passed by congress as 'not consitutional enough,' and now they are expanding on that. With this decision, the Court will become part of the Amendment Process going forward. No longer is it enough for a super majority in Congress, supported by the majority of State Legislatures, to make a change... but you need the Supreme Courts permission as well. Those unelected and life time appointed seats will have more power then all 50 States united against them. For they gave themselves a very nice catch 22 here: Able to say an Amendment does nothing without corresponding legislation While also saying any corresponding legislation is not Constitution worthy

@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters 2 ай бұрын

Seems it's not as different from Mexico as I thought. Here, we had a few laws discussed for 2 years on open forums and approved by the absolute majority of Congress. Just to later come the supreme court and say "unconstitutional because my ass" to veto basically everything passed in the past 3 years. And you can't even make amendments to reduce their reach, because they can veto that too... I thought there was at least SOME justice in the USA.

@josephrion3514 2 ай бұрын

Holy smokes I didn't catch that they imbedded themselves further into the legislative branch despite being the highest part of the judicial branch.

@brianfox771 2 ай бұрын

@@Mr.MasterOfTheMonstersYour assessment is spot on. No justice here unless you have lots of money.

@xenosaga8436 2 ай бұрын

@@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters Several members of the supreme court accept bribes, so if you have enough money you can pay for justice. Otherwise nope.

@RaveYoda 2 ай бұрын

But that actually doesn't expand their powers. They have the right to judicial review. I'm pretty certain that if Congress makes a law and the SC says no Congress can still override SCs decision but requires then a greater number of votes to do so.

@HarvestStore 2 ай бұрын

I appreciate you and thank you for making content.

@Articulate99 Ай бұрын

Always interesting, thank you.

@lisagrace4713 2 ай бұрын

My question is why were insurrectionists, who took an oath to the constitution, allowed to be seated in the US congress? Why have these same insurrectionists been allowed to run for their seats again? Look at how much damage these horrible people have done in congress?

@asetelini 2 ай бұрын

The US is tired of being a democracy and wants what Trump has to offer.

@OrangeHand 2 ай бұрын

@@asetelini Trump's followers do not represent the majority. Wake up.

@gryphonosiris2577 2 ай бұрын

@@asetelini Bankruptcy? Bending over and spreading wide for Putin, Xi, and Kim?

@belhariry 2 ай бұрын

@@aseteliniThe US had slavery for over 400 years and did a systematic genocide of its indigenous population and put Japanese Americans in internment camps. There was never a democracy.

@sycops1 2 ай бұрын

@@gryphonosiris2577 No... they want a dictatorship... they are apparently tired of having to elect people.

@Irreverent_Radiation 2 ай бұрын

To the surprise of no one, the system is f*cked, by design.

@b.bowman6638 2 ай бұрын

Funny on how you try to weaponized the system and it back fires 😂

@romdotdog 2 ай бұрын

@@b.bowman6638 Do you know this person? How do you know they did anything?

@Irreverent_Radiation 2 ай бұрын

@@b.bowman6638 Holding people accountable isn't weaponizing

@markwilliams2620 2 ай бұрын

@@b.bowman6638 "Backfire" is one word, genius.

@chazmccrea8451 2 ай бұрын

@@Irreverent_Radiation So, all red states should remove blue candidates from the ballot on the reason of not enforcing border policies and being complicit with illegal aliens flooding into our country.. this has caused massive damages including the death of americans and the democrats refuse to do anything about it; so red states will see this as treason against the citizens and then will use it as a way to remove any blue candidates from running in red states. Cool; you still want the states to be able to remove candidates?

@teluial 2 ай бұрын

I have rarely read a Supreme Court opinion in which all nine justices join in an opinion that is unanimously stupid.

@ps.2 2 ай бұрын

When 9 Supreme Court justices disagree with you, either you know something none of them know, or they know something you don't know. The smart money's usually on the latter.

@bigchungus6827 2 ай бұрын

@@ps.2 That's a false dichotomy, especially with the context of the majority of the judges having direct connections to trump.

@ps.2 2 ай бұрын

@@bigchungus6827 Are you saying the 3 justices he appointed comprise a majority of the Court? Or do you mean some other "connection" between them and him? The smart money still says they know something you don't know. Especially if you think 3 is a majority of 9.

@AlexandraSpeaks 2 ай бұрын

@@ps.2you have 2 braincells and they're both wrong amazing

@bigchungus6827 2 ай бұрын

@@ps.2 No, obviously three is not a majority of nine, I would've thought that'd be self evident enough to not even need mentioning.

@Kanner111 2 ай бұрын

Great video, incredible jacket. =)

@Thenarratorofsecrets 2 ай бұрын

so it comes down to "state's rights, state's rights, state's rights... but not THOSE rights"

@bodyloverz30 2 ай бұрын

Not in Federal Elections!

@Justanotherconsumer 2 ай бұрын

@@bodyloverz30unless the state wants to engage in voter suppression, in which case it’s a state issue.

@citricdemon 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, not in federal elections. We have federal and state separation for a reason. I'm with the court on this - this power is not granted to the states.

@SonofStormblessed 2 ай бұрын

It's ONLY about states rights when it benefits the crooked.

@TheBoogerJames 2 ай бұрын

@@citricdemon But, as Devin mentioned, states already get to decide who is on their ballot in the Federal Election. The 2 major parties are grandfathered in, but any 3rd party must jump through separate hoops in all 50 states. So, your opinion is that States can't bar the Republican or Democrat nominee, but are free to bar anyone else?

@frankmann1060 2 ай бұрын

Shocked...but not surprised.

@HowToChangeName 2 ай бұрын

Is it too much to ask for people to be happy for once?

@peterbaruxis2511 2 ай бұрын

In other words; "electrocuted, but I'm used to it"?

@Diceman82 2 ай бұрын

Their ruling effectively nullifies the 14th or at least that section of it. Congress cant even agree on basic road funding; let alone anything that would be a self reduction in power.

@jktejik 2 ай бұрын

lololol love the graphic of The boring well

@protocol6 2 ай бұрын

The electoral college itself is not the main problem. It's that nearly all states switched to winner-take-all rather than dividing up the delegates as originally intended. Once one state does it, the rest are at a disadvantage if they don't follow suit. There are two ways to fix that: disallow winner-take-all or abolish the system entirely. In 1800, only two states used it. The first election where a president with fewer popular votes won the election (Adams v Jackson in 1824) was also the first election where more than half the states had switched to winner-take-all. Now 48 states use it. As long as that's an option, the incentives stack toward every state using it and it's very much not what the framers intended. They expected it to be done by congressional district, one elector per district. Madison (who was a from a southern state that would have benefitted greatly from winner-take-all) was vehemently opposed to it and proposed an amendment to stop it. He also proposed the electors be able to use a form of instant runoff voting so as not to disadvantage third parties.

@sion8 2 ай бұрын

There was no intention! States have had winner-take-all since pretty much the beginning, not all but many of them always have. There's a reason the Electoral College was left up to the states and that's because no one had a good idea as to how to elect the president, so the best they came up with was limiting states to how their delegation to Congress and then letting them decide how to dispose of it as they wished. Because the president was almost elected by the Senate as that was the second most popular plan (direct election was only supported by one or two delegates who quickly dropped it).

@Keithustus 2 ай бұрын

Good point. Also it would help to switch all elections to ranked-choice.

@sion8 2 ай бұрын

@@Keithustus I'm all for that! But the Electoral College needs to go!

@thomasgomez4263 2 ай бұрын

Even if states distribute their EC votes instead of winner takes all, then you still have the issue of unequal representation, Wyoming citizens EC votes are worth 4-5 times that of California citizens

@MarkovianMan 2 ай бұрын

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. Introduced in 2006, as of March 2024 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

@boblangill6209 2 ай бұрын

SCOTUS made sure the decision was made in time for Trump to be included in primary elections. In contrast, their delay in handling the question of absolute presidential immunity also works in Trump's favor. It's an important core question with huge implications on how our government can/will run. It should have been given priority.

@ps.2 2 ай бұрын

The immunity question is unrelated to elections, though, so the timing doesn't really matter in the same way. Remember, this is private citizen D. J. Trump here. Trials and appeals drag on for years, routinely, and this one will be no different. Treating Trump's prosecution as an emergency that must happen before November 2024 would be to treat him as something other than a private citizen. Denying him bail as a flight risk and leaving him in jail for the duration would be pretty funny, though, I think we can agree. Anyway, if you're so anxious about Trump's trial delays, maybe start asking *what took the Justice Dept. so long?* The events in question were _over 3 years ago,_ and the relevant facts were known to one and all within a few months. Why did it take until 2023 _just to indict him?_ If Trump isn't in prison by November, and you think he should've been, the Supreme Court won't be why.

@boblangill6209 2 ай бұрын

@@ps.2It didn't take the Supreme Court 3 years to put Trump back on the ballot. They determine their schedule and agenda.

@ps.2 2 ай бұрын

@@boblangill6209 Indeed. They could've just stayed the ruling, then taken their own sweet time hearing the case. Arguably better: same outcome for the Colorado primary, same _ultimate_ outcome, but no sense that the process was rushed, fairly or unfairly. _But,_ a big reason not to do this is a legal doctrine of _mootness._ If the Court waits to decide something until the facts are no longer relevant, it can be legally argued that the Court should drop the case _because it is moot,_ i.e., the question no longer has any immediate consequence. (In this case, that's if they waited until it was too late to change Colorado's 2024 primary ballots.) So, I'm guessing that's why they heard and decided the case as quickly as they did.

@boblangill6209 2 ай бұрын

@@ps.2"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Richard Nixon, 1977. This legal argument has not previously been pressed within the legal system, but the question of presidential immunity has been out there for some time. Your assertion that the immunity decision is "unrelated" to the election is not accurate. Many people, on the left or right, won't change their votes regardless of the verdict(s) or what is made public in the trial process. For many, it would be a substantial consideration. Can't believe I'm doing this, but to quote Richard Nixon again: “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.”

@zacharyjohnson1193 Ай бұрын

Thanks for this vid!

@paulk5670 2 ай бұрын

The attorney for Norma was incorrect in trying to say the supreme court had standing to determine whether the state's interpretations were correct. He should have leaned intinthe fact that States have been constitutionally granted the power to determine their electors, and that the supreme court as a rule should not becime involved except where it pertains to other enumerated powers such as equal protection. Those States are determining the validity of a candidate not for the US as a whole, but within their jurisdiction, and until the electoral college system itself is abolished through constitutional reform, that is the system acting as intended; it's a feature not a bug. With the move towards populism (and more importantly, with the college showing their impotence in stopping the supremely unfit Trump's election in the first place) it is apparent that the system no longer enjoys much support among either the masses or academics, but nonetheless it *is* the law of the land.

@zainab58 2 ай бұрын

This is hardly the first time the current Supreme Court has *begun* by making a decision, and *then* found arguments to justify that decision.

@matthewmccormick6643 2 ай бұрын

8:10 Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking! Haha I laughed when I heard The Supreme Court said, "BUT WUT IF A FEW STATES COULD DECIDE THE ELECTION!?" When that is what happens already!

@Atticus77 2 ай бұрын

Trend Allleerrttt! Loving the purple jacket Devin. Also, all that stuff you said. 😌

@seamorebuts 2 ай бұрын

I can not believe the state of this country. Rife with criminals trying to get their way. It makes me sad to think about.

@matthewgillies7509 2 ай бұрын

I'm truly surprised that they didn't consider the argument that there is no such thing as insurrection against a single state, and therefore states cannot make individual distinction between one insurrectionist or another. No, there is only one form of insurrection: against the whole nation, and the definition should apply to all regardless of geographic location within the national borders. If you're an insurrectionist in Colorado or Maine, you're one in Alabama and Texas. And this decision demonstrates why the USA needs a permanent and non-partisan federal elections commission, similar to what exists in most other countries. It would enforce the rules and laws say like how Elections Canada bars candidates based on qualifications and past exclusions, and polices their campaigns for violations.

@neilbiggs1353 2 ай бұрын

Viewing it from the outside, I would argue the whole legal system needs to be separated from the political parties too. This issue was in the justice system rather than the elections one and there are some egregious partisan bits of hackery happening in there too (like the presidential immunity case being used to delay the federal trials)

@Snipergoat1 2 ай бұрын

Oh hell no. Absolutely not. There is no way in Hell I would trust anyone whatsoever to do the job of preselecting who was acceptable for me to vote for. That is the whole point of the way we do things. They know that any group can and will get corrupted. That is why it is of paramount importance that the people be able to vote for and elect a "inappropriate" candidate if they so chose. The beauty of the American political systems it is build not just in case of corruption but in a manner that accepts as an unavoidable fact that sometimes the bastards are going to win. It keeps powers separated as much as possible to make it hard for any group to hold power long. It is the first and I believe only government that is prepared to deal with it's own absolute corruption with a self destruct mechanism built right in. The second amendment.

@jijonbreaker 2 ай бұрын

@@neilbiggs1353It's not possible to do that without just forcibly dissolving the political parties themselves. Forbidding collusion, with jail time for those who try to solidify power.

@neilbiggs1353 2 ай бұрын

@@jijonbreaker At a minimum the appointments could be made by bodies from outside the government. It's what is done in most first world democracies. I'd say the bigger sticking point would be states refusing to abandon a system that works for the party in charge. I'm also far from convinced the president would ever willing give up control over the prosecutors in the US DA and the judges in the federal courts

@calvinsmith6681 2 ай бұрын

There needs to be an overhaul for how we elect the president, our one truly national office

@misti-step 2 ай бұрын

if a curcuit court judge had to rule on a case regarding the guy who appointed him to his current position, it would be seen as a conflict of interest. but the supreme court, several of who were nominated by trump, getting to rule on a case about trump ISNT a conflict of interest???

@fjalics 2 ай бұрын

Sure it is, and while they are encouraged to recuse themselves, they are free to ignore the suggestions.

@razvanzamfir1545 2 ай бұрын

@@fjalics funny how rules for lower courts (and individuals) are mere suggestions for the Supreme Court

@bezretmet 2 ай бұрын

the alternative would be holding elections to select who gets to sit in SCOTUS so that no one "appoints" them but that opens up mob rule electing idiots into the highest court of the land. that's how we got trump, bush, biden and almost hillary. now apply that to scotus and you can see how that's not directly a good idea. at least with appointments you know the lawyers are at least somewhat qualified to work as a justice, political colors aside

@bodyloverz30 2 ай бұрын

What about the Obama/Biden nominees?

@nydydn 2 ай бұрын

indeed, given the situation, all judges appointed by trump should have recused themselves as to not erode the trust in the court. Now everyone thinks those judges judged that way as a quid pro quo, regardless of whether it's true or not. The court lost a lot of credibility, merely because of this, and regardless of the outcome solution by itself.

@bradhernlem1548 2 ай бұрын

Why didn't this issue come up in the 1920 election when Eugene V. Debs ran for president while in federal prison, convicted of sedition, i.e. "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

@kahlzun 2 ай бұрын

Does anyone remember back when America seemed like a nice place to visit one day, instead of the equivalent of the place you lock the car doors when driving past?

@SwearWoolf 2 ай бұрын

“No power under the Constitution to enforce section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency” you say? So we’re agreed that the president is an officer then?

@Natibe_ 2 ай бұрын

To be fair, I don't think that was the highest priority of his titles while in office. "Russian bootlicker" was pretty high on his list.

@Fucisko 2 ай бұрын

That has been ruled by the colorado supreme court, and this ruling does not change that, so yes.

@Halo-lg7rq 2 ай бұрын

I thought the president needed to be an officer for some of the insane Unitary Exec Theory policy arguments that republicans want to push in 2025

@memyname1771 2 ай бұрын

No power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3? Section 3, along with the other sections of the 14th Amendment is a portion of the supreme law of the land. What law, made by Congress, prevented Jeff Davis from holding any office until 1947?

@stephensego2023 2 ай бұрын

Read section 5 of the 14th amendment. "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions in this article". It doesn't say Supreme Court or state courts. Only congress can enforce the 14th

@WeBeGood06 2 ай бұрын

Libertarian Presidential Candidates for Federal Office are routinely disqualified from the Ballot for 50 different reasons in each and every State. Why are Republicans and Democrats not left to the whims of the State in determining their qualification, yet Libertarians are?

@MrWill9894 2 ай бұрын

Simple. Like George Carlin said: “It’s a big club, and YOU ain’t in it”

@Justowner 2 ай бұрын

This may actually open up the states for lawsuits for this now.

@atomicknoob 2 ай бұрын

Easy 5 of the judges are aligned with Trump (2 being directly put in their positions by him), the other 4 believe there should be something resembling rules

@AlexandraSpeaks 2 ай бұрын

Because those are republican judges not libertarian there's nothing that states that the court can't just make any old whimsical ruling on whatever they want, say hello to your kings

@i-love-space390 2 ай бұрын

Political Parties are PRIVATE institutions never referred to in the Constitution and despised by all of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, today, the entire country and now the SCOTUS treats them as quasi-government organizations.

@BloodBlight 2 ай бұрын

I’m not going to call it a “joke”…. Your suit’s shade is deep. And so is the camera used to shoot this! Bravo...

@abigguitar 2 ай бұрын

If states reserve the right to choose who it places on its ballots, then states don’t need the Supreme Court’s permission to leave Trump off of the ballot. It doesn’t even need the 14th Amendment to justify a candidate’s absence from the ballot. Simply just leave the candidate off and that’s that.

@nightoffbaldman 2 ай бұрын

We all knew they would grip his tiny hand tight. Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self enacting. This is a disgrace.

@krozyne7364 2 ай бұрын

You are free to believe that, the Supreme Court disagrees. And even if it didn't, there is the issue of how one is determined to be an insurrectionist that was not even touched on. Having a faux trial and a 'trier of fact' will never satisfy the people, and that is a fact.

@erichurst7897 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, the point he makes about Congress can revoke a law with a simple majority makes the provision in the 14th Amendment for removing the prohibition pointless. Therefore, it has to be self executing.

@SundayPancakeBreakfast 2 ай бұрын

Why are you against democracy?

@nightoffbaldman 2 ай бұрын

@@SundayPancakeBreakfast wanting our rules and laws enforced, wanting to make sure no one is above those laws, is a defense of our democracy, not an attack.

@testboga5991 2 ай бұрын

@@erichurst7897 Not only - had they intended funny business, they would have said so!

@GFlCh 2 ай бұрын

They got this backwards... From Judge J. Michael Luttig: "The Court held that section three was intended as a limitation on the states and a limitation that prevented them from disqualifying from their ballots, the primary ballots and presumably also the general ballot though I'm not certain of that, and on the reasoning that as chief justice Roberts said, well obviously the 14th amendment was ratified as a restriction on the states. My answer to the Chief Justice and to the court is yes indeed it restricted the States from offering for federal office insurrectionists against the Constitution of the United States so in other words the Supreme Court turned the 14th Amendment on its head and against section three."

@jasmineandrade2792 2 ай бұрын

You are incredible, dude. 👍

@mrfunnylookinhayes9088 2 ай бұрын

Can't wait to see your offroad game video.

@dclark142002 2 ай бұрын

Also 1860 if we want to talk about candidates not being on a ballot... What I find astonishing about all of this is that if states are required to follow Federal rules about who can be on the ballot...at what point do we need to just have Federal election ballots that are not controlled by the states?

@sertorius3319 2 ай бұрын

1860 isn’t a good example, ballots and voting were handled differently back then. There was no secret ballot, and there was no uniform ballot listing all the candidates. It was up to the parties and private citizens to print out ballots listing their preferred candidates and to distribute them to voters. The Republicans were very much a northern party, so they didn’t have the organizational capacity to print and distribute Republican ballots in southern states.

@dclark142002 2 ай бұрын

@@sertorius3319, today there is no uniform ballot listing all the candidates. Each state can and does prevent presidential candidates from appearing. It happens every election. (FYI, there are more than just two parties in the system.) The idea that somehow candidates not appearing on the ballot would be 'chaos' is amusing...since that describes every election since before I was born.

@sertorius3319 2 ай бұрын

@@dclark142002 you seem to misunderstand my statement. There was no uniform ballot at the state level in 1860. The states didn’t decide who appeared, the people did. “Not on the ballot in x state” back then simply meant no one bothered printing out a ballot with their name on them.

@danielf.7151 2 ай бұрын

as a non lawyer, the fact that such a law does not already exist proves to me that Section 3 is self enforcing.

@zwerrell 2 ай бұрын

The author of the 14th amendment wrote and passed “An Act to Enforce the 14th Amendment.” The 1948 Congress repealed it. So your point is invalid.

@kingace6186 2 ай бұрын

@@zwerrell Their point is valid. Your cherrypicking doesn't change that.

@zwerrell 2 ай бұрын

@@kingace6186how is that cherry-picking? Their point was that because Congress hasn’t passed a law to enforce it it must be self-executing, but their point fails because Congress has passed a law to enforce it… In response, I pointed out that the very members of Congress who passed the amendment didn’t think it was self-executing and saw fit to pass a law to enforce it. The original poster may have had a point if Congress hadn’t passed a law to enforce the 14th Amendment… but Congress has, because the Congress that passed the amendment knew it was not self-executing and therefore passed a law to enforce it… I’m sorry but I fail to see how their point stands in light of the historical and legislative record.

@Ariaelyne 2 ай бұрын

@@zwerrellActually you could just point out the reason the enforcement clause was added into law was because a Supreme Court Justice stated it was not self enforcing.

@SophiaAphrodite 2 ай бұрын

@@zwerrell IF you check your sources the specific part about insurrection was amended as part of the Enforcement Acts. When the Act was repealed it merely removed the requirement that it be a federal prosecutor. Therefore it is self enforcing.

@Wdfdude 2 ай бұрын

Wait... when was it required that something in the constitution required a law passed by congress in order for it to actually be "enforceable"? Would this not open up first and fourth amendment issues with states?

@blazeesq2000 2 ай бұрын

It's as if the Supreme Courty routinely asks congress to pass laws so that it does not have to hear cases. When Congress does its job the Supreme Court does not have to.

@marybranning8392 2 ай бұрын

State's rights for abortion, not for insurrection. Supreme court corruption sucks.

@kdog2646 2 ай бұрын

I don't think you understand US law in the slightest if you just made that comment.

@dave4148 2 ай бұрын

your comment makes no sense

@cancerino666 2 ай бұрын

@@kdog2646and you don't understand basic logic

@Wendeta-hq2cp 2 ай бұрын

MWRDERING BABIES is not a right!

@kdog2646 2 ай бұрын

@@cancerino666 not really, states rights were not deemed to be outlined in the constitution, hence a tenth amendment issue and therefore upto the states. The states were ruling on the constitution, essentially federal law. Federal law can only be ruled on by federal courts. Please explain to me again how I don't have logic? You seem to be lacking logic and knowledge

@SlipperyTeeth 2 ай бұрын

I don't even understand this ruling. States have always overseen the federal elections process. They've always decided the time, place, and manner the election is conducted under including who gets on the ballot. Now, states still decide all of that except who gets on the ballot - except they still control that - except whenever there's a federally mandated reason to exclude a candidate - except this only applies to the insurrection exclusion - except whenever a majority of congress passes a law putting into effect that mandate - except whenever a supermajority of congress decides to overrule the law they just passed. And the justification is that allowing states to decide who gets on the ballot would be too chaotic, because then some states would have a name on the ballot that isn't on the ballot in other states. Except states still make that decision and all of that should still happen, because it is written into the foundation of our election process. So the reasoning they give should always be considered wrong except for this ONE THING they want to change now for obviously political reasons. So you should ignore how this ruling impacts everything else, because it would break everything from the moment people vote to the moment the electoral college convenes. In my opinion, those states should exclude Trump from the ballot on the basis that he would be a three term president, since he won the 2020 election. The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that their reasoning should not apply to other federally mandated exclusions to the ballot, especially the three term exclusion. The Supreme Court is performing "instance rulings", rulings intended to change a single thing to the outcome of their choice - where none of their reasoning nor conclusion should be used to impact any other thing. We should hold them to that.

@Sewblon 2 ай бұрын

"Now, states still decide all of that except who gets on the ballot - except they still control that - except whenever there's a federally mandated reason to exclude a candidate - except this only applies to the insurrection exclusion - except whenever a majority of congress passes a law putting into effect that mandate - except whenever a supermajority of congress decides to overrule the law they just passed." Congress passing a law putting the mandate into effect is not necessarily an exception. If Congress writes the law such that only federal officials can enforce the insurrection clause, then states still won't be able to enforce it. If a super-majority of Congress chooses to lift the disqualification, then states will not be allowed to over-rule that, I don't think. Congress could technically pass laws saying that the states get to enforce the 14th amendment. But I don't see that happening.

@Sewblon 2 ай бұрын

"In my opinion, those states should exclude Trump from the ballot on the basis that he would be a three term president, since he won the 2020 election. The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that their reasoning should not apply to other federally mandated exclusions to the ballot, especially the three term exclusion. The Supreme Court is performing "instance rulings", rulings intended to change a single thing to the outcome of their choice - where none of their reasoning nor conclusion should be used to impact any other thing. We should hold them to that." The states that excluded Trump are all states where Biden won the election. So why would they conclude that Trump won the 2020 election?

@OsamaBinLooney 2 ай бұрын

even if he won in 2020 he didn't serve a term as president so it wouldn't count

@Nopaants 2 ай бұрын

I just found your video because I’m watching the movie Out of the Furnace. One of the characters is driving home at night after paying off his brother’s loan shark, after he left from a double shift. He turns up his radio as he looks up, a car is backing into the roadway. He T-bones the back side of the car. He comes to to find what appears to be at least three people through the window, one being a child and none are moving. They cut straight to the guy being in prison. I paused it and now I’m here. There is no way in reality that this guy would be found guilty. He is on the main road, has right of way and the other driver is backing into a roadway? I don’t buy it for a second. What say you?….. update. I forgot, he turned down a double shot from the loan shark n then he ended up slamming it. Skay rooed.

@welcometonebalia 2 ай бұрын

Thank you.

@PhrontDoor 2 ай бұрын

Doesn't the finding mean that the US has declared Trump's involvement in the insurrection to be a fact? The finding of that fact was presented by the lower courts TO the supreme court AND the supreme court did not refute that at all, meaning that it must seemingly stand. That's rather how it works in England, and I thought the US too.

@victorzarenin9286 2 ай бұрын

You are exactly right. The legal record currently states that Trump is an insurrectionist. And nobody cares. What an insane time.

@TWDub 2 ай бұрын

US Law is complicated, and those "enforcing" it are largely incompetent.

@nydydn 2 ай бұрын

and the reasoning behind it is that they wouldn't have to take a decision of whether an insurrectionist can be banned from ballots by a state, if there's no insurrectionist trying to do so. Courts by definition don't decide on fictional situations, they only interpret facts from the past.

@immortalnub 2 ай бұрын

There's another problem. If this ruling went the other way, then some states can ban a politican, while others allow it. That causes a split in the votes for one of the parties between two candidates, while the candidate from the other party essentially auto wins. It's up to congress, not the states, to bar someone from an election. With that said, this election will go to Biden since the candidates are the same as last time.

@Justanotherconsumer 2 ай бұрын

⁠@@immortalnubthat happened with Lincoln, functionally. Because of the electoral college the state by state decision of who wins is what kinda happens anyway, so… leaving it up to the states isn’t that weird.

@donald-parker 2 ай бұрын

SCOTUS muddied the waters a lot with this inconsistent ruling. The most logical, useful, and consistent rule would be that 14th Sec 3 is self-executing and that congress only has to take action to implement the "get out of jail free" clause (Congress can waive the law with a 2/3 majority in each house). But to say states can use 14.3 to remove state officials without congress passing laws, but federal candidates can not be removed unless congress first passes laws is inconsistent. How on earth could anyone read that into 14.3 and how could anyone view that as logical or consistent? I assume it also means that all the other sections of the 14th are not enforceable unless congress has passed laws. I would also assume that, even if congress passed laws to implement the 14.3 disability for insurrectionists, if those laws don't also spell out the "get out of jail free" clause, then the "get out of jail free" concept is not enforceable. If they had wanted to say something useful it might have been to clarify the criteria for deciding when one is an insurrectionist (although, in Trumps case, these has already been adjudicated by a couple of courts, not to mention and impeachment by congress, so surely that bar has been passed). It seems to also demand a detailed analysis of the constitution to codify what parts are self-executing and the criteria for deciding when a rule in the constitution is or is not self-executable. Like I said ... waters muddied. Badly.

@LeCharles07 2 ай бұрын

Waiting for CA or NY to ban all guns because there's no law regulating a militia. The door is wide open.

@ItWasSaucerShaped 2 ай бұрын

it is almost as if a court made up of political appointees with life long tenure is a bad idea who could have guessed

@billbradley4878 2 ай бұрын

Section 5 seems pretty clear to me.

@donald-parker 2 ай бұрын

@@billbradley4878 Really? What does it mean? Does it mean laws must be passed to enforce all sections of the 14th? Or just some of them? If only some, what is the reasoning or criteria to decide if something is self-executing or not? I've heard the argument that wording of section 5 is "permissive" rather than "prescriptive". As in "Congress may pass laws ..." vs "Congress must pass laws ...". And the SCOTUS interpretation addresses none of those questions.

@mithrielmackay2283 2 ай бұрын

The courts said states can't kick him off the ballot. Can the states pass legislation that says their electoral votes can not be cast for anyone who has participated in an insurrection? Can states define what the criteria for being an insurrectionist? When do hairs start to be split between states' power to decide how their electoral votes are assigned and this ruling by SCOTUS?

@peterbaruxis2511 2 ай бұрын

States can and do, do whatever the f* they want. Then we go to court. As far as hair-splitting and states powers (rights)-V-federal governments rights.......... The American Civil War, April 12, 1861- April 9, 1865. That was an insurrection.

@DeviledDonuts 2 ай бұрын

Can you do a video on the restrict act?

@SmartAlec86 2 ай бұрын

If a law has to be passed in order for to enact the 14th Amendment, then what's the point of the 14th Amendment?!

@thermitebanana 2 ай бұрын

"but if we enforce the constitution it could cause chaos" - as distinct from the current situation where a man who led an insurrection, who is also a career criminal will be representing one of the major parties in an election

@TheRukisama 2 ай бұрын

Wait, the Justices already knew what conclusion they wanted to come to and simply cherrypicked the legal arguments that could justify it? Say it ain't so!

@spiceaholic420 2 ай бұрын

Yes, we call this 'Policy-based evidence-making'