Do you plan to post this on r/supremecourt , I know you did in the past, but I'm not sure what their rules are. Also has anybody except Binkley noticed the quo warranto provision of DC code, I don't think either FSFP or CREW mentioned it (tho maybe someone reads this :p)? Could Biden (or Haley) ask for declaratory judgement, since the federal suits were tossed on standing?
Don't both the quo warranto and Jan 6 objections run into section 3 of amdt 20? Also the this D.C. district opinion claims the circuit said only the attorney general would have standing? https://casetext.com/case/taitz-v-obama
EDIT: I missed you mentioning it at first read lol somehow
Does anyone know who would be the President if the Quo Warranto provision succeeds? Would Biden be the President or Trump’s VP? Because the latter will cause a lot of grumbling, but the former seems likely to start a civil war
"The Framers did not envision a uniform national system for electing the President, and deliberately embraced a system that would admit a national patchwork of different elector selection methods"
But even then, the "patchwork" that the Amars argued for has much more far-reaching and devastating consequences than every States just having their own method to elect the president, or even even states having a completely different list of candidates on the ballot.
Because if states ends up removing a presidential candidate from the ballot because of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it's because they ruled that said candidat is *constitutionally barred from holding office*.
So, let's say Colorado, Maine, Illinois, Oregon and other states remove Trump from the ballot for this reason. Trump end up winning enough electoral votes without them anyway. And then? What are these states supposed to do, are they supposed to accept that they're now ruled by someone that their own state supreme court deems illegitimate? Are they supposed to accept a president that, according to their own ruling, is holding office unconstitutionally ?
Do they dismiss his executive orders from now on? Do they become de jure secessionists?
Given the SCOTUS took a pass at barring Trump in the ballot while we were still in the primary election stage, why would any court, up to and including SCOTUS, want to use a quo warranto writ to remove a SITTING President? If they did that, that would be a recipe for the kind of civil war you envisioned back in August 2020.
Your point about how the Fourteenth Amendment provisions were treated by the courts, is well taken. But the Insurrection Clause has been dormant a lot longer than the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses.
Thank you for the conclusion to the most thoughtful reporting I'm aware of on this case. It is with zero irony that I say this in response to a post with frequent depictions of Kermit freaking out. Kermit is correct.
Do you plan to post this on r/supremecourt , I know you did in the past, but I'm not sure what their rules are. Also has anybody except Binkley noticed the quo warranto provision of DC code, I don't think either FSFP or CREW mentioned it (tho maybe someone reads this :p)? Could Biden (or Haley) ask for declaratory judgement, since the federal suits were tossed on standing?
Don't both the quo warranto and Jan 6 objections run into section 3 of amdt 20? Also the this D.C. district opinion claims the circuit said only the attorney general would have standing? https://casetext.com/case/taitz-v-obama
EDIT: I missed you mentioning it at first read lol somehow
Very well written and argued!
Does anyone know who would be the President if the Quo Warranto provision succeeds? Would Biden be the President or Trump’s VP? Because the latter will cause a lot of grumbling, but the former seems likely to start a civil war
"The Framers did not envision a uniform national system for electing the President, and deliberately embraced a system that would admit a national patchwork of different elector selection methods"
But even then, the "patchwork" that the Amars argued for has much more far-reaching and devastating consequences than every States just having their own method to elect the president, or even even states having a completely different list of candidates on the ballot.
Because if states ends up removing a presidential candidate from the ballot because of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it's because they ruled that said candidat is *constitutionally barred from holding office*.
So, let's say Colorado, Maine, Illinois, Oregon and other states remove Trump from the ballot for this reason. Trump end up winning enough electoral votes without them anyway. And then? What are these states supposed to do, are they supposed to accept that they're now ruled by someone that their own state supreme court deems illegitimate? Are they supposed to accept a president that, according to their own ruling, is holding office unconstitutionally ?
Do they dismiss his executive orders from now on? Do they become de jure secessionists?
Given the SCOTUS took a pass at barring Trump in the ballot while we were still in the primary election stage, why would any court, up to and including SCOTUS, want to use a quo warranto writ to remove a SITTING President? If they did that, that would be a recipe for the kind of civil war you envisioned back in August 2020.
Your point about how the Fourteenth Amendment provisions were treated by the courts, is well taken. But the Insurrection Clause has been dormant a lot longer than the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses.
Thank you for the conclusion to the most thoughtful reporting I'm aware of on this case. It is with zero irony that I say this in response to a post with frequent depictions of Kermit freaking out. Kermit is correct.