Not knowing US constitutional law, it seems to me the SCOTUS decision might mean that the Dems missed an opportunity when they had the house

That it’s a federal matter seems legally predictable/natural to me, and that it then falls to congress to enforce then also seems natural.

What am I missing on that?

Otherwise, what would the Dems have had to lose by passing an act when they had the house? The 14th was right there.

#uspol
@politics

  • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
    33·
    9 months ago

    @barney @politics

    Sorry, just read 14A, sec 5:

    > The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    The decision seems pretty predictable to me then.

    In fact it seems that this was never going anywhere and that the provisions are actually pretty weak. If an insurrectionist is popular enough to be a plausible presidential candidate, then they’re not unlikely to have significant support in congress.

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      4·
      9 months ago

      Sorry, but what part of section 5 prohibits any other enforcement? It just means federal laws aimed at preserving the other sections are constitutional.

    • Barney@mas.to
      2·
      8 months ago

      @maegul @politics

      Not at all. The rest of the 14th Amendment is all self-executing. E.g. if your right to due process has been violated, you can sue, without needing Congress to pass a law that specifically protects you. As the 4-justice SCOTUS minority said, it doesn’t make sense to require legislation for just this one section.

      Anyway, if the Dem-controlled House had passed a bill declaring Trump ineligible for office, Senate Republicans would have filibustered it. So it’s a moot point.