Where did I mention an amendment? The constitution gives Congress the ability to write laws. Those laws are not constitutional amendments or part of the Constitution in any way. They are part of the US criminal code. Well defined laws have been foundational to modern justice systems since at least the time of Hammurabi.
This entire case is based around interpreting an amendment. Colorado was following Constitutional Amendment and the supreme Court said that they cannot follow a constitutional amendment because following the Constitutional amendment is illegal. This is so very uncomplicated
The constitution doesn’t say who decides what qualifies as insurrection, so it is not at all clear that state courts have that authority. The federal government defines federal law, and state governments define state law. Likewise, federal courts adjudicate state law, and state courts adjudicate state law.
The amendment in question is in the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions. Therefore, defining what is or isn’t an insurrection is a matter for federal lawmakers, and adjudicating guilt is a matter for federal courts.
Yes, this is pretty straightforward for anyone who understands how our legal system functions.
Of course this is all separate from the practical implications of allowing states to make up their own definitions of “insurrection” and arbitrarily remove Democrats from ballots. Given the Republican party’s long history and recent escalation of underhanded tactics, it’s a guarantee that this would be abused and, if you had your way, they would have the cover of a Supreme Court ruling to back it up. Just a reminder, there are a lot more red states than blue.
And you are telling me that an actual amendment was passed concerning a crime that nobody seems to know exists or what it is or how to define it?
Where did I mention an amendment? The constitution gives Congress the ability to write laws. Those laws are not constitutional amendments or part of the Constitution in any way. They are part of the US criminal code. Well defined laws have been foundational to modern justice systems since at least the time of Hammurabi.
This entire case is based around interpreting an amendment. Colorado was following Constitutional Amendment and the supreme Court said that they cannot follow a constitutional amendment because following the Constitutional amendment is illegal. This is so very uncomplicated
The constitution doesn’t say who decides what qualifies as insurrection, so it is not at all clear that state courts have that authority. The federal government defines federal law, and state governments define state law. Likewise, federal courts adjudicate state law, and state courts adjudicate state law.
The amendment in question is in the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions. Therefore, defining what is or isn’t an insurrection is a matter for federal lawmakers, and adjudicating guilt is a matter for federal courts.
Yes, this is pretty straightforward for anyone who understands how our legal system functions.
Of course this is all separate from the practical implications of allowing states to make up their own definitions of “insurrection” and arbitrarily remove Democrats from ballots. Given the Republican party’s long history and recent escalation of underhanded tactics, it’s a guarantee that this would be abused and, if you had your way, they would have the cover of a Supreme Court ruling to back it up. Just a reminder, there are a lot more red states than blue.