Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

OA565: How Madison Cawthorn Could Be Kept off the Ballot (Patreon)

Published:
2022-01-31 04:08:54
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Check out this one WEIRD trick to.... *record scratch* wait a minute... it's not a weird trick? Wow! Well, check out this one legitimate way in which Madison Cawthorn could be kept off the ballot! It turns out, the Constitution actually isn't a super big fan of insurrections. Also, some additional info on anti-trust law, and a Wild Card (wooooooooo!) on a new bill written by a Democrat AND a Republican that actually has a chance of passing!

Links: Cawthorn Complaint, Next day order staying proceedings, Gerard Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 11B. Challenge to Candidacy, GOP Power Lawyer: Congress Said Insurrection Is Cool In 1872, 1872 Amnesty Act, Klobuchar Cotton Bill

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Seemed very strange to me to switch from suggesting that "whether [candidate] is 35 years old" or "whether [candidate] is a citizen from birth" are non-justiciable questions that the Supreme Court couldn't or shouldn't take up to suggesting that whether candidate "has engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is otherwise. Personally, I really think the former two ought to be justiciable. At the very least, I think a court shouldn't just be able to say a clear question of law is a non-justiciable political question unless they can point to the specific alternative means that the law provides for adjudicating that question. Like the Supreme Court can say "what counts as high crimes or misdemeanors" in the case of impeachment is non-jusdiciable because the process provides means for Congress to adjudicate that. But I don't think it's reasonable to treat parts of the Constitution as purely advisory. Also, the Amnesty Act argument seems clearly not totally insane. The 14th amendment explicitly authorizes Congress to remove the restrictions under Amendment 14, section 3 by 2/3 vote, and they did very broadly (whether that was a good idea or not). The relevant legal questions there seem to be whether they did (and could) do so _prospectively_ for acts of "insurrection and rebellion" not yet committed when they did that for "all persons whomsoever except [list of groups not including Cawthorn]".

Salt Prairie Photography

14th Amendment section 3 is great and all, but when are we going to get some enforcement of Section 2? :D

law
>>77017602

The difference is that in the former scenarios, a federal court would be called upon to enforce their interpretation of the constitution, which raises separation of powers issues. In the latter, it's *state* courts with plenary power enforcing their own ballot measures

Anonymous
>>77017602

So if I understand your argument, the difference is between a federal court barring a candidate from taking office and a state court barring a candidate from ballot access. But on the same grounds of what the US Constitution says about eligibility.