The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.
Feels like a slippery slope with the engaged vs convicted. What happens when Florida or Georgia says Hunter and Joe conspiref together and that counts as insurrection.
That’s how the 14th amendment was written when they penned those provision 150+ years ago.
I think the wording is fine, “found to have” carries a lot of water there in terms of ensuring there’s at least some standard of evidence, rather than baseless accusations or political mud-slinging.
Based on my cursory read, It seems the SC ruling on the matter is fairly clear in that it determined it is not up to individual states to disqualify a candidate from federal elections. Either one of the opinions given in the ruling or the opinion of an author whose article I read over the decision, stated that ruling only the fed has jurisdiction over determining 14th amendment violations would prevent just the type of scenario you described.
The example you gave seems like a long-shot, anyway. A court would require proof of a conspiracy, followed by establishing whatever Joe Biden is accused of means that he engaged in insurrection. Certainly they could have tried (if the SC ruling didn’t just bar them from trying), but then any action to remove him from the ballot would have been appealed, most likely stayed, then run up the court system, which I don’t think would have ended up in GA or FL’s favor.
Feels like a slippery slope with the engaged vs convicted. What happens when Florida or Georgia says Hunter and Joe conspiref together and that counts as insurrection.
That’s how the 14th amendment was written when they penned those provision 150+ years ago.
I think the wording is fine, “found to have” carries a lot of water there in terms of ensuring there’s at least some standard of evidence, rather than baseless accusations or political mud-slinging.
Based on my cursory read, It seems the SC ruling on the matter is fairly clear in that it determined it is not up to individual states to disqualify a candidate from federal elections. Either one of the opinions given in the ruling or the opinion of an author whose article I read over the decision, stated that ruling only the fed has jurisdiction over determining 14th amendment violations would prevent just the type of scenario you described.
The example you gave seems like a long-shot, anyway. A court would require proof of a conspiracy, followed by establishing whatever Joe Biden is accused of means that he engaged in insurrection. Certainly they could have tried (if the SC ruling didn’t just bar them from trying), but then any action to remove him from the ballot would have been appealed, most likely stayed, then run up the court system, which I don’t think would have ended up in GA or FL’s favor.