Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Laurence Tribe obliterates Trump's Maine ballot challenge argument" video.

  1. Section 3 makes it clear 2/3rds of Both Houses of Congress have final say
    3
  2.  @allangibson8494  I agree the States have standing, but no State law is superior to a Constitutional Amendment. Section 3 is clear. "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." States can, but both houses of Congress have the power to overrule the State.
    3
  3. "I’m no fan of @RepStefanik but I’m with her here. Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends" - Laurence Tribe
    2
  4. Section 3 leaves the ultimate decision in both houses of Congress, not the State.
    2
  5. Yes, Section 3 and 5 is very clear, both houses of Congress have standing, not the States.
    2
  6.  @beeble2003  I agree, that's exactly what it says, but what did they mean? SCOTUS may have that final say.
    1
  7.  @beeble2003  I agree, in the case of Colorado and other states who claim insurrection, when neither VP or P were mentioned, and neither is an officer, however, they did both take the oath of office. The Justices who dissented in Colorado made it clear there was not enough time to consider the case, no due process, and SCOTUS may agree.
    1
  8.  @wolfgangvonscheisskopf545  not the specific, to be sure, so lots of interpretive room for SCOTUS
    1
  9. Colorado has protected itself by allowing time for an appeal to SCOTUS. You have it backwards.
    1
  10. nonsense, he was part of the soft-coup against Trump starting in 2015 and is himself an "insurrectionist".
    1
  11. nonsense, Tribe was part of the soft-coup against Trump starting in 2015 and is himself an "insurrectionist".
    1
  12. Section 3, last sentence, and entirety of Section 5, States have no standing.
    1
  13.  @allangibson8494  We agree, the States can, however, SCOTUS can weigh in on each decision to determine if the law was properly applied. In Colorado the Chief Justice dissented, stating the Colorado qualification law did not provide enough time for due process. The lawsuit was first heard in Denver District Court, where Judge Sarah Wallace ruled Nov. 17 that while Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, he can still appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because he is not an “officer of the United States.” In an 11-page dissent, Boatright, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote that Colorado’s election code was “not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.” Instead, the state code lays out qualifications based on “objective, discernible facts,” such as a candidate’s age, time previously served as president and place of birth. Those all “pale in comparison with the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection,” Boatright wrote . Boatright said the Colorado law requires that any challenges to a candidate’s eligibility be heard at a “breakneck pace,” giving the defendant little time to prepare a defense and making the statute ill-suited for a claim of such gravity. “This speed comes with consequences, namely, the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for complex constitutional litigation,” he wrote. Samour, building off of Boatright’s dissent, wrote in his 43-page dissent that he worries about due process given the speed of the case.
    1