Comments by "dr1flush" (@dr1flush) on "Supreme Court keeps Trump on Colorado ballot, rejecting 14th Amendment push" video.

  1. Nothing in Section 3 indicates that it must be enforced through Congress. It says “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” . My interpretation is that congress must vote to overturn these rulings not actually vote on if the president was a oath-breaker
    3
  2. The way I see it is if half the country wants an insurrection they can get it now. Kinda wild
    2
  3. States can bar local officials but not federal? Congress isn’t even a judicial institution it’s legislative . Where in section 3 does it indicate that congress is responsible for enforcing barring oath breakers ? It doesn’t LoL. SCOTUS just decided, while i understand how it could be problematic trump isn’t even going to win any of these states. Why didn’t they just rule on if he committed an insurrection ? They could’ve ended this nonsense. Now they will wait until July to rule if potus can commit insurrection . lol
    1
  4. Because if you were actually following the ruling they didn’t do anything.The Colorado Supreme Court was waiting on a scotus ruling . SCOTUS never actually ruled on if trump committed an insurrection. Also nothing in sec3 says only congress can enforce it.
    1
  5. Republican rat will say states should decide until it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s not like trump is going to win these states
    1
  6.  @theshadownarwhal2546  Nothing in Section 3 indicates that it must be enforced through Congress. It says “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” . My interpretation is that congress must vote to overturn these rulings not actually vote on if the president was a oath-breaker
    1
  7.  @madmagrider  the Colorado state court and Colorado Supreme Court ruled on the case. He had a defense team . The state court ruled they couldn’t take him off the ballot. Then it went to Supreme Court of co which ruled they could pending scotus ruling. SCOTUS ruled that congress has to convict the president which is not what the 14th amendment says
    1
  8.  @madmagrider  now you just need majority support in Congress to commit an insurrection. Kinda scary
    1
  9.  @madmagrider  wdym? There was a state judge that ruled this because republicans and independents brought a case to court in Colorado . Trump had a defense team. The judge ruled that she couldn’t remove him from a ballot so the voters appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court and won. The co Supreme Court said they would wait for a SCOTUS ruling.
    1
  10.  @madmagrider  scotus refused to rule on if trump actually committed an insurrection. SCOTUS just made it so that Congress had to decide even though that isn’t what’s written in the 14th amendment.Congress isn’t even a judicial branch of the government it’s legislative. They don’t rule on guilt they rule on what they want and if it helps their party. It’s wild you can’t see the issue. All you need to commit an insurrection is half of congress support. You don’t see the problem?
    1
  11.  @madmagrider  the sec3 of 14th never says Congress must decide. It says with two thirds vote Congress could put the candidate back in the ballot if the candidate was removed for being an oath breaker
    1
  12.  @madmagrider  just to be clear I don’t support states randomly removing people from ballot. However SCOTUS interpretation is more of a change to the constitution and limits sec3 ability to bar oath breakers . There is a dangerous precedent set
    1
  13.  @madmagrider  the Colorado state and supreme court ruled he committed an insurrection. By making that ruling it disqualified him from holding office in the state and presidential ballot. However scotus overruled this and said Congress must decide even though that’s not what the constitution says🤷‍♂️
    1
  14.  @madmagrider  I understand how it could be problematic to allow states to decide who’s on the ballot but that’s not exactly what was happening. He was found guilty of an insurrection . Therefore to have him placed back on the ballot Congress would’ve had to vote two thirds in his favor. That’s what sec3 of 14th says. But SCOTUS changed that. At least that’s my interpretation.
    1
  15.  @madmagrider  also trump isn’t likely going to win these states anyway. States can bar people from running for office in the state but not the potus… that’s not what the 14th says !!! So all that was accomplished was limiting sec 3 . SCOTUS actually changed the constitution imo
    1
  16.  @amadeus.k331 so as long as half the country wants an insurrection they can get it …. And it won’t even have happened because congress which isn’t even a judicial institution didn’t vote in two thirds favor. Seems about Right to me lol
    1
  17. Technically they were waiting on SCOTUS ruling to remove him from the ballot. The first judge also ruled she couldn’t remove him from the ballot but the Colorado Supreme Court said they could but would wait for scotus ruling.
    1
  18. Nothing in Section 3 indicates that it must be enforced through Congress. It says “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” . My interpretation is that congress must vote to overturn these rulings not actually vote on if the president was a oath-breaker
    1
  19.  @coblogan75  if you read the 14th sec3 it is clear that Congress has the right to overturn removing someone from a ballot with 2/3 vote but they are not the only one who decide. Nothing says Congress has to decide alone. 3 of the justices said that the majority ruling has effectively limited sec3 . All you need to commit an insurrection is half of Congress. Scary
    1
  20.  @coblogan75  also Supreme Court rulings have been changed throughout history yes or no?
    1
  21.  @coblogan75  yes or no? Have supreme courts rulings been changed ever in history? Yes or no?
    1
  22.  @coblogan75  300+ Supreme Court rulings have been overturned in history of USA .
    1
  23.  @coblogan75  this isn’t really even about trump imo . Trump likely isn’t going to win these states. I don’t necessarily agree that a state should be able to just remove candidates. However a Congress majority ruling to decide if a federal employee is an oath breaker could be an issue the way I see it. Congress never votes on fact they vote on their best interests
    1
  24.  @coblogan75  so you see how it could be problematic then? Rulings should’ve been decided by a federal court not Congress. States can still bar local officials and in doing so control Congress . No where does it say they aren’t allowed to do it to presidential candidates and only local . It encompassed all officials the way I understand it. Congress could overturn barred ballot holders with a vote that’s what it says, not that they have to be the ones to decide.
    1
  25.  @wanyelandy8847 the scotus could’ve just ruled if trump was guilty of insurrection. Instead they limited how section 3 can bar oath breakers . No where in section 3 does it say that this must be enforced through congress
    1