I mean come on! Like, sure ok then, please go on ahead.

  • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t they just reinterpret the insurrection clause? That has no besring on states holding their own elections.

      • ashok36@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And amendments supercede all preceding verbiage in the constitution. The only way out of being disqualified by the 14th is to have congress vote on it as provided for in the amendment.

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with your sentiment, it seems like clear language to me. Unfortunately a lower court in Colorado had already interpreted the presidency as not “being an officer of the United States”. SCOTUS could easily just uphold that previous ruling while not weighing into a states election laws. (I think IANAL)

      • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree slightly. It doesn’t specify that the president is included under “officers”, but that would be the most reasonable interpretation by far.

        There’s no way, when it was written, they were leaving a loophole for Jefferson Davis to run for president!