Not knowing US constitutional law, it seems to me the SCOTUS decision might mean that the Dems missed an opportunity when they had the house

That it’s a federal matter seems legally predictable/natural to me, and that it then falls to congress to enforce then also seems natural.

What am I missing on that?

Otherwise, what would the Dems have had to lose by passing an act when they had the house? The 14th was right there.

#uspol
@politics

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    9 months ago

    You’re arguing something that is fundamentally not relevant.

    Sorry. That’s not what the SCROTUS decision is about.

    Stop it. You sound like a republican.

    Edit: they are saying a “specific act”. I’m not sure what they envision it detailing, but it’s not a full impeachment. If you view victor berger’s unseating as a result of his espionage conviction (which is really the only procedural precedent we’ve got,) then that’s a simple majority vote.

    This is worse than I thought (I’m basing it off reading the actual ruling unfortunately my eyes must have glazed over, and I’m not all the way through-)

    End edit:

    The scotus decision basically just says that Colorado can’t enforce the 14th on federal employees.

    Their reasoning, if I understood it right is that:

    • the amendment specifically says the onus is US congress, and doesn’t specifically delegate powers to the state governments
    • the matter of elections are merely delegated to states, implying they’re never given explicit authority to find some one ineligible or otherwise. (Though, nobody who is too young is allowed on the ballot. Nor citizenship status,)
    • it would be “messy” to allow states to enforce it, since they’re likely to come to different decisions.

    They explicitly shied away from making a decision on that. (Probably since we all fucking saw it live on Jan 6.)