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

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    2·
    9 months ago

    Is it not a timing issue ?

    Would it not be more difficult to make this ruling, if he were already convicted of insurrection?

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      7·
      9 months ago

      If he were already convicted of insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection he would be disqualified already.

      18 U.S. Code § 2383

      Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

      Unfortunately Trump was never charged with this by Jack Smith. He’s charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, and obstruction/attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        I’d argue that the statutory authority for 14a3 is separate and independent from the authority set forth in Sec. 2383, and that if Congress sua sponte votes to ban him or not would it be equally as valid as if it happened after a criminal proceeding driven by the justice department. If I’m wrong then all Trump has to do is keep appealing to the SCOTUS that he bought and paid for and then all of us are just wasting time here.