Why Everyone Hates the Supreme Court's Decision on Insurrection & the 14th Amendment

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

[ThisAintAStupidName]

Ah, of course.
Let's make it so that only Congress can hold Congress accountable. Surely, they won't abuse that discretion at all...

[ZappBranniglenn]

"Courts shouldn't decide this. Congress should."
Right because Congressman in a two party system would have so much incentive to vote against one of their own. It's an obvious conflict of interest: "We have investigated our own candidate and have found no wrongdoing"

[dion]

The office of the presidency not being an office is basically "we don't think this counts because we say so". The level of absurdity is basically a refusal to acknowledge the rule of law at all.

[CartoonHero]

The fact that NO ONE has pointed to history and said "But Lincoln won his first election despite several states refusing to include him on their ballots" when talking about Presidential Elections and a State's right to refuse to list certain candidates is insane to me. Literally less than 10 years before the 14th amendment was penned not only did States exercise their right to who they listed on their ballots and did so simply because they feared Lincoln would push for abolish of slavery (even though he wasn't an abolitionist he was just from the North and a Free State). But also the founding leader of the very Party that would be in power over when the 14th amendment was written (Lincoln having been killed a little over a year before the 14th amendment was written)

You already have an example of a Candidate winning regardless of the States choosing to include them in your own national history. Not to mention several examples of people still become their parties candidate despite losing the caucus and primary selections in each state for the GOP and still going on to be president. Even better: this interestingly enough happened to 2 of the GOP's favorite poster boys. Lincoln as mentioned for winning even though states left him off the ballot, and Reagan being made the GOP candidate even though he did terrible during the caucuses and primaries for the GOP. This proves keeping Trump off the ballot wouldn't be chaotic or even insure he'd lose... it's just Trump's GOP knows he doesn't have the personality or principal to win if he's not listed, and it would require a massive education campaign from the GOP to explain to their base they can still do write ins and this is how they've won major victories in the past and they like their base uneducated.

[LifeWulf]

The President not being an officer of the United States is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

[ZrinNZ]

It's fascinating to me that the argument is that the Presidency isn't an "office" and the President isn't an "officer" but everyone on the planet refers to the current President as being "in office."

[chrise]

We seriously need to stop this “Is The President Considered An Officer?” Shit. It’s the OFFICE of the president, HE’S AN

[rowynnecrowley]

Their entire argument pisses me off. "Why should one state get to decide?" They shouldn't! That's what YOU'RE for! They were asking the wrong question. The question wasn't whether Colorado can disqualify Trump, the question was whether he should be disqualified. They punted, cuz they're too scared to make a real decision.

[RustyCyler]

“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law” -Trump August 16, 2016

[dcgamer]

If the Court's goal was to further errode the people's faith in their institutions then they did a bang up job of that.

[wzpatman]

What's funny to me is that states have used all kinds of laws and requirements to keep third-party and independent candidates off the ballots for years, such as requiring ever increasing numbers of petition signatures, etc. Why can states pass laws like that, which have the same effect of keeping federal candidates off ballots, but this kind of accountability is suddenly a bridge too far?

[cainau]

4:05 - Objection: The enforcement act of 1870 did not disqualify confederates from office. They were already disqualified by the 14th amendment. The enforcement act simply provided a mechanism to remove confederates from offices that they already held before the 14th amendment took effect.

Edit: Related to that, the Justice Chase decision in the Griffin case (mentioned around 11:30 in this video) was also specifically about removing confederates from offices that they already held. It said that legislation from Congress would be required to remove confederates from office (i.e. the enforcement act of 1870), it did not say that legislation would be required to keep confederates from running for office.

Relevant quote from the Griffin decision, with emphasis added by me:
"It results from the examination that persons in office by lawful appointment or election *before the promulgation of the fourteenth amendment, * are not removed there from by the *direct and immediate effect of the prohibition to hold office* contained in the third section; but that legislation by congress is necessary to give effect to the prohibition, by providing for such *removal."*

[ghulsey]

The law in GA prohibiting giving water or food to people standing in line to vote was under the guise of trying to influence or buy someone's vote. But that law precludes anyone, even family members or friends from doing it. In reality it's to deter people, particularly older people, from standing in long lines waiting to vote and discourage them from waiting in line before leaving or showing up to vote at all. Georgia is notorious for not having enough voting booths in rural, poor, and predominately minority neighborhoods. Mail in balloting made that all moot. Now these same people that were discouraged to vote before do now.

[emeraldaly]

That's hilarious that they were concerned that "a few states could end up deciding the Presidency." I guess 2024 won't possibly come down to who wins Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[mikemyers]

I love the way a reporter/writer put it: "THE SUPREME COURT CLAIMED ILLITERACY".

[polyeder]

As a programmer, I never understand, how these decisions can be made. Are Judges really just that stupid?
The text is very clear and easy to understand. It says, if you have taken an oath (on the constitution) and were part of an insurrection in any form or function, you cannot take an office unless congress lifts the ban with a 2/3 majority.
So did Trump take such oath? -> Yes.
Did he participate in insurrection? ->In my opinon, Yes (This is something you could debate by questioning what defines insurrection and what defines aid and comfort)
Did Congress lift his ban? -> No.
Thus Trump can't become president again, even if the majority votes for him.
The Scotus decision is crap.

[silverthorngoodtree]

When the president swears their oath, it specifically says OFFICE of the president.

[willsith]

It's amazing how many problems in this country come from our need to treat every decision from the past as infallible, yet constantly bicker over how nonspecific they are

[Raven-Creations]

This is a disgraceful ruling that signifies that the justices need to resit English. Section 5 grants Congress the power to implement the other sections. It says "The Congress shall have the power...", it does NOT say "Only Congress shall have the power...". If you say Jack may go to the movies, it does not imply that nobody else may go. Section 5 is in there because the 10th Amendment would otherwise have precluded Congress from enforcing the other sections. Sections 1-4 were clearly meant to be self-executing, and section 5 was to ensure that Congress had the ability to enforce it. As you pointed out, if Congress is the only means of disqualifying a candidate, then why does section 3 grant them the right to lift the disqualification?

The justice who claimed J6 was just a riot is plain wrong. The insurrection was against the Constitution, because its aim was to prevent Congress performing its Constitutional duty, which was to certify the votes. It accomplished that, because the certification was delayed until J7. That was insurrection as described in section 3.

[Stratelier]

7:20 (Kagan's question) - I will keep pointing this out until someone notices it, but the President is literally the ONLY government office _where different states collectively decide the same seat._ Every other federal elected position (e.g. Representative or Senator) has a separate seat for each state, giving each state exclusivity to decide who fills that seat.