Supreme Court stopped Colorado from disqualifying Trump's presidential run.

@walabby I looked up section 3 of the 14th Amendment with the intention of proving you wrong, and it turns out you're right. It just says he can't serve.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

@walabby nothing unconstitutional about that!

Sounds awfully insurrectiony

@walabby That's because the Amendment was passed to counter states that wanted confederates to serve and had already elected them. It would be absurd if a state chose not to put forward an insurrectionist but had to wait until they won the state. Not electing an insurrectionist is how you prevent them from serving. The election of President is not a national vote, its state-by-state, so taking away the state's ability to prevent an insurrectionist from being elected (and therefore serve) is counter to the whole point of that portion of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court didn't make the elect/serve argument, either. They said states had no business whatever in any enforcement of the 14th Amendment. Per the decision:

[quote]This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. [/quote]

So, let's take Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederacy and former Congressman (so he took the oath). No state could keep him off the ballot? Only Congress could. Let's say Congress doesn't act. You'd have an insurrectionist as President which itself would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Also, why would this language exist if only Congress could keep Davis from being President in the first place: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." The disability being the disqualification in the first place!

So, Congress would have to pass a law preventing a President from serving, in the first week of December, after the election, but don't worry they could remove the "disability" on the last week of December.

@Bumbles If Davis had run for president and won the election, he would not have been president until the inauguration in January, leaving time for Congress to fail to get the 2/3 majority required for him to serve..?

@walabby Lol, first he would need to be banned by Congress to be unbanned by Congress if we were to have the “it’s okay to be elected, just not serve.” That would require an absurd construction of the document, which goes against general legal interpretation principles.

Although we are taught to revere the Constitution in many places it’s poorly written, this being such an example.

@Bumbles You said: "Although we are taught to revere the Constitution in many places it’s poorly written, this being such an example."

The Constitution are as poorly written as the Bible. I don't understand why you would reject one and not piss on the other.

@sree251 Unfortunately I do not know what you’re talking about.

@Bumbles That's okay. Neither does @sree251.