Cenk? Really? (ok at least I KNOW who he is, that helps)
Eh, it’s a free country (for now), I guess.
But really I don’t think we have been lacking for the last three years for people both inside and outside the structure to call attention to the Democrats of all the pitfalls and weaknesses they face. That they do not ditch Biden and his Establishment team to try and find some sort of Second Coming of Barack Obama/Bill Clinton/JFK is not for lack of people flagging it down.
Isn’t anything in the Constitution by definition constitutional, fair or not? SCOTUS has at times come up with some tortured interpretations of the Constitution to arrive at a decision, but they’re kind of stuck with what’s in there. There is no higher law upon which to base a decision to ignore a section.
That’s my layman’s understanding. The mechanism for changing the Constitution is an amendment, not a Supreme Court decision.
Not sure what you want to discuss.
Another Trump presidency would be a disaster: sure.
Biden is vulnerable: sure.
Cenk should run for President: won’t even be a blip.
Case you didn’t notice, there’s a lot of stuff in the Constitution rendered moot by being declared unenforceable. You don’t actually have to go to the trouble of calling for an amendment.
If he’s eligible to run, and he runs as a primary challenger, then gets the fuck out of the way once he loses the primary election, that doesn’t bother me.
But this one is easy to enforce, so what is your point?
Cenk is running. He says so. What you make of that is your call. But “never heard of the guy” or “yes I’ve heard of him but don’t consider his an important voice” is not really helpful.
Why?
We’re expressing our opinions he has no chance and will make no impact.
That might not be helpful, but it is truthful.
Yes, if the Constitution is explicit and categorical about it, SCOTUS will say, dude, it says so right there. The Equal Protection of Laws Clause does not ex proprio vigore override when it is a provision of the Constitution itself, the supreme law of the land, that categorically makes a differentiation. It is up to the different election authorities in the several states to reject his filing, though, and up to him to challenge it, before it gets to that.
No. Supreme court rules it unenforceable, thus you can’t keep someone’s name off the ballot for that reason, and people can vote for and potentially elect Arnold or Cenk or Charo if she chooses to take a run at it.
And SCOTUS will rule it unenforceable because…?
(And BTW it’s not the Court that would enforce it. It’s the Secretaries of State of the several States, and the Party Committees.)
What?
Why do you think the Supreme Court could do that?
Yeah well, it says here, plubidus plubidus, that you’re wrong.
There’s stuff in that old document, all that three-fifths of a person stuff, that you can ignore. They never took it out, but it’s as dead as if it were never written.
Well, that’s good enough for me.
But don’t listen to me. I have no idea whether a challenge to that provision mounted by Cenk or anyone else would succeed.
Does anyone here think that restriction should be upheld? Why or why not?
There was an amendment (14th) that explicitly overrode that. The US Constitution does not erase the passages that got overrode by later amendment, but it’s not that “we decided it’s unenforceable”.
That is because amendments do not remove wording from the original document; they apply revisions. In this case, the 14th Amendment supersedes the three-fifths compromise.
There is no upholding-or-not choice involved. The provision is explicit, categorical and it has not been amended. Should it be itself amended? Different question.
If you’re asking if I think it’s a good restriction, I’d say no, it’s an anachronism, AIUI. The Founders feared some foreign power would sneak their way in via an appealing agent of said power for a hostile takeover.
ETA: But there it is in the Constitution, so my opinion matters not a whit.