Right, section 5 says it takes 2/3 to remove a disqualification. But the Supreme Court is saying that Congress has to affirm the disqualification. I’m wondering if a a simple majority is all that would be required to say Trump is not qualified.
Right, section 5 says it takes 2/3 to remove a disqualification. But the Supreme Court is saying that Congress has to affirm the disqualification. I’m wondering if a a simple majority is all that would be required to say Trump is not qualified.
Nope, the Supreme Court ruled that a majority is needed to pass legislation to declare Trump “disqualified,” and the a 2/3 would later be needed to remove that disability and declare him qualified again. It makes no sense. It’s a horrible ruling to protect Trump and it’s not what the text says, but that’s what they ruled. That’s why the Dem appointees wrote a “protest” opinion.
I agree, makes absolutely no sense. No hope for a disqualification now, but we can hope for a democratic majority in 2 years. Much easier than trying to get a conviction in an impeachment trial.
Right, section 5 says it takes 2/3 to remove a disqualification. But the Supreme Court is saying that Congress has to affirm the disqualification. I’m wondering if a a simple majority is all that would be required to say Trump is not qualified.
Nope, the Supreme Court ruled that a majority is needed to pass legislation to declare Trump “disqualified,” and the a 2/3 would later be needed to remove that disability and declare him qualified again. It makes no sense. It’s a horrible ruling to protect Trump and it’s not what the text says, but that’s what they ruled. That’s why the Dem appointees wrote a “protest” opinion.
If reality is contrary to their opinion, act on reality and force the court to justify itself.
I agree, makes absolutely no sense. No hope for a disqualification now, but we can hope for a democratic majority in 2 years. Much easier than trying to get a conviction in an impeachment trial.