It’s an interpretation of the Constitution written explicitly to keep out people who committed high crimes against the US government. The venue is the state of Colorado because of how the state gets to run its own elections, but the interpretation will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. After it goes through appeals.
Based on nothing more than your wording here, this seems like a tall order. I believe he was impeached and acquitted of high crimes by the senate. As much as that is total bullshit, it seems like if your wording is accurate then this is probably not going anywhere.
That said, your comment here is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone explain it as “people who committed high crimes,” so that definition is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Well, I consider it a “high crime.” The wording in the Fourteenth Amendment differs, but only in that it’s specific in which high crimes it’s talking about.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Though why should the Supreme Court have say in the state’s decision? I thought states’ rights were some kind of untouchable thing
It’s an interpretation of the Constitution written explicitly to keep out people who committed high crimes against the US government. The venue is the state of Colorado because of how the state gets to run its own elections, but the interpretation will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. After it goes through appeals.
Based on nothing more than your wording here, this seems like a tall order. I believe he was impeached and acquitted of high crimes by the senate. As much as that is total bullshit, it seems like if your wording is accurate then this is probably not going anywhere.
That said, your comment here is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone explain it as “people who committed high crimes,” so that definition is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Well, I consider it a “high crime.” The wording in the Fourteenth Amendment differs, but only in that it’s specific in which high crimes it’s talking about.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html
Decisions are based on US Constitution interpretation. There is only one place than can really do that.
Not true. There are many places but the highest court has the final say.