Post AriO4rLcbRcUCNs2HQ by eARCwelder@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by eARCwelder@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #AriNFZ033orYWbJu9w by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-03-04T15:11:56Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Suppose that Congress resolved, by a simple majority, that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible for any office of the United States?Such a resolution shouldn’t be necessary, under the Constitution’s plain language, but after Trump v Anderson, that would do it, right?
       
 (DIR) Post #AriO4rLcbRcUCNs2HQ by eARCwelder@mastodon.social
       2025-03-04T15:21:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity I think so. Also, if he’s ever formally disqualified like that, someone should make the case that all his pardons are invalid. Like, it’d be no less absurd if Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Clinton were president right now, pardoning people and everyone was like “you gotta hand to him, this is all very cool and very legal.”
       
 (DIR) Post #AriU64Ah0efNz9iXFA by curtosis@mastodon.social
       2025-03-04T16:28:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity You could also do a “simple” expulsion of the members who are similarly disqualified, which would help the vote margin.
       
 (DIR) Post #ArieQJ0wX7wTLvRkau by curtosis@mastodon.social
       2025-03-04T16:31:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity Though not simple in that you’d need 2/3.OTOH, you’d arguably just need the same majority to conclude that they’re ineligible under the 14A. So they wouldn’t be *expelling* them so much as annulling their seating in the first place.
       
 (DIR) Post #ArieQJr3PNcrxXpMoq by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-03-04T18:24:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @curtosis the Supreme Court placed determination of eligibility under 14AS3 with Congress in Trump v Anderson. it wouldn’t be legislation, just a finding of Congress. i don’t think it would be subject to a Presidential veto.of course that would litigated, and if this court is known for consistency its perhaps consistency in achieving certain outcomes rather than consistent deployment of logic and the law.
       
 (DIR) Post #ArieQNZ7bzetT5T6QK by curtosis@mastodon.social
       2025-03-04T16:32:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity And let’s be honest, that’s a lot better supported than some of the inane legal theories running around.
       
 (DIR) Post #ArizoNm8a50A6fqLb6 by curtosis@mastodon.social
       2025-03-04T21:40:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @interfluidity Yeah, that’s what I mean. If you can get the 2/3 needed to *expel* members, you can get to 2/3 to impeach. (And should do both.) But you’re not expelling, you’re declaring they were never legally seated.Alito knows damn well the difference between divorce and annulment. (He’s probably a sedevacantist, too.)
       
 (DIR) Post #ArizoORG7BtYAD5Bh2 by interfluidity@zirk.us
       2025-03-04T22:24:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @curtosis right! i’m wondering whether annulment in this case could be by simple majority.