Trump's travails around the globe … remember hydroxy? … war on Pepsi … Blinken hopscotches … China-Russia, no-limits friendship … then the bling … Osama Hajjaj with a glimmer of new year hope
Now you have captured my raison d'être, Walter! .....readers in Europe .... sadly, they are all too often better informed than those in America ....one of my goals is to level the playing field !
1. Impose a "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?? Since there are two rejectionist fronts - one in each society - how will they be overcome? Would it require "civil" war in each? Since both fronts reject a two-state solution, what "solution"? Convince all extremists who want all the land for their side and zero for the other side?
2. Winning a primary election contest does NOT entitle the winner to HOLD any office (absent some weird state or local law). So how does the Section 3, 14th Amendment issue arise??? Seems like there is no Section 3 case or controversy in the Colorado case. Except for the fact that SCOTUS took the matter on an expedited basis, there is nothing to rule on -- or is there? (a) SCOTUS could rule that the Colorado judgment was a futile act as the winner is not entitled to hold any office and/or (b) more profoundly, if each state is free to make its own determination as to ballot eligibility of candidates and former office-holders under Section 3, Federal elections will become a farce (assuming there is a colorable basis for arguing that candidate X was an insurrectionist) in that candidate X will be on only SOME state ballots, and there will be no national vote for President/Vice-president, similarly, for senate and HR races. Article III, Sec. 2 grants the Federal judiciary power over disputes over controversies between States. That alone should negate State jurisdiction to entertain these disputes. Also, Section 3 (14th) is part of the constitution and is a case arising under the Constitution and thus the Federal court system has jurisdiction (see the opening language of Article III, Section 2).
So, State court challenges to Trump cannot prevail. But that would simply defer challenges in Federal court, at the earliest, if and when Trump might win the general election and electoral ballots are counted on January 6th. I think nobody wants to wait until the last second! So SCOTUS may make a "good for the country " decision this Spring. I disagree with the Trump lawyers' claim that a criminal judgment of insurrection against Trump is required prior to a possible Section 3 (14th) ban being imposed. Sec. 3 has no such requirement, and Congress may remove the ban. That miss-portrays Sec. 3 as a penal punishment, but Congress has no power to punish but has Sec.3 power to forgive the ban if imposed by the Court system.
3. I can't wait for the counter-arguments and corrections to emerge!
Great wrap as usual! One other election worth watching David is the second round on Tuesday of polls in Bhutan. Usually the tiny kingdom would fly under the radar, but they’re in the midst of a border negotiation with China, which may herald, for the first time, diplomatic relations between the two. This is a big issue for India, for whom its own boundary with China remains yet to be demarcated and which could present a greater chance of a hot war in Asia than anything in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea.
The Colorado high-court finding made the ineligibility argument, and more than adequately. It finds no reference to needing a court finding of guilt before invoking 14.3. The text is grandiosely documented, researched, and presented. This leaves the Scotus with only 1 pro-Trump option, to find that 'politics' restrains the application of the eligibility law. Which is of course, a contradiction in terms, since the eligibility law determines who gets to be a political candidate in the first place. Therefore, Scotus would be 'all politics', no justice.
Also, the GOP in the Senate, and even in the House, argued that "this [insurrection] must be dealt with by the Justice Dept, not by us!" when they refused to impeach; then, it took them only 2 weeks before they were denying there was an insurrection in the first place, so any judicial action was a 'witch-hunt'. Such brazen tricks are never explained to the Silo watchers of Fox. One hopes they are, to readers in Europe.
Now you have captured my raison d'être, Walter! .....readers in Europe .... sadly, they are all too often better informed than those in America ....one of my goals is to level the playing field !
;-)
That’s so very kind of you, Brenda !
Makes all the effort that goes into this so worthwhile !!
1. Impose a "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?? Since there are two rejectionist fronts - one in each society - how will they be overcome? Would it require "civil" war in each? Since both fronts reject a two-state solution, what "solution"? Convince all extremists who want all the land for their side and zero for the other side?
2. Winning a primary election contest does NOT entitle the winner to HOLD any office (absent some weird state or local law). So how does the Section 3, 14th Amendment issue arise??? Seems like there is no Section 3 case or controversy in the Colorado case. Except for the fact that SCOTUS took the matter on an expedited basis, there is nothing to rule on -- or is there? (a) SCOTUS could rule that the Colorado judgment was a futile act as the winner is not entitled to hold any office and/or (b) more profoundly, if each state is free to make its own determination as to ballot eligibility of candidates and former office-holders under Section 3, Federal elections will become a farce (assuming there is a colorable basis for arguing that candidate X was an insurrectionist) in that candidate X will be on only SOME state ballots, and there will be no national vote for President/Vice-president, similarly, for senate and HR races. Article III, Sec. 2 grants the Federal judiciary power over disputes over controversies between States. That alone should negate State jurisdiction to entertain these disputes. Also, Section 3 (14th) is part of the constitution and is a case arising under the Constitution and thus the Federal court system has jurisdiction (see the opening language of Article III, Section 2).
So, State court challenges to Trump cannot prevail. But that would simply defer challenges in Federal court, at the earliest, if and when Trump might win the general election and electoral ballots are counted on January 6th. I think nobody wants to wait until the last second! So SCOTUS may make a "good for the country " decision this Spring. I disagree with the Trump lawyers' claim that a criminal judgment of insurrection against Trump is required prior to a possible Section 3 (14th) ban being imposed. Sec. 3 has no such requirement, and Congress may remove the ban. That miss-portrays Sec. 3 as a penal punishment, but Congress has no power to punish but has Sec.3 power to forgive the ban if imposed by the Court system.
3. I can't wait for the counter-arguments and corrections to emerge!
Great wrap as usual! One other election worth watching David is the second round on Tuesday of polls in Bhutan. Usually the tiny kingdom would fly under the radar, but they’re in the midst of a border negotiation with China, which may herald, for the first time, diplomatic relations between the two. This is a big issue for India, for whom its own boundary with China remains yet to be demarcated and which could present a greater chance of a hot war in Asia than anything in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea.
Terrific round-up, David.
The Colorado high-court finding made the ineligibility argument, and more than adequately. It finds no reference to needing a court finding of guilt before invoking 14.3. The text is grandiosely documented, researched, and presented. This leaves the Scotus with only 1 pro-Trump option, to find that 'politics' restrains the application of the eligibility law. Which is of course, a contradiction in terms, since the eligibility law determines who gets to be a political candidate in the first place. Therefore, Scotus would be 'all politics', no justice.
Also, the GOP in the Senate, and even in the House, argued that "this [insurrection] must be dealt with by the Justice Dept, not by us!" when they refused to impeach; then, it took them only 2 weeks before they were denying there was an insurrection in the first place, so any judicial action was a 'witch-hunt'. Such brazen tricks are never explained to the Silo watchers of Fox. One hopes they are, to readers in Europe.
Wonderful, as always.
David, I always look forward to your weekly world round-up.
Have you noticed? No one else seems to do this!