Yes, I read through the Supreme Court's opinion placing Trump back on the ballot, and it was entirely based on saying the states have no right to make the determination. Only the federal government can do that, the justices said. But the justices based that largely, if not entirely, on that portion of the 14th Amendment that says: "But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." They interpreted that statement as saying only the federal government can remove someone from the ballot. But, to the contrary, the rules of English and sentence agreement suggest the statement is saying the person can only get back on the ballot if a two-thirds vote of Congress puts them back on the ballot. The word "disability" refers back to what? What is the disability being referred to? It is that the person has been disqualified from the office; that is the disability. I wasn't shocked with the decision. But I was shocked by the reasoning behind it. And I was shocked that it was a 9-0 vote. The fact they all agreed is being used to reinforce the thinking that there really shouldn't be any question but what Trump belongs on the ballot. I disagree. You can vote truth down, you can oppose it unanimously, you can say truth isn't truth, but truth remains what it is. Lawyers and judges cannot change the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment