#14th legislature | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

summercomfort · 5 months

Text

in my pursuit of ever-increasingly niche comics, I drew a 13 page comic about Tape v Hurley, a court case about Chinese-American school segregation in 1885. The rest of the pages are after the readmore, as well as on AO3 here. More obsure Chinese American court case comics are there, as well.

Historical Notes

Mary and Joseph Tape were not born in America, but their names and identities were very much formed in America. Joseph Tape was born Jeu Dip in Guangdong, China, immigrated the America when he was twelve, and spent his teenage years working as a house servant in an Irish household. Mary arrived in America at the age of eleven, and was found and raised as Mary McGladery in a Protestant orphanage as the only Chinese child amongst ~80 children. Both Mary and Jeu spent their formative years amongst White Christian families, so when Jeu Dip and Mary married in 1875, little wonder that Jeu picked the English name of Joseph Tape -- Joseph to match with Mary, and the German last name Tape as a nod to his former name of Dip.

The Tape family lived about 14 blocks outside of Chinatown, in a primarily white neighborhood. They dressed in Western clothing, spoke English at home, and Mamie grew up playing with non-Chinese kids. Naturally, they wanted their children to attend the local elementary school, a mere 3 blocks from their home. The principal, Ms. Hurley, denied her entrance, claiming that she was “filthy and diseased.” At the time, there was no public school option for Chinese children -- the 1870 state law stipulated separate schools for “African and Indian children” only, not Chinese. The Tape family, with the help of the Chinese Six Companies, their church, and the Chinese consulate, decided to sue, claiming that the 1880 California school code guaranteed everyone a right to public education and that this was a violation of the 14th Amendment.

They won.

But this was 1885, three years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and six years before Plessy v Ferguson. Regardless of what the California Supreme Court might decide, public sentiment was on the side of the San Francisco school district. Determined to keep out this “invasion of Mongol barbarism”, the California State Legislature passed a law permitting separate schools for Chinese children, which then allowed Principal Hurley to reject Mamie Tape once more.

While Mamie was rejected from the Spring Valley Elementary School for being Chinese, she also had a hard time fitting in to the Chinese public school. The Chinese merchants saw Western education as something primarily for boys. (Their girl children learned from their mothers at home.) Mamie, a girl dressed in Western clothes, would have stood out like a sore thumb. The final panel of the comic was based on a photo from three years later, and even then, Mamie was the only girl.

Places where I fudged the history: Frank, Mamie’s younger brother, was actually six years old and should have been more present in the comic, but I wante to keep the focus on Mamie and Mary. Also, Mamie had actually shown up to her first day of school in Western clothes. An earlier draft of the comic had a separate arc involving Mamie feeling rejected at school and Mary buying her some Chinese clothes, but that got too long and complicated.

Much of this was drawn from Mae Ngai’s book about the Tape family and their experiences as 2nd and 3rd generation Chinese Americans, titled “The Lucky Ones.”

----------

Here is Mary Tape's letter to the San Francisco School Board, 1885:

1769 Green Street. San Francisco, April 8, 1885. To the Board of Education - Dear Sirs: I see that you are going to make all sorts of excuses to keep my child out off the Public schools. Dear sirs, Will you please to tell me! Is it a disgrace to be Born a Chinese? Didn’t God make us all!!! What right have you to bar my children out of the school because she is a chinese Decend. They is no other worldly reason that you could keep her out, except that. I suppose, you all goes to churches on Sundays! Do you call that a Christian act to compell my little children to go so far to a school that is made in purpose for them. My children don’t dress like the other Chinese. They look just as phunny amongst them as the Chinese dress in Chinese look amongst you Caucasians. Besides, if I had any wish to send them to a chinese school I could have sent them two years ago without going to all this trouble. You have expended a lot of the Public money foolishly, all because ofa one poor little Child. Her playmates is all Caucasians ever since she could toddle around. If she is good enough to play with them! Then is she not good enough to be in the same room and studie with them? You had better come and see for yourselves. See if the Tape’s is not same as other Caucasians, except in features. It seems no matter how a Chinese may live and dress so long as you know they Chinese. Then they are hated as one. There is not any right or justice for them. You have seen my husband and child. You told him it wasn’t Mamie Tape you object to. If it were not Mamie Tape you object to, then why didn’t you let her attend the school nearest her home! Instead of first making one pre tense Then another pretense of some kind to keep her out? It seems to me Mr. Moulder has a grudge against this Eight-year-old Mamie Tape. I know they is no other child I mean Chinese child! care to go to your public Chinese school. May you Mr. Moulder, never be persecuted like the way you have persecuted little Mamie Tape. Mamie Tape will never attend any of the Chinese schools of your making! Never!!! I will let the world see sir What justice there is When it is govern by the Race prejudice men! Just because she is of the Chinese decend, not because she don’t dress like you because she does. Just because she is descended of Chinese parents I guess she is more of a American then a good many of you that is going to prewent her being Educated. Mrs. M. Tape

#original comic #chinese american history #legal history #turns out there's a lot of chinese american court cases #that i have a lot of feelings about #my comic #mine

1K notes · View notes

charlesoberonn · 9 months

Text

Trump doesn't qualify to run for president in 2024 due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

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.

I think it'd be hilarious if he won the Republican nomination only to be disqualified from running and not appear on the ballot in any state.

#politics #us politics #trump

1K notes · View notes

bronzecats · 5 days

Text

National Rainbow Week of Action in Canada

In this post I have compiled all the information I could find regarding upcoming events for the Rainbow Week of Action. There are two online events, and dozens on in-person events across the country.

"Within the Rainbow Week of Action, we are pushing governments and elected officials at every level to take action for Rainbow Equality and address rising anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate. As such, we have identified calls to action for every level of government. These calls to action can be reviewed here."

Event list below:

Events are listed in date order, provinces in general west-to-east order. I have included as much detail as possible, please reference the links at the bottom of the post. At this time, there are no events in N.W.T. and Nova Scotia. Last updated: May 14th, 9:53pm PDT. Please note that I am not officially affiliated with / an organizer of these events, I have simply compiled all the dates to share on tumblr. Original post content.

B.C. EVENTS:

15th: Fernie; Fernie Seniors Drop-In Centre, 572 3rd Avenue, 6:00PM. (Letter writing and Potluck)

17th: Vancouver; šxʷƛ̓ənəq Xwtl'e7énḵ Square - Vancouver Art Gallery North Plaza, 750 Hornby St, 5:30PM. (Rally)

19th, Sunday: Abbotsford; Jubilee Park, 5:00PM. (Rally)

ALBERTA EVENTS:

15th: Lethbridge; McKillop United Church, 2329 15th Ave S, 12:00-1:00PM (letter writing)

17th, Friday: Calgary; Central Memorial Park, 1221 2 St SW, 5:30PM. (Rally)

17th: Edmonton; Wilbert McIntyre Park, 8331 104 St NW, 6:00PM. (Rally)

SASKATCHEWAN EVENTS:

17th: Saskatoon; Vimy Memorial Park, 500 Spadina Crescent E, 5:30PM. (Rally)

17th: Regina; Legislative Grounds, 2405 Legislative Dr, 6:30PM. (Rally)

May 18th: Saskatoon; Grovenor Park United Church, 407 Cumberland Ave S, 6:00PM. (Art event)

MANITOBA EVENTS:

16th: Carman; Paul's Place, 20 1 Ave SW, 7:00-9:00PM. (Letter writing)

19th: Winnipeg; Manitoba Legislature, 450 Broadway, 12:00PM. (Rally)

ONTARIO EVENTS:

15th: Barrie; UPlift Black, 12 Dunlop St E, 6:00-7:30PM. (Letter writing)

15th: Chatham; CK Gay Pride Association, 48 Centre St, 5:00-6:30PM. (Letter writing)

15th: Peterborough; Trinity Community Centre, 360 Reid St, 12:00-3:00PM. (Letter writing)

16th: Midland; Midland Public Library, 4:30-7:30PM. (Letter writing and pizza)

16th: Ottawa; Impact Hub, 123 Slater Street, 2:00PM. (Letter writing)

16th: Toronto; Barbara Hall Park, 519 Church St, 11:30AM. (Rally)

17th, Friday: Barrie; City Hall, 70 Collier St, 6:00PM. (Rally)

17th: Cornwall; 167 Pitt St, 5:30PM. (Rally)

17th: Essex; St. Paul's Anglican Church, 92 St. Paul St, 6:00-8:00PM. (Letter writing and pizza)

17th: Hamilton; City Hall, 71 Main St W, 6:00PM. (Rally)

17th: Kitchener; City Hall, 200 King St W, 6:00PM. (Rally)

17th: London; City Hall, 300 Dufferin Ave, 6:00PM. (Rally)

17th: Sarnia; City Hall, 255 Christina St N, 1:00PM. (Rally)

17th: Sault Ste Marie; City Hall, 99 Foster Dr, 11:30AM. (Rally)

17th: Ottawa; Confederation Park, Elgin St, 5:30PM. (Rally)

22nd: Renfrew; 161 Raglan St. South, 7:00PM. (Letter writing, fashion and makeup event, and pizza)

QUEBEC EVENTS:

May 15th: Lachute; CDC Lachute, 57, rue Harriet, 12:30PM. (Letter writing event)

NEW BRUNSWICK EVENTS:

17th: Woodstock; Citizen's Square, Chapel St, Next to the L.P. Fisher Public Library, 12:00-1:00PM. (rally)

17th: Saint John; City Hall, 15 Market Square, 12:30PM. (Rally, flag raising)

18th, Saturday: Fredericton; Legislative Grounds, 706 Queen Street, 1:00PM. (Rally)

NOVA SCOTIA EVENTS:

May 17th: Middleton; NSCC AVC RM 121, 6:30-8:30PM (letter writing and pizza)

P.E.I. EVENTS:

May 15th: Charlottetown; Peers Alliance Office, 250B Queen Street, 6:00-8:00PM. (Adult drop-in)

May 16th: Charlottetown, Peers Alliance Office, 250B Queen Street, 6:00-7:00PM.

May 17th: Charlottetown; PEI Legislative Assembly, 165 Richmond St, 12:00PM. (Rally)

YUKON EVENTS:

16th: Whitehorse; The Cache, 4230 4 Ave, 2:00-7:00PM. (Letter writing)

NUNAVUT EVENTS:

May 16th, Thursday: Iqaluit; Four Corners, 922 Niaqunngusiariaq St, 5:00PM. (Letter writing)

Reference links:

About the Rainbow Week of Action.

Website letter writing events list (does not include all events)

General events website list (does not include all events)

Instagram general events image list

Instagram letter writing / pizza party image list

#rainbow week of action #lgbt #cdnpoli #lgbtq #canada #alberta #british columbia #saskatchewan #manitoba #new brunswick #newfoundland and labrador #yukon #nunavut #prince edward island #ontario #quebec #nova scotia

109 notes · View notes

not-safe-for-democracy · 8 months

Text

14th Amendment

Section 3.

#14th amendment

44 notes · View notes

tanadrin · 5 months

Text

If SCOTUS doesn't grant cert, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision would stand, in Colorado only (I think).

If ruled a political question, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision would be effectively overturned, but in theory state legislatures or election officials could still bar Trump from the ballot.

17 notes · View notes

enderexplorer1212 · 1 year

Text

Guide for whats going on for nonamericans

So you may be wondering, what the hell is happening in the U.S? You might ask yourself that a lot, but this time, I can explain. So the house of representatives is the lower house which creates bills and stuff and is based on proportional representation, thats not important. But the republicans have a 4-seat majority, which is astronomically small. The house has to nominate and then vote on a speaker, which works similar to how parliamentary governments work, with a prime minister decided by a majority. Now imagine if you had parliament (or whatever legislature you have), and there were only two parties, the sorta left party, and the very right party. The very right party is voting for a prime minister, but not everyone in the very right party wants this prime minister, they want a different, more rightwing guy. They also don't like the nominee for prime minister, so they are holding up the entire process since they only need 4 people to disagree to prevent a prime minister from being chosen. So normally, this would be a hung parliament, and it goes to a snap election or something, but thats not how it works. Instead, they have to vote again, and they have to keep on voting until a prime minister is chosen. The sort left party meanwhile is letting the very right party tear itself apart because A. it is the easiest possible argument as to why you shouldn't vote for the very right party, and B. none of the very right party people would agree to working with the sorta left party. So basically, it's a hung parliament, but you have to keep voting until you get a prime minister. This is problematic, because you can't get any bills passed in congress without the house, and representatives don't get paid until the 14th, so by the time the 14th rolls around, if they don't get a speaker, no ones getting paid. If it does drag out that long, then the republicans will be kinda screwed because of how long its taking. Hope this helps :)

#us politics #us house speaker #us house of representatives #us house elections #house of representatives #house speaker #united states house of representatives

104 notes · View notes

longwindedbore · 9 months

Text

Evidently legal scholars are arguing that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1866 the third clause (below) did NOT require a conviction in a court of law to ban those who took arms to fight for, who aided or who abetted the government of the Confederacy.

Or any acted/aided/abetted any future insurrections.

It is incumbent on the accused insurrectionist to petition Congress.

Clause 3:

‘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.’

In 1866 the federal government did not intend to try hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Original intent.

A rarely used clause.

28 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year

Text

How (and why) Biden should overcome the Supreme Court to end the debt showdown

’m coming to the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in HAY-ON-WYE with my novel Red Team Blues:

Sun (May 28), 1130AM: The AI Enigma

Mon (May 29), 12PM: Danger and Desire at the Frontier

I’m at OXFORD’s Blackwell’s on May 29 at 7:30PM with Tim Harford.

Then it’s Nottingham, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, and Berlin!

Is it legal for Congress to default on the US national debt? It depends on who you ask. There are a ton of good legal arguments for and against, so perhaps it comes down to what the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court says?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/biden-administration-debt-republican.html

Put in those terms, it seems like the game was over before it began. Biden should just surrender, hand the most extreme wing of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, authoritarian) Republican Party whatever it wants, even if doing so will push Biden’s approval rating even lower, dangerously close to the next federal election.

In this telling, the Republicans have already won. The decision to let the GOP steal three Supreme Court seats, combined with the decision not to end the debt ceiling charade when Dems had the majorities to do so, means that from now on, we live in the GOP’s shithole country, where the only “freedoms” that matter are the freedom to control others’ bodily autonomy and gender expression; the freedom to exploit labor; the freedom to censor ideas that challenge white nationalist, imperialist messages; and the freedom to menace with open-carry assault weapons:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/opinion/republican-legislatures-abortion-trangender-education.html

In other words, we’re screwed. Might as well dig a hole, climb inside, and pull the dirt in on top of us.

Fuck that.

There are clear majorities in support of the Build Back Better agenda, and even for the watered down Machin Synematic Universe version we got through the Infrastructure Bill. If the Dems could mobilize voters — by convincing them that they were committed to doing things rather than capitulating — they could win strong majorities in 2024. Even in the gerrymandered, antimajoritarian America, electoral wins are possible — they just require overwhelming turnout, rather than the 50.00001% “victories” favored by “data-driven” Democratic consultants (victories that leave the party incapable of governing, and let monsters like Joe Manchin hold the entire nation hostage).

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe doing things won’t mobilize voters. But if we’re already going to stipulate that without significant majorities, the real President of the United States is the three-headed monster (Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts), and the billionaires who yank their chains, then what do we have to lose?

There are a lot of things that Biden could try to get through the debt ceiling crisis without giving up on the promises he made to the American people and the programs the American Congress passed. Here’s a couple interesting ones, courtesy of Brad DeLong:

“The Federal Reserve might simply record a negative balance in the Treasury account,” then create an “overdraft” account and pay the US’s obligations out of it;

The Fed could tell retail banks trying to clear government checks that the checks didn’t clear, and the banks could tell their depositors, “ your Treasury check has bounced, but do not worry, we have credited your account, anyway, and will handle this, and please be very grateful to us.”

https://braddelong.substack.com/p/debt-ceiling-what-are-e-fallback

Of course, there are lots of other possibilities: Biden could issue an Executive Order to the effect that the Debt Ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. Or that it violates the Contracts Clause. Or he could order the Treasury to start issuing coupon-free bonds. Or he could just mint the coin:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/23/23734654/government-debt-default-trillion-dollar-platinum-coin

Yes, each of these would end up in front of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court, who would very likely strike them down.

But writing for The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper argues that this could still be sound tactics:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-05-25-democrats-fear-supreme-court/

If Biden does something about the debt default, and the Supremes block it, then the default is their fault. What’s more, it’s a mess they absolutely do not want to get into, like deciding which of the US’s creditors will and won’t get paid when they sue over the default. And if the court won’t do it, will they give the president the power to “just pick and choose what gets paid? That would give him a de facto line-item veto over the entire budget, and the Court has already ruled that a law explicitly giving him that power is unconstitutional”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Basically, if the Supreme Court kills Biden’s attempt to resolve the budget crisis, then it becomes the Supreme Court’s problem, as everyone owed a federal payment “say, Social Security beneficiaries or military contractors,” brings a case — “There would be tens of millions of such potential litigants.”

So what should Biden do?

Call their bluff.

First, mint the coin. If the court strikes that down, issue coupon-free bonds. If the court strikes that down, declare debt ceilings to violate the 14th Amendment. If the court strikes that down, declare it to violate the Contracts Clause. Keep doing it. Throw in every solution including the kitchen sink — but never give into the GOP’s demand for Biden to violate his promise to the American people and unilaterally tear up laws establishing programs that make our lives better.

This is what Lincoln did when the Supreme Court blocked his attempts to end slavery. It’s what FDR did when they blocked the New Deal. The court doesn’t have an army, it can’t force its decisions on the American people. It doesn’t have a bureaucratic workforce and it can’t take over the administrative branch — hell, they don’t even have the keys to the office buildings.

The Supreme Court’s power comes from its legitimacy, not force of arms, and while they may not act like it, the Supremes know in their bones that without legitimacy, they are nothing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The justices in stolen seats have made it clear that they consider themselves to be “a de facto super-legislature that rules in favor of its own partisan policy objectives based on tendentious up-is-down reasoning or no reasoning at all.” This is an illegitimate proposition.

The Supreme Court can’t get any less legitimate. If Biden were to ignore the Supremes and make good law in the teeth of their pronouncements, it couldn’t make the situation any worse than it is today. The Supremes have set themselves against labor law, against climate resiliency, against bodily autonomy, against political accountability, against the rule of law itself. We should not — we must not — cede the power to overrule democratically elected lawmakers and the will of the people.

As Cooper says, Biden should tell the Supremes to go pound sand and then “raise holy hell in speeches and the press to make clear the grotesque irresponsibility of what is happening”:

Here’s an institution trying to cause a completely pointless national default, destroying untold jobs, businesses, and the credit rating of the country, whose elite members are all unelected, where five members of the majority were appointed by a president who took office after losing the popular vote, and one of whom occupies a blatantly stolen seat. Here’s an institution that has struck down anti-corruption laws by the bushel and is openly rolling in oligarch graft like Scrooge McDuck, while declaring itself to be immune from oversight. All that would add to the political pressure on the justices.

If Biden can’t do well for the American people they they will not turn out in the massive majorities that Democrats need to get minimal majorities. If Biden can’t do well for the American people, then Biden — who would lose an election to either Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump if it were called today — will turn America’s predators loose on its people for at least four more years:

https://jacobin.com/2023/05/2024-presidential-election-2016-donald-trump-joe-biden/

And let’s face it, it’ll be Trump. DeSantis is dead in the water. The GOP is the party of out-of-control, swivel-eyed loons who’ve been whipped into a terrorized frenzy by an evil, crapulent senescent Australian billionaire and his freak henchmen, like the taint-tanning frozen food failson. They aren’t going to elect “smart Trump.” They like “stupid Trump” (AKA “Trump”) too much.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Hay-on-Wye, Oxford, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

[Image ID: A kitchen sink. The Supreme Court building protrudes from it. Behind the sink is a window. Joe Biden grins from the other side of the window.]

Image: Joe Ravi (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #elections have consequences #president trump again #x-day #debt ceiling #consequentialism #scotus #supreme court #hardball #elections #contracts clause #coupon-free bonds #paul krugman #14th amendment #executive orders

39 notes · View notes

suzilight · 3 months

Text

25 of the world’s greatest Civil War legal scholars have banded together and wrote to the United States Supreme Court that the drafters of the 14th Amendment in 1868 would be SHOCKED that Trump was not INSTANTLY DISQUALIFIED and banned from the ballot by his actions on January 6th.

VIDEO Michael Popok of Legal AF explains their key historical arguments and why they should defeat Trump’s half baked theories that a president can’t be disqualified without an act of congress.

READ THE BRIEF SENT TO US SUPREME COURT

2/1/24 This gives me hope. Thank you

I'm sharing it everywhere. It's the most positive thing I've seen in recent years.

14th Amendment, Section 3 reads:

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.

#good news #14th amendment #us constitution #us supreme court #amicus brief #25 historians #Trump is unfit for office #take Trump off the ballot #insurrection #disqualified

8 notes · View notes

cbk1000 · 4 months

Text

I'm so tired of seeing, "We need to let the voters decide" in response to Trump's potential disqualification as a presidential candidate. Bitch, we DID decide. We decided in 2020 when we voted him out of office. And then he threw himself on the floor and kicked his feet and screamed and wet his pants and yanked out tufts of his wig and tried to overturn an election that wasn't even close so he could continue to stay in power. Why on earth should that not disqualify him from being hired for the highest job in the country?

No matter how badly you want to vote for Obama, you can't, because he already served two terms. No matter how badly you want to vote for a 34-year-old, you can't, because our Constitution requires candidates be at least 35 years of age. No matter how badly you want to vote for someone who immigrated to the U.S. from another country, you can't, because the constitution requires that candidates be natural born citizens. Voters have always had limitations placed on who they can vote for. I don't give a fuck if you want to vote for that steaming pile of shit. He didn't give a fuck about my vote when he tried to disenfranchise it, and millions of others, because he's a little bitch who can't be told no without melting down into full-blown toddler hysterics.

It's very simple: if he hadn't tried to overthrow the government, there would be no question of whether or not he's (legally) qualified for the office of the presidency. But he did. That's the only reason he's in the position of potentially being disqualified from running. So take your whiny little arguments about how it's 'undemocratic' to disqualify a guy who tried to subvert an election so he could install himself as Emperor Orange based on the clause in the 14th amendment of the Constitution that states, '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' and shove them up your ass. You can debate about exactly how this section of the Constitution should be applied, and whether or not it's applicable here. But it is not 'undemocratic' or unfair to voters to kick a guy off the ballot because he's such a sore loser he tried to overthrow the government.

In conclusion: suck my nuts, you whiny tits.

#politics

7 notes · View notes

sanjana1967 · 1 month

Text

Title: Whether Judiciary is State or not

Article 12 in Part III of the Indian Constitution provides the definition of the term "state." It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities under the control of the Government of India within the territory of India. Understanding the meaning of the State under this Article is crucial as it empowers us to hold institutions accountable for violating our rights. Initially, the term "state" was narrowly interpreted, with the Judiciary holding only government-controlled bodies accountable. However, over time, the concept has evolved to widen the scope of the State and increase its liability. This raises the question of whether the Judiciary falls under the definition of the State according to Article 12.The Judiciary can potentially violate citizens' Fundamental Rights through administrative functions and judicial decisions. Administrative functions, such as the appointment of courtroom officers, fall under the State's ambit, ensuring that terms of appointment and employment do not violate fundamental rights. Judicial decisions, especially in cases related to writ petitions and fundamental rights violations, can also lead to rights being infringed. If judges make incorrect judgements or allow incriminating questions in violation of Article 20(3), citizens' rights can be compromised.

Considering the Judiciary as a State raises challenges regarding accountability and the preservation of its integrity. If the guardian of fundamental rights is held responsible for rights violations, the Judiciary's credibility could be undermined. Questions arise about handling violations by the Supreme Court, which is tasked with safeguarding fundamental rights. Additionally, concerns emerge about addressing instances where the courts exceed their powers. In such cases, seeking remedies under Article 32 becomes essential to address violations of fundamental rights. The concept of State Action in the United States of America has developed directly from the Constitution itself, as established in the Virginia v. Rives case. This doctrine upholds the principles of natural justice and asserts that any judgment that denies an individual the right to be heard is in violation of due process and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, it has been recognized that judicial decisions can be considered as state action under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Consequently, the US Constitution includes provisions for holding the Judiciary accountable in cases of fundamental rights violations. Many constitutional experts, including H.M. Seervai, argue that the Indian Judiciary should be classified as a part of the definition of State under Article 12. This is based on the fact that various articles grant the judiciary powers akin to those of a state, as evidenced in articles 145 and 146 of the Indian Constitution.

(i) The Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of Courts.

(ii) The Supreme Court is empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants; decide its service conditions.

The laws established by the Supreme Court are considered the law of the land as specified in Article 141 of the Indian legal system, which follows common law principles. Therefore, a judgment passed by the Supreme Court could impact the Fundamental Rights of Citizens. Article 20(2) specifies that no individual can be penalized twice for the same offense, serving as a guideline for the Judiciary, often referred to as the State. The question at hand is whether the judges can be held accountable for their decisions, potentially leading to infringements on minority rights in certain situations. While there have been instances where rights may have been violated, it is advisable not to subject these decisions to the jurisdiction of the State as it could result in a scenario where a majority of judgments are contested, ultimately undermining the rule of law.

This matter remains unresolved. In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court confirmed that no judicial proceeding could be deemed as violating any Fundamental rights. It is firmly established in legal doctrine that higher courts of justice do not fall under the categories of 'state' or 'other authorities' as outlined in Article 12. This principle was recently reinforced in the case of Riju Prasad Sarmah v. the State of Assam, drawing from the precedent set in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra, The majority of the nine-judge bench stated that judicial functions should not fall under the definition of "state," with only administrative functions being subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has allowed its administration to be reviewed but has safeguarded its judicial functions from potential challenges. Constitutional scholars have advised against bringing the Judiciary's judicial functions under the scope of the State, as this could lead to confusion and public dissatisfaction if court decisions were constantly questioned. It is uncertain how Supreme Court judgments can be prevented from violating rights, and there is no clear mechanism for reviewing the decisions of the body responsible for examining the Supreme Court's judgments.

References:

The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.12.

The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 14.

The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20(3).

The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 32

Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1880, Supreme Court of the United States).

6. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional law of India, p.155 (1st Ed.)

7. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 145-146.

8. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 141

9. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20(2)

3 notes · View notes

charlesoberonn · 2 months

Text

A quick alternate history scenario I made for the r/AlternateHistory subreddit:

In 1796, George Washington reluctantly runs for a third term as president to prevent Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans from taking hold of government. His third and final term is more rocky than the first two, with the south being especially unhappy with some of his reforms, though they associate them with his vice-president John Adams and Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton. On December 14th, 1799, George Washington dies in office. The nation is in turmoil and mourning. The Democratic-Republicans call for a special election, but vice-president John Adams is declared president instead. On Christmas 1799 a protest march on DC turns violent when federal forces clash with protestors and revolutionary war veterans. Jefferson declares Adams an illegitimate usurper. Adams calls off next year's election. Several state legislatures , especially in the South, declare Jefferson as a provisional emergency leader for the purpose of ousting the Federalist regime. The American Civil War has begun. On January 15, with DC about to be overtaken, an internal vote within the Federalist war cabinet decide to oust Adams and appoint his vice president and war hero Alexander Hamilton as president instead. The tide of the war turns, with the Federalist forces able to protect the north and much of their territory, but it is short lived. The Federalist are forced to abandon DC on April and retreat to New York City as a provisional capital. Hamilton himself refuses to go. He is captured by the Democratic-Republicans along with Adams. Jefferson is appointed president on April 19th. In July, Senator Gouverneur Morris is appointed as temporary leader of the Federalist forces in New York. The war stalls for several months as the Democratic-Republican forces fail to make inroads into the north. Meanwhile Jefferson's administration is poorly received and he is compared poorly to the Reign of Terror in France, especially after the public executions of Adams and Hamilton, and after the French Revolutionary government acknowledges him as the legitimate president. The British back Morris and the Federalists and provide military assistance in return for territorial concessions out west. Despite the Democratic-Republicans trying to paint Morris as a traitor for his British support, the public hates Jefferson more, compounded by a series of military defeats. On December 14th, during a public memorial service for the 1 year anniversary of Washington's death, Jefferson presents himself as the true heir to the venerated general. This creates outrage and leads to a 6 days siege of the White House, at the end of which Jefferson is dragged out and beaten to death by the public and some of his own soldiers. The Democratic-Republican forces subsequently surrender and the capital is captured by Federalist and British forces. Morris is appointed president and his first act is to call in a new Constitutional Convention in order to draft a new constitution, one with the primary aim of preventing another civil war.

#alternate history #american history #inspired by the Roman Empire's 'year of four emperors'

254 notes · View notes

irradiate-space · 5 months

Text

If the 14th Amendment §3 bars Trump from the presidency, is that undemocratic?

I feel like the use of "undemocratic" in this post's title is being used as a shorthand for a lot of unrelated concerns: is barring Trump from office popular? legal? in accordance with the rule of law? constitutional? in good taste? strategic?

Many of those concerns ignore one of the founding parts of the current US Constitution: it's not a direct democracy. It has never been purely democratic. The things which the populace can vote for are determined by the Constitution. For example: before 1913, the populace couldn't vote for senators. The 17th Amendment changed that. So if we want to discus the 14th Amendment's barring of insurrectionists, we must look at the other ways that The Constitution-as-amended lists who cannot become President:

people who aren't natural-born citizens

people younger than 35

people who refuse to take the presidential oath of office

people "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."

Some have said that, if Trump ran for office and won the election but was barred from office on 14thA grounds, that would be undemocratic, and he should be installed anyways.

So I ask: If the following people run for President in 2024, and win, should their popularity be allowed to override their Constitutional disqualification?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria as an Austrian citizen, ineligible because of the country of his birth

Kyle Rittenhouse, born 2003, ineligible because he will not be 35 by 2024

And if age or birth legitimately disqualifies someone, why shouldn't insurrection?

#politicking #14th Amendment #trump

7 notes · View notes