• ApostleO@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      I can see the argument from a certain perspective of the language, outside of context.

      But remember when this amendment was passed. Right after the Civil War.

      So, they wanted an amendment to bar traitors from federal office. Then they put in a section saying Congress has to actually make laws enforcing that rule, or it does nothing. And then, they didn’t make any such laws?!

      So, what, they went through all the work to make a constitutional amendment, and then it does nothing?

      No, they clearly felt that the rule was clear enough as it was, and section 5 is there to allow Congress to make supporting laws built upon that to help enforce that rule. But that rule should have teeth on its own.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The rule has been used before.

        The craven corruption of the Roberts court is on full display here.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        They actually did make such a law. But then there was an amnesty for many under President Grant and an expansion of the amnesty at the onset of the Spanish-American War. And then that law was largely repealed in 1948. And then in the 1970s Congress posthumously removed the disqualification from Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis for some reason.

        Edit: Oh and they still have one, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection. Trump hasn’t been charged with it though.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, it says only Congress can re-instate, the removal is to be assumed.

      "Section 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."

      Bolding mine.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          That makes no sense. Why would

          But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

          be included in section 3 if congress has the power to enforce (or not enforce) the clause by simple majority. It’s obviously a self-executing clause.