Search for: "In re Disqualification of Griffin"
Results 1 - 20
of 34
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm
Were Trump re-elected, and contrary to Professor Lederman's hopes and aspirations, the question of whether the President is an "Officer of the United States" will not be "re-consigned to the obscure corners of implausible scholarship. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 8:13 am
” Perhaps, then, those arguments will be re-consigned to the obscure corners of implausible scholarship from whence they came. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
The court otherwise affirmed, holding(1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respond-ents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress neednot pass implementing legislation for disqualifications un-der Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doc-trine did not preclude judicial review of former PresidentTrump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuseits discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a con-gressional Report on the… [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 8:46 am
App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a (quoting Griffin's Case, 11 F. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:14 am
We refer to this element as the "criminal disqualification provision. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
First, it’s likely that many or all of the Justices will want to preserve states’ authority to prevent rebels and insurrectionists from holding state offices, as New Mexico did in the Couy Griffin case currently pending before the Court. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm
Thornton, because two-thirds of both Houses of Congress might still vote to remove the Section 3 disqualification for Trump if he’s elected. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:51 am
“You might think they’re frivolous, but the people who are bringing them may not think they’re frivolous. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm
You're suggesting there may be a barrier under the Constitution to a state legislating an enforcement mechanism for Section 3 specific to federal officers. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
Mitchell was petrified of the Emoluments Clause and the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
A 19th Century Supreme Court case, In Re. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
In this post, I’ll discuss the first of the CRSCC’s off-ramp arguments, which invokes Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in In re Griffin, 11 F. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:35 am
Trump relies on a very old circuit court case, In re Griffin (1869), in which Chief Justice Samuel Chase ruled that Section 3 was inoperative until Congress passed enabling legislation. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:59 am
“The state courts should have regarded congressional enforcement legislation as the exclusive means for enforcing Section 3, as Chief Justice Chase held in In re Griffin,” a circuit decision from 1869. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 7:27 am
To be sure, a state has the power to enforce Section 3 with respect to state officers who are subject to Section 3’s disqualification rule. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 10:19 am
The state's voters, in Ballot Measure 113, said that these rebels should be barred from running for re-electon as punishment for not showing up. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 11:44 pm
Couy Griffin, a minor figure in that same conspiracy, was at the Capitol that day (outside, anyway). [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 10:36 am
The case citation is In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (N.D. [read post]
Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues
14 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
This case, In Re Griffin, according to the authors, "continues to cast a shadow over Section 3 today. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 3:00 am
Only a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress could remove that sweeping disqualification. [read post]
