Search for: "OFFICER ANDERSON"
Results 141 - 160
of 4,093
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2024, 7:45 pm
Anderson. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 6:25 pm
That the President isn’t an “officer” at all for purposes of Section 3 (or elsewhere in the Constitution). [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
Senator); Anderson v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
Senator); Anderson v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:57 am
Statement to be submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, accredited under operative paragraph No. 9 of UN General Assembly Resolution 75/282, on behalf of 124 signatories. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:42 am
Anderson. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
Anderson litigation, both the Colorado District and the Colorado Supreme Court found Section Three to be justiciable and Trump has not pressed a political question argument in his Supreme Court merits briefs. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 4:30 am
Anderson as a basis for leaving the case to the political process. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 5:42 pm
” The city of Sacramento’s Film office previously told FOX40.com that Warner Bros. obtained permits to film downtown, and nearby residents received a notice of road closures taking place due to the project. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
The state courts, for example, are not trying to enjoin Donald Trump from taking office. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:52 am
Anderson makes five arguments that if, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,… Continue reading The post Keisler and Bernstein: “Trump’s Reply Brief ‘Officer’ And ‘Office’ Arguments Miss The Mark” appeared first on Election Law Blog. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:35 am
Anderson, is chock full of issues surrounding the applicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the former president. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
" For examples, Lash suggests (at 6) that the office of President of the United States might not be included in Section Three because "no scholar has identified a single example of a ratifier describing Section Three as including the office of the President," making similar inferences-from-silence about coverage of the Presidency throughout the piece (at 21, 31, 41). [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:59 am
Norma Anderson will turn on an interpretation of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
Anderson. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
Anderson asserts (pp. 38-40) that Section Three can only be enforced following a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 8:53 pm
Anderson, the Respondents’ Theory Would Render Unconstitutional Every Speaker and President Pro Tempore Since 1789, as Well as President Grant’s VP and Presidential Candidate George McGovern; Justice Scalia erred because there are no ‘Officers of the United States’ appointed outside Article II, Section II” appeared first on How Appealing. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm
Anderson, and many of the amici, (mis)characterize Colorado as having acted to "enforce" Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is not, in fact, what Colorado is doing (or would be doing, anyway, if it removed Donald Trump's name from the primary election ballot, which it hasn't done and likely won't ever do).In the course of that post, I wrote that a state lacks any power to actually enforce Section 3, or any other federal qualification for office,… [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm
Ohio apply to the Section 3 question, and that such incitement was a form of “engaging in” the violent insurrection itself—conduct that disqualifies Trump from serving in any future covered federal or state office, including the presidency. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm
Anderson” is based on a serious mistake. [read post]
