“SCOTUS Of Mice or Wo/men of Integrity, sworn to honor their oaths to the US Constitution rather than their benefactor.” John Johnson II 01/10/24
By John Johnson II
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Supreme Court for the purposes of issuing writs of mandamus. These writs are legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law. Amazingly, SCOTUS is facing an existential dilemma regarding the 2024 presidential election. They must resolve whether the 14th Amendment’s due process and qualification clauses are mutually exclusive.
America’s democracy is at stake. Therefore, SCOTUS must way the factor if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is or isn’t a subordinated clause within the 14th Amendment itself. Upon further review of the 14th Amendment, it clearly stipulates that the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without “due process;” thus, Section 3, disqualification clause, is not the overriding clause within this amendment.
In other words, are the two Clauses “Mutually Exclusive” (ME)? Investopedia defines (ME) as a statistical term describing two or more events that cannot happen simultaneously. It is used to describe a situation where the occurrences of one outcome supersedes the other. For example, it’s also stated that war and peace cannot coexist at the same time.
Consequently, the due Process Clause as stipulated in the 14th Amendment and the disqualification clause Sec. 3, are also mutually exclusive. No individual’s right to run for or hold an official governmental position is subject to denial if it’s merely alleged that they engaged in an insurrection or aided the same without “due process.” Or nor can a State’s Supreme Court rule against an individual rights, absence the defendant not adjudicated guilty by a lower court of law.
In other words, an individual cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. An individual’s disqualification or guilt requires adjudication by a court of law. SCOTUS judicial responsibility is to clarify the interpretation, application, and impact of the due process clause on the exercise of the disqualification clause at the States’ level. Trump’s violation of the disqualification clause Is subject to determination through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
SCOTUS should certainly review all the debates held during 1866 by the Senate and House prior to the final ratification of Sec. 3, of the 14th Amendment. Michigan Republican Sen. Jacob Howard offered the definitive language, though highly contested, leading to the ratification of Sec. 3, on July 9, 1868.
Furthermore, even the following three basic presidential qualifications are subject to challenges: 1) Thirty-five years of age; 2) Natural born citizen; and 3) Resided in the US for 14 years. When former president Obama’s birthplace faced questioning by Trump, his birth certificate validated that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. However, if the birth certificate mistakenly lacked verification, this situation may very well have faced litigation in a court of law.
Given the tremendous impact of SCOTUS decision regarding whether the 14th Amendment’s due process and disqualification clauses are mutually exclusive, it’s extremely vital that no political or benefactor influences their decision. Rather, they should rely on moderate and not an originalist interpretation of the US Constitution. Simply stated, it’s my belief that, “SCOTUS decision rest solely upon deciding if these two clauses are mutually exclusive.”
If SCOTUS decides that due process and disqualification clauses are mutually exclusive, also in my opinion, no individual can or should summarily face denial of any of their rights.
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Be the first to comment