Latest Breaking News On - At bush v gore - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
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. former federal appeals court judge michael luttig, who was appointed to the court by republican president george h. w. bush, believes section three couldn't be any clearer. >> the supreme court is not -- wrong to decide this case. and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible, to avoid deciding whether the former president is
and two segments of history. eric just pointed us to one of them. they need to really read those debates in 1866, over the creation of the 14th amendment. but i would guess they are also going to be looking, if not explicitly, implicitly, at bush v. gore. i mean to me, this colorado decision, it seems to me is going to depend on whether there are five justices who will be good textualists, and do as -- said, read carefully and do what it says. but whether they are truly going to be -- by bush v. gore, which was their step into determining who wins elections, and determines somehow to never do that again. only one member of this court was there in bush v. gore, of course, and that's clarence thomas. now i doubt he is going to be haunted by it. but i really think that is part of what they are going to have to look at. and today, i just went and read