I'm not agreeing with the argument that federal legislation is required. But I am inclined to agree with the argument that since we have federal legislation, in the form of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, that's the standard that must be used.
I'm not agreeing with the argument that federal legislation is required. But I am inclined to agree with the argument that since we have federal legislation, in the form of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, that's the standard that must be used.
To the extent that federal law raises the bar for disqualification, it shouldn't be required bc that means Congress can leave qualified those that section 3 disqualified without the super majority required in section 3 to lift the disability. That's my take at least.
Define "raising the bar"? Can Congress pass legislation by a majority that sets venue, standards of proof, who decides facts, where appeal can be taken and on what issues, deadlines, procedures, etc? Or would that be impermissible "raising the bar"? Does the Constitution prevent Congress from passing any legislation on this subject beyond what is contained in the Constitution itself?
I'm not agreeing with the argument that federal legislation is required. But I am inclined to agree with the argument that since we have federal legislation, in the form of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, that's the standard that must be used.
To the extent that federal law raises the bar for disqualification, it shouldn't be required bc that means Congress can leave qualified those that section 3 disqualified without the super majority required in section 3 to lift the disability. That's my take at least.
Define "raising the bar"? Can Congress pass legislation by a majority that sets venue, standards of proof, who decides facts, where appeal can be taken and on what issues, deadlines, procedures, etc? Or would that be impermissible "raising the bar"? Does the Constitution prevent Congress from passing any legislation on this subject beyond what is contained in the Constitution itself?
Certainly raising the standard of proof raises the bar. Section 3 doesn't require a conviction. They could have required that.