This isn't from the article but it sure is funny!
While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed.
This isn't from the article but it sure is funny!
While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed.
Seems like a very poor textual reading of the clause -- if there was a requirement for enacting legislation, it would obviate the stipulation that the bar to hold office could be removed by legislative supermajority. (Like, why would the text say the bar could be ignored if you had 2/3 majority, when you could also just ignore the bar w/a bare majority?)