No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn't a new precedent by any stretch.

Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So does XIII, section 2

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And XV, section 2

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So there it is right there.

Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don't know what I don't know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But "unprecedented" isn't one of them, it seems.

There are mountains of case history on the other amendments. This one is truly new.

Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.

I'd prefer a peaceful outcome, but there's a level of brain rot you just can't fix. I had almost daily political discussions with a coworker who was far right and listened to fox News every day and I genuinely saw progress with his critical thinking skills. But then he retired and went off the deep end and got banned from Facebook for his rants about the EVIL LIBERALS.

They won't go out en masse. A few might try something but that's already happening.

Why should I care that the MAGAt gravy seal wing of y'all qaida get drone striked into oblivion?

They're anti-american traitors, draping themselves in the American flag.