Elections are conducted at the state level, not the federal level. Congress would need to pass a law to enact this federally, which then mean it's not self-executing.
I found the notion of one state significantly impacting a national election to be quite weak. This is precisely the situation here, and the Court has the opportunity to establish boundaries for states to follow. Any abuse can be remedy by this Court. Instead of setting those boundaries, they are simply stating that states should not have that right because of concerns about potential abuse. I also found it to be very inconsistent. Just a few years ago, the Robert court ruled for States' rights, allowing each to determine their own partisan gerrymandering, even though they stated it's incompatible with democratic principles. They further said it can be unjust and distasteful, but that Congress has the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. Now, they are concerned that giving the State the right to bar candidates based on constitutional law opens up the door for abuse by other states. What happened to Congress having the ability to pass laws to curb excessive behaviors? Due process did come up, but only once, I believe. The Colorado lawyer stated that Trump had a full opportunity to call witnesses and present his case to the trial judge who ruled he engaged in insurrection, but he chose not to.
A Federal body would have to determine an insurrection took place. Then anyone involved would be ineligible. Section 3 would still hold and be self executing but the court would require Congress to resolve how insurrection is determined. That’s my best guess.
So, a new law or amendment that establishes this body or updates and clarifies the meaning of ‘insurrection’? Remember, Congress creates laws but doesn’t execute or judge them. When it comes to the existing constitutional law, should the Supreme Court refrain from judging it? The law is textually clear, and the court’s role is to interpret its meaning.
Yes. Some way to establish if an event meets the legal definition of an insurrection. It’s going to be a punt. They’ll say it’s not Colorado’s right to judge, but the Supreme Court is also not the right place. The Supreme Court should probably settle the issue, but it won’t. The special council also punted. The Jan 6 commission wanted an insurrection charge. The judges made a good point that section 3 was meant to protect the Federal government from insurrectionist lawmakers appointed by the states. So the states shouldn’t be the judge.
Ummmm....TJ, you do realize a REPUBLICAN initiated this............I know it doesn't for your narrative, is the gop now liberal or are some actually trying to save the gop from the orange cult master.................you are in a cult TJ, you should get some help sir
In the process of arguing what constitutes an insurrection, Trump’s lawyer asserted that the events on 1/6 were violent and constituted a crime. Jack Smith’s ears perked up.
That's BS from The Judges. There is a clear historical record showing that the writers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment included the POTUS, not a state appointed figure. Methinks that when the USSC judges sit down and write their opinions they are going to be in a world of hurt. The CO attorney who presented in front of the USSC mentioned that the CO Supreme Court also went hard after his case, but ended up supporting his case. From the orals arguments, one would expect that the judges will say CO overstepped its boundaries by deciding a candidate eligibility. But the problem with that is that this exactly each state's SOP, which the USSC has repeatedly deferred to. For example, CO previously kicked off a POTUS candidate since he was not a natural-born citizen. Did the USSC insert itself into that decision? Will the USSC be OK with each state deciding POTUS eligibility based on citizenship and age and the two term limits BUT not be OK with the state deciding the S3 14A eligibility? Here is a video poking fun at the POTUS desperately trying to avoid making a decision ...
I also I find that argument weak. Robert stated that point. There isn’t just one state. If the former Confederate states put an insurrectionist on the ballot, they can be sued, and the Supreme Court can order them to remove the candidate (again, it’s their job to interpret the law). Secondly, the former Union states would bar that candidate, effectively rendering him with no ability to win. In fact, the judges made a point that just one state barring a POTUS candidate can have huge ramifications on the result. So, saying that leaving it to the states doesn’t protect the federal government is very weak.
So I decided to look this up instead of speculating. Congress passed acts to enforce the 14th Amendment - The Enforcement Acts. They didn't leave it to the states or the Supreme Court. They didn't care if they upset the south because they already fought a war and won. This was part of the victory conditions. The insurrectionist were self evident, so there was never a jury to decide who they were. That is exactly what they did, but they did it at the federal level. It's the whole purpose of Sec 3 - to bar former confederates (and future insurrectionists) from holding office. The union states were not going to let the confederate states determine who was allowed to run for office. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
The argument about the states not being able to decide on their own who can qualify is an interesting one as the Constitution specifically gives the states the right to decide their electors. It seems like the Originalist solution would be if CO or any other state didn’t think someone wasn’t qualified then they could decide not to have their electors go to that person. While other states were free to do so. On a side note if the USSC were to rule that CO cannot individually disqualify a candidate as that would be deciding for the whole country that would also mean that arguments that state legislatures can not decide to send an alternate slate of electors. That has been a central argument for those who claim that the last election could’ve been reversed.
Here are the comments by Judge J. Michael Luttig (clerked for Scalia, his former clerk represented Trump in this case) wrt the oral disqualification arguments in the SCOTUS this week. Reader Digest Version: Luttig was not impressed.
Is it a coincidence that the non-partisan, non-political ussc is speeding out the decision the day before Super Tuesday (and the day before the Colorado primary)?
SCOTUS makes **** up as it sees fit … originalisim be damned Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson have a (joint?) opinion concurring in the judgment. They too agree that Colorado cannot keep Trump off the ballot. But then, they say, five justices go further and "decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and [Trump] from further controversy," by announcing "that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of enforcement." Not born in the US? Too young to serve as POTUS? Running to serve your third term? Go for it!!! The Congress can vote to disqualify, but one needs to control both Houses and have 60 votes in the Senate. S3 14A did have a Congressional provision. Congress could have put Trump back on the ballot in CO and elsewhere … yet … they did not.
