Their perspective was that they didn't need to decide that issue because the facts weren't presented to them. An example I can think of is a conviction for insurrection or a similar crime.
" The message Barrett tells us to “take home” from that fiat is that we should just chill because all 9 justices agreed that Colorado overstepped what any one state should’ve been able to do."
I recommend reading William Baude and Michael Paulsen's article and also looking to the Reconstruction era when a contemporaneous Congress passed a law removing the disability from most Confederate soldiers. Yet, Congress had not passed a statute saying Confederates couldn't run for office, which means they saw the Fourteenth Amendment as self executing. The Sweep and Force of Section Three by William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen :: SSRN
With the caveat that I haven’t read the opinion yet, unless the conviction were self-executing (a sentence that expressly imposes an office-holding disability?), wouldn’t the person forced to decide whether the conviction was disqualifying or not in that situation be the same state elections officials who aren’t supposed to be deciding eligibility to hold the office of the presidency?
What is ironically stunning is how much the Supreme Court emphasized how little state rights weigh these days. The Court reiterated that the every purpose of the 14th Amendment was to strip away state rights to be subservient to federal rights. I trust MAGA will remain consistent with their view of the strong federal government at the expense of state rights moving forward.
I don’t think a court conviction matters. I think the Court said only Congress can dictate who is disqualified, even though the text says the opposite- that Congress can reinstate the otherwise disqualified candidate. In other words, it appears that the Court has taken upon itself the right to legislate how one’s disqualification becomes effective. This was the point that the concurrence highlighted - there was no need to reach that disposition.
Assuming the two term limitation for presidents and the citizenship requirement requirement to be president are self-executing (while the majority says Section 3 is definitely not), does that mean states do have the authority to remove candidates without Congressional action on those different bases? Or would that still require a federal court ruling or other Federal action? Could states each hold their own trials and come to different conclusions about whether a candidate is, in fact, a citizen?
Seems to me that a state should be able to limit names in a ballot based upon its own laws. If a resident of a state doesn’t meet the requirements to vote in that state, they should be able to run for office. Similarly, in the case of a primary for a nationwide office, eg potus, any candidate that would qualify to vote in that state if they were a resident of that state should be included on the ballot, assuming they met all “filing” requirements. In Colorado specifically, any convicted felon can register to vote if they are not incarcerated at the time of an election. So, removal of Trump who’s not been convicted of any crime doesn’t really make any sense. It was really dumb move by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Ah, okay, I thought this was the case where Trump Lawyers argued that the president can murder his political enemies ….
A Colorado court said he was guilty of insurrection. The 14th Amendment gave no mechanism for disqualification of insurrectionists so a Colorado court disqualified him. The SCOTUS just decided to add a mechanism to this process not in the Constitution anywhere. So the states know best when it comes to regulating women's bodies but not when it comes to disqualifying traitors.
To put it simply, Democrats are not protectors of "democracy," and it is profoundly undemocratic to try to win an election by weaponizing the government against one's opponent. In other words, despite her protestations and lofty language, Griswold is the baddie in this scenario. She's the authoritarian, and it took the Supreme Court stepping in to stop her. Perhaps some introspection is in order. Colorado Secretary of State Gets the Crazy Eyes During Breakdown Over Trump Ballot Decision
First, Trump was not found "guilty of insurrection." Indeed, of all the charges (civil and criminal) brought against Trump, insurrection is not among them. Pretty sure that if there was a case for insurrection, Jack Smith would've found the time to include it along with all the other charges. Thus, having never even been charged/indicted/tried for insurrection, being "guilty of insurrection" would be quite the trick and complete devastation of due process. Second, the Constitution, specifically 14th Am, reserves to Congress the determination of disqualifying a candidate for insurrection. The 9-0 opinion addresses this very point. So, it's in there (i.e., the Constitution) somewhere. ; ) As to your last spasm - yep, that's right there are issues/powers reserved to the states and other issues/powers enumerated to fall within federal purview. Don't like which issue/power falls under State or Federal authority, then amend the Constitution - which is what the 14th AM did (see "Second" above). Check out the Constitution some time, it makes for a pretty good read and isn't really that long. Third, it should be remembered that the CO Supreme Court (in a 4-3 vote) reversed the CO district court which held Trump could be on the ballot. Thus, the CO Supreme Court (4 of the justices) concocted a novel reading of the US Constitution to prohibit a candidate from a federal election. Even the 4 SCOTUS dissenters (on other grounds) held the CO Supreme Court's ruling could not stand. Other than that, I'm sure you at least feel better after venting this nonsense - much like the CO Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State, et al. who smiled and preened when they took their meaningless victory laps. Other than posters on websites, the only open question from serious legal analysts was whether the Co. Supreme Court's ruling would be reversed unanimously or 7-2. Now, we have that answer.
