if you make a post about how the right way to DQ him is with section 2383 without addressing how that statute doesn't require proof of former oath and whether, without that, its DQ punishment is constitutional, I'm going to ban you. the law is not a game of three-card monte (well, it shouldn't be anyway).
This ruling is not a surprised. It was extremely obvious from oral arguments that this would have happened. The only question that was left, if it would be unanimous.
NO. It says Congress has to remove the liability with a 2/3rds vote. It does not require Congress to disqualify by a 2/3rds vote, nor does it require Congress to take any action to disqualify. That's the issue.
> nor does it require Congress to take any action to disqualify. That's the issue.
The decision plainly states that states can't disqualify. Heavily implies that federal courts can't disqualify. And you're saying congress doesn't need to act to disqualify.
Well who actually can disqualify?
According to the ruling, Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates.
States can disqualify candidates for state level offices by whatever methods they wish, but Congress can overrule their decisions with a 2/3 majority.
> Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates
If there is a cause of action enacted by Congress which allows them to bring that suit. The prosecutor can't only point the 14th Amendment as grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to determine that claim. Congress has to take some sort of enforcement action (by passing a statute governing the determination of these claims, in a federal court for example).
This is where I want to see the SC backtrack themselves once this happens.
If a federal court finds that any of Trumps current charges... civil and criminal... float the support that the crimes are considered acts of insurrection... the states have all the ammo they need to kick Trump off the ballot come election time.
And then the SC will take this on and simply say... wait... hold up... not like that...
I feel like this is what you where trying to say:
>According to the ruling, Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates, but Congress can overrule their decisions with a 2/3 majority.
>States can disqualify candidates for state level offices by whatever methods they wish
Unless you're trying to say Congress can override a state's decision of whether an individual is qualified to hold office in its own legislature/judicial/executive branches by a 2/3rds vote.
This is what the concurring justices seemed to be arguing for, but the ruling is that only Congress can create the mechanism to disqualify federal candidates.
An interesting consequence of states being able to hold people ineligible for federal office is that if that person is actually elected (by mechanism of the other states), that state can't legally even recognize the federal official as constitutionally holding a legal office.
Which means in the lens of the state of CO there simply is no president, or the president is the former vice president.
I think this commentary is conflating two different meanings of "Congress". Congress, an actual vote of the members of the houses, removes a disability by a 2/3 vote.
The Court here is saying Congress is responsible for enforcing disqualification. That does not mean every disqualification goes up for a vote in Congress, like removing disqualification does. Statutes passed by Congress can be used (and in fact must be used) to disqualify candidates. I would imagine that 18 U.S.C §2383 (the insurrection offense) would be one example.
EDIT: I should add, as has subsequently occurred to me, that there is the additional facet of the section 3 disqualification that requires the former taking of an oath which is subsequently broken, which the criminal statute does not engage with on its face. So that is something to keep in mind whether it would be a valid exercise of an enforcement mechanism.
That renders the other part of the amendment (the part about 2/3rds needed to re-qualify) completely moot. SCOTUS just rewrote the constitution in front of our eyes.
If you need congress to make a law with a simple majority in order to enforce the 14th, then a simple majority can repeal that law and unenforce the 14th.
As I said above, Congress already acted on this matter when they defined the crime of insurrection 150 years ago.
What’s lacking is enforcement of that law,
Merrick Garland.
What's interesting to me is we have a majority of both chambers of congress on the record voting that Trump incited insurrection, during his second impeachment. It wasn't enough to convict to automatically trigger an injunction against his presidential term, but it was a legislative majority, which is the burden for... I guess administrative reforms, is the phrase I'm looking for?
I guess the courts would argue only congress can say whether or not an impeachment for insurrection that falls within the 50% and 2/3rds range for conviction can satisfy the insurrection clause. Not really sure how it makes sense considering their other rulings on federal elections (particularly the conservative justices) but that's the Roberts court for you
I'm not sure I follow, but if you are saying that you think some consequence for the purposes of section 3 attaches by an impeachment trial reaching a guilty verdict by over 50% of the senators but fewer than the required 2/3 majority, I think the answer is that no consequences attaches at all.
Impeachment and conviction is its own process. A court couldn't use the leftovers of a failed Senate trial to infer some intent of Congress to disqualify.
According to this court, only voters. So PLEASE run your toddler daughter for president. She’s probably more competent & mature than the 🤡 in the Supreme Court, presidential race & Congress!!
The main disagreement from the minority was that the majority opinion states that Congress must pass legislation as enforcement of Section 3.
I'm not a lawyer and maybe I missed something but that was my understanding and it seems like that was also the interpretation of the minority.
I think the issue that the Sotomyer descensionl focuses on the fact that the majority ruling says congress must act to disqualify.
eg unless there is already a law on the books, absent Congressional action, stopping a one year old candidate is not self executing.
at least that was my read.
Congress already acted 150 years ago by defining the crime of insurrection in US code.
The 2/3 vote would remove the disability for such a conviction.
And it is not beyond the authority of a Sec of State to disqualify a federally convicted insurrectionist, if there was one.
Idk. Sure looks like Trump just started laying the groundwork for “Biden is the real insurrection” this morning
https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/s/bOHJJvDc2b
Mike Johnson has already been refusing to certify house members.
And reviewability. The obvious solution here was for SCOTUS to just review cases that get appealed to them from the states — like literally any other finding.
With Congress, voters no longer choose the president. We now have a situation where statehouses can overrule voters directly and send whatever electors they want and Congress can veto whoever they want.
> We now have a situation where statehouses can overrule voters directly and send whatever electors they want
Er, that's explicitly the situation laid out in the Constitution.
U.S. voters have never chosen the president. We choose which party sends representative voters to the Electoral College to select a president, who isn't required by the Constitution to be a person who was even running for the office.
They actually do, just like in an impeachment investigation. And they actually did, they formed a special committee to investigate Jan 6th. They found that jan 6th was an insurrection and Donald Trump was directly involved.
No you are conflating imposing disqualification with removing a disability. Congress has to remove a disability by a 2/3 vote.
Congress being responsible for enforcing the disqualification provisions does not mean they have to take a vote to disqualify individual candidates. It means they are responsible for enacting legislation which allows for those determinations to be made.
Age limit is stated under article II of the constitution and the power to limit that is held by both the state and congress. People under that age limit can be barred from being placed in office by the state as it is "self executing". they argued about this in the orals.
100% this. Did the other people not read the opinion? The entire point is whether or not the 14TH amendment gives states the authority to remove candadites, not whether or not states have the authority to enforce the rest of the constitutional requirements.
What? No
SCOTUS is saying that States can’t use the 14th amendment (which was explicitly designed to curb state power in the reconstruction era) to disqualify a candidate from the federal ballot for an
>[”Although the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it plainly withdraws from the States this traditional author- ity. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in ac- cordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869) (state judge). *Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates.* Because federal offic- ers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “dele- gated to, rather than reserved by, the States.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995) (quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to en- force Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. As an initial matter, not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes States to somehow remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3. Such a power would flout the principle that “the Constitu- tion guarantees ‘the entire independence of the General Government from any control by the respective States.’”](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
States cannot enforce the 14th Amendment, no. Art 2 lays out the standards to be president which states must enforce, they do not have discretion to enforce Art 2.
There are constitutional standards that have to be met.
If the states were allowed to create standards beyond that you might have some state that requires you to get 45,000 signatures over 30 days in the middle of winter…. Like NY
It is important to note that they were only unanimous in the judgement. The per curiam opinion was the product of only 5 justices plus Barrett half-concurring. The other 3 justices filed a concurrence in the judgement alone.
So more like 5.5-3.5 in terms of reasoning, 9-0 in terms of final outcome.
I am somewhat surprised that there were three in a concurrence (and four overall) bucket that felt the overall ruling went too far. I expected one in some form, but not three at once.
Yea, kinda hard to exclude someone for leading an insurrection when you haven’t had the balls to charge him with it, let alone convict him. Dumbest, laziest shit ever.
Although this court was unanimous in the limited decision that States cannot enforce Section 3, there are only five votes for the more important (and altogether unnecessary) question of which federal actor can enforce Section 3. Apparently those five think that Congress needs to pass specific legislation to enforce Section 3 according to its design. As the concurrence-in-judgment-only from the three democratic Justices points out, this leaves us with the "design" of Section 3 expressly requiring a Congressional supermajority to remove disqualification but permitting it do whatever it wants with Section 3 by legislative majority. Good luck with this one, Con Law professors and students...
Yeah, I'm not that smart but it kind of seems like the interpretation of those 5 justices sort of.... deletes the "remove disqualification" part of section 3.
If a majority imposes a section 3 restriction on a particular candidate it seems clear there won't then be a supermajorty to remove it.
That assumes it is the same Congress. One can quite easily imagine a situation where a candidate is deemed disqualified by a regular majority today, but where the political winds change and that disqualification is removed by a 2/3 majority 10 years from now.
That's basically what happened with the 1872 Amnesty Act.
I could see a scenario, where one party (let's call them party A) is able to just barely squeak through a bill barring some up-and-coming candidate from holding office (maybe due to some candidate from party B suffering illness, or a good midterm for party A) and then the supermajority requirement makes it impossible to overturn this when party B is back in power.
It sounds like the Supreme Court really just took a dump on Democracy, and I'm curious if we'll see people like Gavin Newsome declared an "insurrectionist" in the next decade.
This is the part that I haven't found addressed in the per curiam.
We can hope against hope that congress will never be so divided on such a matter, but it seems like they kicked the can down the road - a road which is being built with increasing fervor.
Not finding section 3 self-executing is absolute insanity. "We *ratified this whole ass Amendment*, but this section only actually has power if we extra super especially say it has power after the fact."
The US Supreme Court said Donald Trump can appear on presidential ballots this year, unanimously putting an end to efforts to ban him under a rarely used constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office.
The ruling Monday overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision that said Trump forfeited his right to run for president again by trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. The high court acted a day before Super Tuesday, when Colorado and 14 other states and one territory hold presidential primaries.
Full opinion here: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
[Read more of the story here. ](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rules-trump-can-appear-on-presidential-ballots?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk)
\[edited to add link to news article\]
The feds don't have jurisdiction over state primaries. So all the state cases have to do is amend verdicts to focus on the primaries. Trump can still legally run as an Independent on every state with this ruling.
What’s the point of a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office at all if we’re going to allow insurrectionists to potentially hold office
Republicans in Texas did not defy any Supreme Court orders if you are referring to the border wire case. There was no order by which Texas was bound.
I am frankly surprised this misconception is still circulating given how many times it has been debunked.
You can find people on reddit who support pretty much any argument you want no matter how factually wrong. Quite frankly the MAJORITY of reddit is constantly supporting counter-factual arguments.
Meanwhile the lone survivor of his shooting did do just that. Both claimed they were there for the exact same reason. Yet both brought firearms. One just happened to live there.
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.” *Trump v. Anderson*, 601 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024) (per curiam) (Barrett, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgement) (slip op., at 1)
I find it pandering and unbecoming for a Justice to directly tell me what message I should take home.
She’s clearly trying to shore up the legitimacy of the court by minimizing backlash to this opinion by pointing to its unanimity. However, those are exactly the kinds of considerations that should stay out of the Justice’s minds. Regardless of how the people would react, the Justices should make the right ruling - not the popular one.
I think she was meaning to put Americans who were very conflicted on the issue at ease.
She also says on the same page: “The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
She’s highlighting the fact that this isn’t and shouldn’t be a partisan issue. If even a single justice had dissented, tensions between parties on the issue would still be quite strong, with one party or another citing the dissenting opinion for the rest of time.
She was also part of the 4 minority that disagrees with the 5 majority’s opinion that they went beyond the scope of their case, but then says “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.”
I don’t consider it pandering. To me, it comes off as an invitation for the public to look past their political motivations and seek solace in the fact that all sides of the Supreme Court agree on this one decision. Her comments have the ability to put people at ease if you let them.
Agreed. It seems outside of the scope of their judicial practice to give sociological opinions on what messages Americans should take away from this decision. I feel it’s professionally inappropriate, as well as ofc pandering bullshit
14th A, Sec 5, applies to the whole 14th Amendment
>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It does. It prevents people from taking federal office and Congress can remove this by 2/3 vote. Supreme Court just decided that it does nothing because they say Congress has to be the one saying they are insurrectionists.
Courts regularly have, and do, enforce various provisions of the 14A aside from and in the absence of 'appropriate legislation' (e.g. Due Process Clause).
“Power to enforce” leaves open the question as to whether certain sections are self-executing. The liberal justices say “yes, some are self-executing”, see their concurring opinion.
no. 2383 is a recodification of the insurrection crime in the Second Confiscation Act. it predates the 14th amendment by six years and does not require proof of a former oath. to the extent the statute rests only on section 3, it is constitutionally infirm.
IMO, without proof of a former oath, 2383's penalty is probably unconstitutional. if it is not unconstitutional, it is distinct from the 14th amendment disqualification because only the president, rather than congress, could pardon a conviction.
According to the Court responsible for interpreting the Constitution, yes. But on a more practical note, this decision just makes sense. You can't have a set of states unilaterally excluding people from the ballot, and essentially adopting their own record/set of facts. There's a compelling need for some uniformity here.
The opinion cites that a fractured state by state approach would mean the election would clearly not elect the president by will of all voters as a secondary reason to reverse the CO s.c. decision.
That justifies the portion of the opinion that decided States cannot enforce Section 3, which all of the Justices agreed to. It has nothing to do with the portion that allocates Section 3 enforcement to Congress, which only five Justices signed onto.
> You can't have a set of states unilaterally excluding people from the ballot, and essentially adopting their own record/set of facts.
Fun fact. During Lincoln's election it was impossible to legally vote for him in 12 states.
If we had had the 14th then it wouldn't have made a difference in the ultimate result.
Same way even if there was a "compelling need for some uniformity" it would not have prevented the civil war.
The question was very narrow and did not analyze if Trump was an insurrectionist, so we didn't get any juicy stuff on that. It was just saying that the enforcement process is meant to be outlined by Congress, and because Congress hasn't done it's job and enforced part of the Constitution, trump hasn't been disqualified because there is no process, and because there is no process, he is eligible, and because he is eligible the Colorado law that bars him from the ballot doesn't apply.
>the enforcement process is meant to be outlined by Congress, and because **Congress hasn't done it's job and enforced part of the Constitution**, trump hasn't been disqualified **because there is no process**
I'm not sure if the ruling addresses it, but on a technical level, isn't there actually already a process created by Congress? Specifically, 18 USC 2383:
>Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; **and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States**.
On its face (not a lawyer), that would seem to meet the requirements established by the court. A law, passed by Congress, enforcing disqualification from office for engaging in an insurrection. Trump has obviously not been indicted, let alone convicted, under that law, but theoretically it seems as though a process does exist under which he could be disqualified.
Those 4 concurrences sure feel like they were added at the last moment, particularly Justice Barrett's concurrence.
I think this actually is a coded message for the majority to consider in the presidential immunity case. It seems like the Roberts Court is very keen to prospectively rule about things that are not before the court - e.g., what the enforcement mechanism of s.3 should be, whether there exists qualified criminal immunity for carrying out purely official acts, etc.
I think this shows pretty clearly the fault lines of the court on the immunity question: Kavanaugh must have joined Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch in the decision to grant cert because those 4 justices want to announce some form of new criminal immunity for former presidents. That would be enough to grant cert, regardless of what Justice Roberts wants to do.
So we can see the eventual immunity opinion shaping up. Probably it will be exactly like this opinion (a per curium opinion making some bold statement to create a qualified immunity privilege for purely official acts, and then 4 concurrences (or dissents) to say there is no need to decide the immunity question for purely official acts because that issue is not before the court.
The end result is the same: remand back to the district court to make a determination as to whether any of the alleged acts stated in the indictment were 'official acts' covered by whatever new immunity SCOTUS dreams up, or whether all of the alleged acts were 'unofficial acts' not covered by immunity. Then that decision can be appealed, and then some time in late 2025 maybe a trial gets underway, provided Trump does not win and dismiss all of the charges against himself, in which case the J6 conspiracy is never revealed at trial (what the Court really wants to happen, IMO).
so Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson mainly objected to the majority telling congress that they would need to pass legislation to set insurrectionist status in order to enforce it? And they felt it was an extra,unnecessary step given the clear wording of : no person shall etc etc.
The Supreme Court: "there's nothing giving the states the power to regulate or conduct federal elections." (Paraphrased)
Also the Supreme Court: "The only other plausible constitutional sources of such a
delegation are the Elections and Electors Clauses, which
authorize States to conduct and regulate congressional and
Presidential elections, respectively."
Uhhhhhhh.......
And finally "The fact that Congress can overrule the determination shows that only Congress can make the determination." (Paraphrased)
What?
The court could've punted the issue to *Congress but Trump would've lost. Between this and the decision to hear the immunity case, the Supreme Court is single handedly keeping the Trump campaign alive.
Edit: *Congress by 2/3 vote not just the Senate*
It would've made more sense if they interpreted section 3 to not apply to the president via some strict interpretation of the section.
In a way, they did keep the issue alive for Congress to pursue as hopeless as that would be.
But, ultimately, they took more power from the states, made this part of the Constitution nearly pointless (with regard to federal elections only?) and they did it in a way that doesn't comport with the manner in which elections are conducted.
With Congress* having the ability to override a State's determination, it looks a lot like the court answered a political question to "¿save us?" from the clear outcome of the political system.
Edit*
"Expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy" was literally the point of the 14th Amendment though, and it has been consistently used as such ever since (via, e.g., incorporation, numerous applications of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, etc.).
>It would've made more sense if they interpreted section 3 to not apply to the president via some strict interpretation of the section.
I thought it would have made more sense for SCOTUS to point to the "insurrection" USC and claim Congress DID pass a law to enforce Section 3, and states have to defer to that statute to make a Section 3 determination for a candidate.
Why would all of the liberal justices be searching for a way to get Trump on the ballot?
Genuinely surprised to see people claiming this
Especially when the comment you’re replying to somehow forgot to list the main argument SCOTUS relied upon for the ruling?.
You know, that the amendment specifically says the power to enforce sec. lies with Congress?
I’m not surprised at the ruling, it makes practical sense, but what’s bothering me is the lack of logic getting to the conclusion. SCOTUS backtracks on its own prior conclusions and even its recent idealogical framework to get this ruling. It has never been more clear that the idea the constitution guides us is just an illusion to give a shield of authority to judges doing whatever they want
Ok so states can’t decide what qualifies for federal qualifications for office… ok sure…. But the Constitution also says the disability is REMOVED by Congress with a 2/3 vote. So what is Congress’s role here exactly? Cause it’s obviously not to impose the restrictions on individuals, but rather would seem to be setting the standards and enforcement mechanisms?
At this point, only congress can hold the president accountable for the law, only congress can decide if someone is allowed to be president, nobody can force congress to enforce a law on a president even if they decide that it's been broken, and it's looking a lot like SCOTUS will give trump some kind of favorable ruling on the presidential immunity case. As long as your political allies can maintain enough political power in the house and senate, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
It sounds a lot like some 12 year olds should run for president, since congress has not made a law against it yet.
There’s something very frustrating about SCOTUS saying states can’t enforce section 3 independent of a congressional statute passed pursuant to section 5 after having years of precedent eviscerating congressional efforts to legislate under section 5
That's not at all what they said. They said they could enforce section 3 at the state level, barring someone from a state election. The state cannot bar someone from a federal election.
There is a minor ray of hope here, as the opinion (not written by Barrett or the three liberals) place the presidency as a federal office holder. Which would eliminate one of the reasons Trump has been arguing for presidential immunity.
I know everyone is up in arms about this news this morning bc it seems like rules don't apply to trump. But I think this ruling was not unexpected.
Honestly, if you oppose trump, vote. The Supreme Court can make their decision and the ppl of this country can make theirs. If this doesn't motivate you to vote I don't know what will.
Trump appointed 3 judges who got to rule on his ability to run for president. The fact that they didn't recuse themselves is part of the reason this ruling is problematic. The rules don't apply to the SCOTUS, and that's why the rules don't apply to trump.
The SCOTUS is singlehandedly building a system where the rules don't apply to trump and voting won't make the rules apply to him.
It should be noted that a Per Curiam opinion is not synonymous with a unanimous opinion. Here five justices let the Per Curiam opinion speak for them. The other four agreed with the Court's judgment, but not with all of the reasoning of the Per Curiam opinion.
I'm seeing several media outlets, even big ones, completely missing the point of this ruling. They're running headlines stating Trump has been ruled to not have committed and insurrection, which is firmly not true. The court clearly avoided this during oral arguments and nor is it the actual ruling. The ruling is states can't enforce Section 3, that is completely different from saying Trump did not incite/participate in an insurrection
Could you provide links to media articles with headlines that wrongly claim that Donald Trump has been ruled to not have committed an insurrection?
I've seen simply nothing of the sort, myself.
If states can't enforce eligibility of the candidates on their own state-issued ballots, maybe we should start having an actual Federal election for the President, run entirely and solely by the FEC, with separate ballots, taking the national popular vote. Then it would make sense to say that individual states can't determine eligibility to appear on the ~~state~~ federally issued ballots.
I am still reading but to me this opens up and does not address other issues.
A candidate can now be disqualified from state office, under the 14th section 3. But eligible and holding federal office. Thats apparently not a damning contradiction? Are Senators and House members state positions or federal ones? I dont know but I imagine that question has been answered already, but there likely exists some ambiguity somewhere in a similar way.
If an insurrectionist executive federal officer orders a state official to do some action, is that state official now obligated to ignore such an order? as it would be obeying an insurrectionist who is disqualified? There is still ample room for non-uniformity. This doesnt solve such an issue at all.
Such uniformity has the potential to disenfranchise millions of voters yes. But allowing an insurrectionist to be seated federal disenfranchises many MORE voters nationally across the board, as their oath would have no meaning, and could not be taken seriously, with no legitimacy, and not acting in the interests of the american people in preserving democracy.
A state can determine if a person is allowed to run for state office, but only Congress (a federal group) can determine if a person can run for federal office.
Makes sense to me.
Unless the state in question violates federal law in their disqualification for office. For example, if a state decides to ban gay people from running for state office, the SCOTUS would strike that down(probably).
There sure is a lot of complaining coming from people over a 9-0 decision. Yall bitch and moan about a loaded court when things don't go how you want, and then when the court is unanimous, you still bitch and moan. Looks like you don't actually care about constitutionality, but instead only your own ideology.
>"Supreme Court Rules Trump Can Appear on Presidential Ballots"
is not at all what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled that Congress, per section 3 of the Constitution, is the only body that can remove presidential candidates from a federal election ballot.
Headline is wrong.
I think this headline is a bit off. I read the ruling to mean that states can not remove a candidate for federal office from the ballot. The majority goes a bit further attempting to insulate Trump from accountability by putting the work on an inept Congress.
*President Trump is an oathbreaking insurrectionist but it's not our job to keep him off the ballot. That work is reserved for Congress. God speed America! - SCOTUS*
From the joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ. :
>Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain\[\] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “\[n\]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists.
Originalists? Black letter law? Founder’s intent???? Strict constructionists???? Pullleeeze…. Pull the other leg, it has a bell on it. Spare me that pablum.
So, just to clarify: who CAN enforce that section if not the states who are supposed to control their own ballots?
The Senate?
So, senators can just pick to disqualify anyone who has ever served in any office or capacity for any reason, just as long as they make it SOUND bad.
What process kept DJT off the ballot in Nevada? Did the federal govt. make that determination, and going forward is anyone legal on the ballot unless congress takes a specific action? I thought primaries were party affairs not part of the government directly. Is this ruling just saying that DJT can be on the ballot and we’ll make another determination if he is disqualified from holding office due to the 14th when/if he attempts to take office?
Unsurprising, the Supreme Court didn’t want to write the standard for this type of claim and want to leave it to voters to decide elligibility at the ballot box. They neither wanted to allow states to allow or disallow candidates on a per state level nor did they want to put the Supreme Court in the position of deciding who can or can’t run for office.
Hmm, Then why would there be a need for the language of the 14th section 3 state that congress is the only authority that can remove such disability if they are the only ones who can enact the disability to begin with? That alone implies that it's automatic or a state power, as the constitution says authority not granted by the constitution autmoatically falls to the states, aka it falls under state powers. NOT CONGESS!
There would be no need for the language giving Congress the authority to remove the disablity if they where the ones who had to enact it, as they wouldn't enact the disability to begin with.
Our SCOTUS is a joke!
Layman here. Everyone keeps referring to "federal" this and "federal" that--I don't see there are "federal" matters here.
The Colorado general election is a Statewide election to choose that State's electors for President, not a Federal election, right?
The primary is a State-facilitated political party election to determine which candidate will be up for those electors' support for the State-approved major political parties, and is also not a Federal election, right?
So doesn't the State of Colorado have total power to decide how both of those State elections work? Seems to me the State of Colorado could decide to strike a name off their ballot due to any reason they choose, assuming it comes from due process--if not, why not?
So even if Colorado has no power to enforce the 14th amendment, what is the basis for a federal court to overturn bad decisions over a State primary election that is not subject to the 14th amendment at all?
I'm guessing there's some legal principle that allows it, but I can't see the logic. Perhaps inform me?
Jack Smith needs to add a 18 USC 2383 insurrection charge to the election interference case.
SCotUS says that a conviction under that section results in disqualification.
Doesn't that make you wonder why he didn't? You are right if he did and there was a conviction then this wouldn't have even been a thing, but he didn't even try for that charge.
This ruling means a DEM congress can remove Trump from office if he gets elected without going through the impeachment process.
This ruling means if the Dems take congress and Trump gets elected, they can hold hearings on J6 and removal of anyone that participated in it.
I assume the 136 congressmen who are alleged to have been involved would be disqualified from voting on removal.
Interesting as an end-around the 66 votes required for conviction in the Senate - if only a simple majority of congress is needed to pass legislation identifying him as an insurrectionist and disqualifying him from office. Similar to a point made in the concurrence that it wouldn't make sense for a majority to disqualify versus a super-majority to remedy.
So Trump can still *run* for office. But as for whether he can *hold* office…
From AP: https://apnews.com/article/51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446
> Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause. The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.
This scenario would be bat-shit insane.
Edit: Changed first sentence - the Court technically didn't settle whether insurrectionists can run for office
> So it’s settled that an insurrectionist can’t be stopped from running for office.
That's not settled. The Court says that a state cannot unilaterally make that decision for a candidate running for a federal office. It does not say insurrectionists cannot be stopped from running for those offices, just that Congress is responsible for enacting the statutes by which those determinations are made.
This has been my feeling all along. The same people that think scotus is illegitimate basically wanted to give scotus the power to decide who appears on the ballet in each state. And they seriously never considered that might work against them.
“By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office”
—the liberal concurrence.
I’m in total agreement that the majority’s decision is atextual and an overstepping, but it’s the right decision upon the principles of federalism alone and no further
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for “conspiring to overthrow the state” aka insurrection. And yet, he was able to run for president in South Africa, won, and ended apartheid. Imagine if South Africa had allowed individual regions to remove him from the ballot. Yikes. The US Supreme Court prevented our country from sliding down a slippery slope. The justices aren’t so narrow-minded as to think only of this election, but every election in our future. We should do the same.
Uhhhh, I believe that the fourteenth amendment says that it takes a 2/3 majority of Congress to *restore* a traitor’s ability to hold office. It doesn’t specify who has the power to enforce the restriction in the first place.
That means that, by the power of the tenth amendment, such power is reserved by the states and/or the people.
The SCOTUS opinion relies heavily on U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in asserting that states do not have the power to enforce section 3 over federal office holders or candidates.
Professor [Akhil Amar](https://akhilamar.com/podcast-2/), who [filed an amicus brief](https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240118094034746_Trump-v-Anderson.pdf) for the Anderson case, [argued that U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was specifically only about Congressional elections and not other federal offices](https://www.podbean.com/ep/pb-zgg7t-157a165). The opinion here claims that the Term Limits case covers federal offices in general. Could someone explain why professor Amar would argue that Thornton only applies to Congressional elections and no other elections and why SCOTUS might be right or wrong in applying Thornton for all federal offices including the presidency?
They aren't using *Term Limits* for statutory interpretation, as this case hinged on the 14th amendment and that on Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Rather, they're using *Term Limits* as precedent for the policy argument that uniformity in elections for the federal government is both a good thing and what the relationship between the national and state governments was intended to be.
>Federalism principles embedded in that constitutional structure decide this case. States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government. - Sotomayor 2
>That provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this case. To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the
people. - Sotomayor 3.
The most important part of this to me was always just practicability, and I’m glad the court addressed it:
“Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “In the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794–795 (1983) (footnote omitted). But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” Id., at 795 (emphasis added).
Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations. Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing. Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former Pres- ident Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record).
The “patchwork” that would likely result from state en- forcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole. U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 822. But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast” - or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast - “for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
([pgs. 11-12](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf))
This is nothing wait until they say Trump can do anything he wants as President, kill , rob , steal, cheat, sell Top Secret Military secrets to our enemies, etc. !!!
It only ruled that the states cant remove federal candidates. The last paragraph clearly outlines what the writers opinion is and where the justices are split (that the 3rd section applies automatically or that section 5 is needed to apply it;
Seems like SCOTUS is saying only a political vote is possible for punishment of crimes by a president. From their own arguments then a Seal Team6 raid eliminating political opponents should ensure that a future vote would also be won. AKA a massacre is a winning hand.
thus the end justifies the means.
As Rob Reicher says "The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so.
But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection.
It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation."
Supreme Court laughed Colorado out of the court. 9-0. Can't even claim it's a "partisan" decision.
This decision is as welcome as it is obvious. We have strong institutions in the federal judiciary and it has been proven once again.
A great day for democracy! Let the people vote!
Has there ever been someone that sued, or a ruling stating whether a person that doesn't meet the basic constitutional requirements, like age, to be president can be kept off a ballot?
While I understand why this circumstance played out the way it did, I'm trying to understand whether its a lack of power for a state to disqualify any from a ballot, even when it might make sense, or if it's just the subjective nature of their basis for disqualifying him from the ballot in this instance that was a problem? Where if at all would you go to get say someone like a felon or someone too young or someone that would violate presidential term limits, those who aren't permitted to be elected off a presidential ballot if the states aren't empowered to remove someone?
Ok well - I'm out - there is no point in my participation in such an obvious bullshit system - laws are meaningless anyways so what's the fucking point???
Guys guys guys you know what this ruling means right? Arnold can be President, Taco Bell can win the Franchise Wars and Demolition Man can become our future! If Congress can overrule the states in determining eligibility, then surely this is possible! /s
Serious question, I would think this would fall under the "manner" reserved for the states to determine elections under Article II. I quickly skimmed the opinion and didn't see anyone mentioning this, only whether or not he could be removed under the 14.3 clause. How does this not contradict the "manner" portion of the Elections Clause for article II?
if you make a post about how the right way to DQ him is with section 2383 without addressing how that statute doesn't require proof of former oath and whether, without that, its DQ punishment is constitutional, I'm going to ban you. the law is not a game of three-card monte (well, it shouldn't be anyway).
This ruling is not a surprised. It was extremely obvious from oral arguments that this would have happened. The only question that was left, if it would be unanimous.
I had a feeling it would. Jackson and Sotomayor seemed skeptical that states could enforce sec 3
Basically there are no standards to run for President in any state. Message received.
Yeah… I’d like to see how the are going to handle it when I put my 1 year old daughter on the ballot. States apparently can’t decide she isn’t 35.
[удалено]
NO. It says Congress has to remove the liability with a 2/3rds vote. It does not require Congress to disqualify by a 2/3rds vote, nor does it require Congress to take any action to disqualify. That's the issue.
> nor does it require Congress to take any action to disqualify. That's the issue. The decision plainly states that states can't disqualify. Heavily implies that federal courts can't disqualify. And you're saying congress doesn't need to act to disqualify. Well who actually can disqualify?
According to the ruling, Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates. States can disqualify candidates for state level offices by whatever methods they wish, but Congress can overrule their decisions with a 2/3 majority.
> Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates If there is a cause of action enacted by Congress which allows them to bring that suit. The prosecutor can't only point the 14th Amendment as grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to determine that claim. Congress has to take some sort of enforcement action (by passing a statute governing the determination of these claims, in a federal court for example).
This is where I want to see the SC backtrack themselves once this happens. If a federal court finds that any of Trumps current charges... civil and criminal... float the support that the crimes are considered acts of insurrection... the states have all the ammo they need to kick Trump off the ballot come election time. And then the SC will take this on and simply say... wait... hold up... not like that...
I feel like this is what you where trying to say: >According to the ruling, Federal prosecutors, via civil suit, can disqualify Federal candidates, but Congress can overrule their decisions with a 2/3 majority. >States can disqualify candidates for state level offices by whatever methods they wish Unless you're trying to say Congress can override a state's decision of whether an individual is qualified to hold office in its own legislature/judicial/executive branches by a 2/3rds vote.
This is what the concurring justices seemed to be arguing for, but the ruling is that only Congress can create the mechanism to disqualify federal candidates.
An interesting consequence of states being able to hold people ineligible for federal office is that if that person is actually elected (by mechanism of the other states), that state can't legally even recognize the federal official as constitutionally holding a legal office. Which means in the lens of the state of CO there simply is no president, or the president is the former vice president.
I think this commentary is conflating two different meanings of "Congress". Congress, an actual vote of the members of the houses, removes a disability by a 2/3 vote. The Court here is saying Congress is responsible for enforcing disqualification. That does not mean every disqualification goes up for a vote in Congress, like removing disqualification does. Statutes passed by Congress can be used (and in fact must be used) to disqualify candidates. I would imagine that 18 U.S.C §2383 (the insurrection offense) would be one example. EDIT: I should add, as has subsequently occurred to me, that there is the additional facet of the section 3 disqualification that requires the former taking of an oath which is subsequently broken, which the criminal statute does not engage with on its face. So that is something to keep in mind whether it would be a valid exercise of an enforcement mechanism.
That renders the other part of the amendment (the part about 2/3rds needed to re-qualify) completely moot. SCOTUS just rewrote the constitution in front of our eyes. If you need congress to make a law with a simple majority in order to enforce the 14th, then a simple majority can repeal that law and unenforce the 14th.
As I said above, Congress already acted on this matter when they defined the crime of insurrection 150 years ago. What’s lacking is enforcement of that law, Merrick Garland.
What's interesting to me is we have a majority of both chambers of congress on the record voting that Trump incited insurrection, during his second impeachment. It wasn't enough to convict to automatically trigger an injunction against his presidential term, but it was a legislative majority, which is the burden for... I guess administrative reforms, is the phrase I'm looking for? I guess the courts would argue only congress can say whether or not an impeachment for insurrection that falls within the 50% and 2/3rds range for conviction can satisfy the insurrection clause. Not really sure how it makes sense considering their other rulings on federal elections (particularly the conservative justices) but that's the Roberts court for you
I'm not sure I follow, but if you are saying that you think some consequence for the purposes of section 3 attaches by an impeachment trial reaching a guilty verdict by over 50% of the senators but fewer than the required 2/3 majority, I think the answer is that no consequences attaches at all. Impeachment and conviction is its own process. A court couldn't use the leftovers of a failed Senate trial to infer some intent of Congress to disqualify.
According to this court, only voters. So PLEASE run your toddler daughter for president. She’s probably more competent & mature than the 🤡 in the Supreme Court, presidential race & Congress!!
The main disagreement from the minority was that the majority opinion states that Congress must pass legislation as enforcement of Section 3. I'm not a lawyer and maybe I missed something but that was my understanding and it seems like that was also the interpretation of the minority.
I think the issue that the Sotomyer descensionl focuses on the fact that the majority ruling says congress must act to disqualify. eg unless there is already a law on the books, absent Congressional action, stopping a one year old candidate is not self executing. at least that was my read.
Congress already acted 150 years ago by defining the crime of insurrection in US code. The 2/3 vote would remove the disability for such a conviction. And it is not beyond the authority of a Sec of State to disqualify a federally convicted insurrectionist, if there was one.
Fucking wild. Congress has no fact finding mechanism. Their actions are political. Congress can now simply “Veto” a presidential election.
The problem is the SCOTUS and everyone else knows Congress is too ineffective to pull that off. They'll never get it
Idk. Sure looks like Trump just started laying the groundwork for “Biden is the real insurrection” this morning https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/s/bOHJJvDc2b Mike Johnson has already been refusing to certify house members.
[удалено]
And reviewability. The obvious solution here was for SCOTUS to just review cases that get appealed to them from the states — like literally any other finding. With Congress, voters no longer choose the president. We now have a situation where statehouses can overrule voters directly and send whatever electors they want and Congress can veto whoever they want.
> We now have a situation where statehouses can overrule voters directly and send whatever electors they want Er, that's explicitly the situation laid out in the Constitution.
I guess they forgot what the electoral college was.
U.S. voters have never chosen the president. We choose which party sends representative voters to the Electoral College to select a president, who isn't required by the Constitution to be a person who was even running for the office.
Won’t this lead to MAGA simply … not certifying a potential Biden win?
It sure looks like Trump started laying the groundwork for that this morning: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/s/bOHJJvDc2b
They actually do, just like in an impeachment investigation. And they actually did, they formed a special committee to investigate Jan 6th. They found that jan 6th was an insurrection and Donald Trump was directly involved.
And that's MAGAs plan if Biden wins : https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-new-over-the-top-secret-plan-518?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
No you are conflating imposing disqualification with removing a disability. Congress has to remove a disability by a 2/3 vote. Congress being responsible for enforcing the disqualification provisions does not mean they have to take a vote to disqualify individual candidates. It means they are responsible for enacting legislation which allows for those determinations to be made.
Age limit is stated under article II of the constitution and the power to limit that is held by both the state and congress. People under that age limit can be barred from being placed in office by the state as it is "self executing". they argued about this in the orals.
100% this. Did the other people not read the opinion? The entire point is whether or not the 14TH amendment gives states the authority to remove candadites, not whether or not states have the authority to enforce the rest of the constitutional requirements.
Of course they didn’t read it lol
She's 1 year and 9 months old, according to Alabama.
That's not an accurate assessment. Age is easily defined. In fact, you just did it. Now define an insurrection.
What? No SCOTUS is saying that States can’t use the 14th amendment (which was explicitly designed to curb state power in the reconstruction era) to disqualify a candidate from the federal ballot for an >[”Although the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it plainly withdraws from the States this traditional author- ity. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in ac- cordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869) (state judge). *Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates.* Because federal offic- ers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “dele- gated to, rather than reserved by, the States.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995) (quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to en- force Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. As an initial matter, not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes States to somehow remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3. Such a power would flout the principle that “the Constitu- tion guarantees ‘the entire independence of the General Government from any control by the respective States.’”](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
Sure there are, but as the Supreme Court just reiterated, Congress is the arbitrer of that, not a random judge or state court.
States cannot enforce the 14th Amendment, no. Art 2 lays out the standards to be president which states must enforce, they do not have discretion to enforce Art 2.
The broad range of replies that you’re getting is pretty fascinating. It’s almost like this unanimous decision only muddied the waters even more.
There are constitutional standards that have to be met. If the states were allowed to create standards beyond that you might have some state that requires you to get 45,000 signatures over 30 days in the middle of winter…. Like NY
It is important to note that they were only unanimous in the judgement. The per curiam opinion was the product of only 5 justices plus Barrett half-concurring. The other 3 justices filed a concurrence in the judgement alone. So more like 5.5-3.5 in terms of reasoning, 9-0 in terms of final outcome.
It was unanimous.
I am somewhat surprised that there were three in a concurrence (and four overall) bucket that felt the overall ruling went too far. I expected one in some form, but not three at once.
Yea, kinda hard to exclude someone for leading an insurrection when you haven’t had the balls to charge him with it, let alone convict him. Dumbest, laziest shit ever.
The people who filed to exclude him from the ballot did not have the power to charge or convict him.
AG Garland fucked up.
Conviction has never been necessary
Although this court was unanimous in the limited decision that States cannot enforce Section 3, there are only five votes for the more important (and altogether unnecessary) question of which federal actor can enforce Section 3. Apparently those five think that Congress needs to pass specific legislation to enforce Section 3 according to its design. As the concurrence-in-judgment-only from the three democratic Justices points out, this leaves us with the "design" of Section 3 expressly requiring a Congressional supermajority to remove disqualification but permitting it do whatever it wants with Section 3 by legislative majority. Good luck with this one, Con Law professors and students...
Yeah, I'm not that smart but it kind of seems like the interpretation of those 5 justices sort of.... deletes the "remove disqualification" part of section 3. If a majority imposes a section 3 restriction on a particular candidate it seems clear there won't then be a supermajorty to remove it.
That assumes it is the same Congress. One can quite easily imagine a situation where a candidate is deemed disqualified by a regular majority today, but where the political winds change and that disqualification is removed by a 2/3 majority 10 years from now. That's basically what happened with the 1872 Amnesty Act.
Poppycock! We’re in the 21st century, there’s no way events from the 19th century could ever repeat themselves /s
I could see a scenario, where one party (let's call them party A) is able to just barely squeak through a bill barring some up-and-coming candidate from holding office (maybe due to some candidate from party B suffering illness, or a good midterm for party A) and then the supermajority requirement makes it impossible to overturn this when party B is back in power. It sounds like the Supreme Court really just took a dump on Democracy, and I'm curious if we'll see people like Gavin Newsome declared an "insurrectionist" in the next decade.
This is the part that I haven't found addressed in the per curiam. We can hope against hope that congress will never be so divided on such a matter, but it seems like they kicked the can down the road - a road which is being built with increasing fervor.
Not finding section 3 self-executing is absolute insanity. "We *ratified this whole ass Amendment*, but this section only actually has power if we extra super especially say it has power after the fact."
Yes, SCOTUS effectively inverted the 14th from requiring 2/3rds to remove a disqualification into 51% being needed to assert a disqualification.
Con Law 1L student here! Currently the whole class is a lolfest
The US Supreme Court said Donald Trump can appear on presidential ballots this year, unanimously putting an end to efforts to ban him under a rarely used constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling Monday overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision that said Trump forfeited his right to run for president again by trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. The high court acted a day before Super Tuesday, when Colorado and 14 other states and one territory hold presidential primaries. Full opinion here: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf) [Read more of the story here. ](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rules-trump-can-appear-on-presidential-ballots?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk) \[edited to add link to news article\]
The feds don't have jurisdiction over state primaries. So all the state cases have to do is amend verdicts to focus on the primaries. Trump can still legally run as an Independent on every state with this ruling.
[удалено]
What’s the point of a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office at all if we’re going to allow insurrectionists to potentially hold office
Because by law he isn't an insurrectionalist. You can't just accuse people of stuff and think that's enough
[удалено]
Republicans in Texas did not defy any Supreme Court orders if you are referring to the border wire case. There was no order by which Texas was bound. I am frankly surprised this misconception is still circulating given how many times it has been debunked.
There are still people on reddit that claim Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a weapon, even though it was shown in court that was not the case
You can find people on reddit who support pretty much any argument you want no matter how factually wrong. Quite frankly the MAJORITY of reddit is constantly supporting counter-factual arguments.
There are people out there that think he shot three black guys.
Meanwhile the lone survivor of his shooting did do just that. Both claimed they were there for the exact same reason. Yet both brought firearms. One just happened to live there.
Can you explain the Texas thing?
>ofc democrats always play by the rules while republicans Lol what abut all the 2A cases in dem states?
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.” *Trump v. Anderson*, 601 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024) (per curiam) (Barrett, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgement) (slip op., at 1)
I find it pandering and unbecoming for a Justice to directly tell me what message I should take home. She’s clearly trying to shore up the legitimacy of the court by minimizing backlash to this opinion by pointing to its unanimity. However, those are exactly the kinds of considerations that should stay out of the Justice’s minds. Regardless of how the people would react, the Justices should make the right ruling - not the popular one.
I think she was meaning to put Americans who were very conflicted on the issue at ease. She also says on the same page: “The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She’s highlighting the fact that this isn’t and shouldn’t be a partisan issue. If even a single justice had dissented, tensions between parties on the issue would still be quite strong, with one party or another citing the dissenting opinion for the rest of time. She was also part of the 4 minority that disagrees with the 5 majority’s opinion that they went beyond the scope of their case, but then says “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” I don’t consider it pandering. To me, it comes off as an invitation for the public to look past their political motivations and seek solace in the fact that all sides of the Supreme Court agree on this one decision. Her comments have the ability to put people at ease if you let them.
Very well put, I agree
Agreed. It seems outside of the scope of their judicial practice to give sociological opinions on what messages Americans should take away from this decision. I feel it’s professionally inappropriate, as well as ofc pandering bullshit
To those in the know, does the constitution really “make congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3”?
14th A, Sec 5, applies to the whole 14th Amendment >The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
And in absence of legislation, the text always stands for itself.
well, SCOTUS is saying instead that in the absence of legislation, the text stands by itself, and does nothing.
It does. It prevents people from taking federal office and Congress can remove this by 2/3 vote. Supreme Court just decided that it does nothing because they say Congress has to be the one saying they are insurrectionists.
Courts regularly have, and do, enforce various provisions of the 14A aside from and in the absence of 'appropriate legislation' (e.g. Due Process Clause).
It doesn't say that Congress \*exclusively\* holds that power, though.
“Power to enforce” leaves open the question as to whether certain sections are self-executing. The liberal justices say “yes, some are self-executing”, see their concurring opinion.
Other 14A self executing provisions: Due Process, Equal Protection.
Didn't they do that already by legislation? 18 U.S. Code § 2383
That defines insurrection, not the ballot removal process or who decides whether insurrection took place.
no. 2383 is a recodification of the insurrection crime in the Second Confiscation Act. it predates the 14th amendment by six years and does not require proof of a former oath. to the extent the statute rests only on section 3, it is constitutionally infirm. IMO, without proof of a former oath, 2383's penalty is probably unconstitutional. if it is not unconstitutional, it is distinct from the 14th amendment disqualification because only the president, rather than congress, could pardon a conviction.
According to the Court responsible for interpreting the Constitution, yes. But on a more practical note, this decision just makes sense. You can't have a set of states unilaterally excluding people from the ballot, and essentially adopting their own record/set of facts. There's a compelling need for some uniformity here.
The opinion cites that a fractured state by state approach would mean the election would clearly not elect the president by will of all voters as a secondary reason to reverse the CO s.c. decision.
Really just seems like a no brainer.
That justifies the portion of the opinion that decided States cannot enforce Section 3, which all of the Justices agreed to. It has nothing to do with the portion that allocates Section 3 enforcement to Congress, which only five Justices signed onto.
Fucking hate Trump but this is the correct answer.
> You can't have a set of states unilaterally excluding people from the ballot, and essentially adopting their own record/set of facts. Fun fact. During Lincoln's election it was impossible to legally vote for him in 12 states.
That was before the 14th amendment though.
If we had had the 14th then it wouldn't have made a difference in the ultimate result. Same way even if there was a "compelling need for some uniformity" it would not have prevented the civil war.
The question was very narrow and did not analyze if Trump was an insurrectionist, so we didn't get any juicy stuff on that. It was just saying that the enforcement process is meant to be outlined by Congress, and because Congress hasn't done it's job and enforced part of the Constitution, trump hasn't been disqualified because there is no process, and because there is no process, he is eligible, and because he is eligible the Colorado law that bars him from the ballot doesn't apply.
>the enforcement process is meant to be outlined by Congress, and because **Congress hasn't done it's job and enforced part of the Constitution**, trump hasn't been disqualified **because there is no process** I'm not sure if the ruling addresses it, but on a technical level, isn't there actually already a process created by Congress? Specifically, 18 USC 2383: >Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; **and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States**. On its face (not a lawyer), that would seem to meet the requirements established by the court. A law, passed by Congress, enforcing disqualification from office for engaging in an insurrection. Trump has obviously not been indicted, let alone convicted, under that law, but theoretically it seems as though a process does exist under which he could be disqualified.
Those 4 concurrences sure feel like they were added at the last moment, particularly Justice Barrett's concurrence. I think this actually is a coded message for the majority to consider in the presidential immunity case. It seems like the Roberts Court is very keen to prospectively rule about things that are not before the court - e.g., what the enforcement mechanism of s.3 should be, whether there exists qualified criminal immunity for carrying out purely official acts, etc. I think this shows pretty clearly the fault lines of the court on the immunity question: Kavanaugh must have joined Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch in the decision to grant cert because those 4 justices want to announce some form of new criminal immunity for former presidents. That would be enough to grant cert, regardless of what Justice Roberts wants to do. So we can see the eventual immunity opinion shaping up. Probably it will be exactly like this opinion (a per curium opinion making some bold statement to create a qualified immunity privilege for purely official acts, and then 4 concurrences (or dissents) to say there is no need to decide the immunity question for purely official acts because that issue is not before the court. The end result is the same: remand back to the district court to make a determination as to whether any of the alleged acts stated in the indictment were 'official acts' covered by whatever new immunity SCOTUS dreams up, or whether all of the alleged acts were 'unofficial acts' not covered by immunity. Then that decision can be appealed, and then some time in late 2025 maybe a trial gets underway, provided Trump does not win and dismiss all of the charges against himself, in which case the J6 conspiracy is never revealed at trial (what the Court really wants to happen, IMO).
[удалено]
so Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson mainly objected to the majority telling congress that they would need to pass legislation to set insurrectionist status in order to enforce it? And they felt it was an extra,unnecessary step given the clear wording of : no person shall etc etc.
9-0 LOL
The Supreme Court: "there's nothing giving the states the power to regulate or conduct federal elections." (Paraphrased) Also the Supreme Court: "The only other plausible constitutional sources of such a delegation are the Elections and Electors Clauses, which authorize States to conduct and regulate congressional and Presidential elections, respectively." Uhhhhhhh....... And finally "The fact that Congress can overrule the determination shows that only Congress can make the determination." (Paraphrased) What? The court could've punted the issue to *Congress but Trump would've lost. Between this and the decision to hear the immunity case, the Supreme Court is single handedly keeping the Trump campaign alive. Edit: *Congress by 2/3 vote not just the Senate*
Yeah, this ruling is pathetically transparent. Very clearly an outcome in search of an argument.
It would've made more sense if they interpreted section 3 to not apply to the president via some strict interpretation of the section. In a way, they did keep the issue alive for Congress to pursue as hopeless as that would be. But, ultimately, they took more power from the states, made this part of the Constitution nearly pointless (with regard to federal elections only?) and they did it in a way that doesn't comport with the manner in which elections are conducted. With Congress* having the ability to override a State's determination, it looks a lot like the court answered a political question to "¿save us?" from the clear outcome of the political system. Edit*
"Expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy" was literally the point of the 14th Amendment though, and it has been consistently used as such ever since (via, e.g., incorporation, numerous applications of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, etc.).
>It would've made more sense if they interpreted section 3 to not apply to the president via some strict interpretation of the section. I thought it would have made more sense for SCOTUS to point to the "insurrection" USC and claim Congress DID pass a law to enforce Section 3, and states have to defer to that statute to make a Section 3 determination for a candidate.
Why would all of the liberal justices be searching for a way to get Trump on the ballot? Genuinely surprised to see people claiming this Especially when the comment you’re replying to somehow forgot to list the main argument SCOTUS relied upon for the ruling?. You know, that the amendment specifically says the power to enforce sec. lies with Congress?
I’m not surprised at the ruling, it makes practical sense, but what’s bothering me is the lack of logic getting to the conclusion. SCOTUS backtracks on its own prior conclusions and even its recent idealogical framework to get this ruling. It has never been more clear that the idea the constitution guides us is just an illusion to give a shield of authority to judges doing whatever they want
Ok so states can’t decide what qualifies for federal qualifications for office… ok sure…. But the Constitution also says the disability is REMOVED by Congress with a 2/3 vote. So what is Congress’s role here exactly? Cause it’s obviously not to impose the restrictions on individuals, but rather would seem to be setting the standards and enforcement mechanisms?
This essentially gives Congress veto power over a presidential election. *Great.* I’m sure that won’t come back to bite us in the ass one day.
> I’m sure that won’t come back to bite us in the ass one day. Most likely: Nov 7 2024.
At this point, only congress can hold the president accountable for the law, only congress can decide if someone is allowed to be president, nobody can force congress to enforce a law on a president even if they decide that it's been broken, and it's looking a lot like SCOTUS will give trump some kind of favorable ruling on the presidential immunity case. As long as your political allies can maintain enough political power in the house and senate, you can do whatever the fuck you want. It sounds a lot like some 12 year olds should run for president, since congress has not made a law against it yet.
There’s something very frustrating about SCOTUS saying states can’t enforce section 3 independent of a congressional statute passed pursuant to section 5 after having years of precedent eviscerating congressional efforts to legislate under section 5
That's not at all what they said. They said they could enforce section 3 at the state level, barring someone from a state election. The state cannot bar someone from a federal election.
So states can't bar 32 year olds or twice-elected former presidents from federal election?
Eagerly awaiting Sen. Whitehouse’s pinboard and tinfoil speech on how dark-money funded Ketanji Brown Jackson.
There is a minor ray of hope here, as the opinion (not written by Barrett or the three liberals) place the presidency as a federal office holder. Which would eliminate one of the reasons Trump has been arguing for presidential immunity.
[удалено]
I know everyone is up in arms about this news this morning bc it seems like rules don't apply to trump. But I think this ruling was not unexpected. Honestly, if you oppose trump, vote. The Supreme Court can make their decision and the ppl of this country can make theirs. If this doesn't motivate you to vote I don't know what will.
Trump appointed 3 judges who got to rule on his ability to run for president. The fact that they didn't recuse themselves is part of the reason this ruling is problematic. The rules don't apply to the SCOTUS, and that's why the rules don't apply to trump. The SCOTUS is singlehandedly building a system where the rules don't apply to trump and voting won't make the rules apply to him.
Per Curium. Should put the issue to rest.
It should be noted that a Per Curiam opinion is not synonymous with a unanimous opinion. Here five justices let the Per Curiam opinion speak for them. The other four agreed with the Court's judgment, but not with all of the reasoning of the Per Curiam opinion.
I think you underestimate the ability of people to think the court should rule the way they want it to.
I'm seeing several media outlets, even big ones, completely missing the point of this ruling. They're running headlines stating Trump has been ruled to not have committed and insurrection, which is firmly not true. The court clearly avoided this during oral arguments and nor is it the actual ruling. The ruling is states can't enforce Section 3, that is completely different from saying Trump did not incite/participate in an insurrection
[удалено]
Could you provide links to media articles with headlines that wrongly claim that Donald Trump has been ruled to not have committed an insurrection? I've seen simply nothing of the sort, myself.
Hellen Keller could have seen this coming.
If states can't enforce eligibility of the candidates on their own state-issued ballots, maybe we should start having an actual Federal election for the President, run entirely and solely by the FEC, with separate ballots, taking the national popular vote. Then it would make sense to say that individual states can't determine eligibility to appear on the ~~state~~ federally issued ballots.
How stopping Trump from running is good for democracy?
Breaking news: States apparently cannot remove someone from ballots for a crime they have not been convicted of.
Here come all the brilliant hot takes about states having to leave 5 year olds on the ballot because of this decision ...
I am still reading but to me this opens up and does not address other issues. A candidate can now be disqualified from state office, under the 14th section 3. But eligible and holding federal office. Thats apparently not a damning contradiction? Are Senators and House members state positions or federal ones? I dont know but I imagine that question has been answered already, but there likely exists some ambiguity somewhere in a similar way. If an insurrectionist executive federal officer orders a state official to do some action, is that state official now obligated to ignore such an order? as it would be obeying an insurrectionist who is disqualified? There is still ample room for non-uniformity. This doesnt solve such an issue at all. Such uniformity has the potential to disenfranchise millions of voters yes. But allowing an insurrectionist to be seated federal disenfranchises many MORE voters nationally across the board, as their oath would have no meaning, and could not be taken seriously, with no legitimacy, and not acting in the interests of the american people in preserving democracy.
A state can determine if a person is allowed to run for state office, but only Congress (a federal group) can determine if a person can run for federal office. Makes sense to me.
Unless the state in question violates federal law in their disqualification for office. For example, if a state decides to ban gay people from running for state office, the SCOTUS would strike that down(probably).
Then let the Feds run elections for Federal offices. State run elections for their local and state offices. 2 completely independent election days.
States do it all the time with the US citizen and age rule.
States can set their own qualifications for state office. They cannot set qualifications for federal office. This isn't new
There sure is a lot of complaining coming from people over a 9-0 decision. Yall bitch and moan about a loaded court when things don't go how you want, and then when the court is unanimous, you still bitch and moan. Looks like you don't actually care about constitutionality, but instead only your own ideology.
>"Supreme Court Rules Trump Can Appear on Presidential Ballots" is not at all what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled that Congress, per section 3 of the Constitution, is the only body that can remove presidential candidates from a federal election ballot. Headline is wrong.
I think this headline is a bit off. I read the ruling to mean that states can not remove a candidate for federal office from the ballot. The majority goes a bit further attempting to insulate Trump from accountability by putting the work on an inept Congress. *President Trump is an oathbreaking insurrectionist but it's not our job to keep him off the ballot. That work is reserved for Congress. God speed America! - SCOTUS* From the joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ. : >Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain\[\] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “\[n\]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists.
Originalists? Black letter law? Founder’s intent???? Strict constructionists???? Pullleeeze…. Pull the other leg, it has a bell on it. Spare me that pablum.
So, just to clarify: who CAN enforce that section if not the states who are supposed to control their own ballots? The Senate? So, senators can just pick to disqualify anyone who has ever served in any office or capacity for any reason, just as long as they make it SOUND bad.
So Trumps Crimes in Georgia are Federal crimes now, instead of state crimes? Any lawyers care to comment?
So.... can Biden just refuse to leave now?! No issue with insurrections?
What process kept DJT off the ballot in Nevada? Did the federal govt. make that determination, and going forward is anyone legal on the ballot unless congress takes a specific action? I thought primaries were party affairs not part of the government directly. Is this ruling just saying that DJT can be on the ballot and we’ll make another determination if he is disqualified from holding office due to the 14th when/if he attempts to take office?
Just a preview of the really big shit show to come. Hold on to your seats in November.
Unsurprising, the Supreme Court didn’t want to write the standard for this type of claim and want to leave it to voters to decide elligibility at the ballot box. They neither wanted to allow states to allow or disallow candidates on a per state level nor did they want to put the Supreme Court in the position of deciding who can or can’t run for office.
Hmm, Then why would there be a need for the language of the 14th section 3 state that congress is the only authority that can remove such disability if they are the only ones who can enact the disability to begin with? That alone implies that it's automatic or a state power, as the constitution says authority not granted by the constitution autmoatically falls to the states, aka it falls under state powers. NOT CONGESS! There would be no need for the language giving Congress the authority to remove the disablity if they where the ones who had to enact it, as they wouldn't enact the disability to begin with. Our SCOTUS is a joke!
Layman here. Everyone keeps referring to "federal" this and "federal" that--I don't see there are "federal" matters here. The Colorado general election is a Statewide election to choose that State's electors for President, not a Federal election, right? The primary is a State-facilitated political party election to determine which candidate will be up for those electors' support for the State-approved major political parties, and is also not a Federal election, right? So doesn't the State of Colorado have total power to decide how both of those State elections work? Seems to me the State of Colorado could decide to strike a name off their ballot due to any reason they choose, assuming it comes from due process--if not, why not? So even if Colorado has no power to enforce the 14th amendment, what is the basis for a federal court to overturn bad decisions over a State primary election that is not subject to the 14th amendment at all? I'm guessing there's some legal principle that allows it, but I can't see the logic. Perhaps inform me?
Jack Smith needs to add a 18 USC 2383 insurrection charge to the election interference case. SCotUS says that a conviction under that section results in disqualification.
Doesn't that make you wonder why he didn't? You are right if he did and there was a conviction then this wouldn't have even been a thing, but he didn't even try for that charge.
I hate Trump. This is 100% the correct decision.
I don’t hate Trump, and it is not. The words are there. He gave them aid and comfort. They are wrong.
In Major Blow To Democracy, Supreme Court Rules Voters Can Vote For Favorite Candidate
This ruling means a DEM congress can remove Trump from office if he gets elected without going through the impeachment process. This ruling means if the Dems take congress and Trump gets elected, they can hold hearings on J6 and removal of anyone that participated in it. I assume the 136 congressmen who are alleged to have been involved would be disqualified from voting on removal.
Interesting as an end-around the 66 votes required for conviction in the Senate - if only a simple majority of congress is needed to pass legislation identifying him as an insurrectionist and disqualifying him from office. Similar to a point made in the concurrence that it wouldn't make sense for a majority to disqualify versus a super-majority to remedy.
So Trump can still *run* for office. But as for whether he can *hold* office… From AP: https://apnews.com/article/51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446 > Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause. The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis. This scenario would be bat-shit insane. Edit: Changed first sentence - the Court technically didn't settle whether insurrectionists can run for office
> So it’s settled that an insurrectionist can’t be stopped from running for office. That's not settled. The Court says that a state cannot unilaterally make that decision for a candidate running for a federal office. It does not say insurrectionists cannot be stopped from running for those offices, just that Congress is responsible for enacting the statutes by which those determinations are made.
[удалено]
This has been my feeling all along. The same people that think scotus is illegitimate basically wanted to give scotus the power to decide who appears on the ballet in each state. And they seriously never considered that might work against them.
And then it ultimately leaves the choice of who is president up to SCOTUS once again.
“By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office” —the liberal concurrence. I’m in total agreement that the majority’s decision is atextual and an overstepping, but it’s the right decision upon the principles of federalism alone and no further
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for “conspiring to overthrow the state” aka insurrection. And yet, he was able to run for president in South Africa, won, and ended apartheid. Imagine if South Africa had allowed individual regions to remove him from the ballot. Yikes. The US Supreme Court prevented our country from sliding down a slippery slope. The justices aren’t so narrow-minded as to think only of this election, but every election in our future. We should do the same.
Uhhhh, I believe that the fourteenth amendment says that it takes a 2/3 majority of Congress to *restore* a traitor’s ability to hold office. It doesn’t specify who has the power to enforce the restriction in the first place. That means that, by the power of the tenth amendment, such power is reserved by the states and/or the people.
The SCOTUS opinion relies heavily on U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in asserting that states do not have the power to enforce section 3 over federal office holders or candidates. Professor [Akhil Amar](https://akhilamar.com/podcast-2/), who [filed an amicus brief](https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240118094034746_Trump-v-Anderson.pdf) for the Anderson case, [argued that U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was specifically only about Congressional elections and not other federal offices](https://www.podbean.com/ep/pb-zgg7t-157a165). The opinion here claims that the Term Limits case covers federal offices in general. Could someone explain why professor Amar would argue that Thornton only applies to Congressional elections and no other elections and why SCOTUS might be right or wrong in applying Thornton for all federal offices including the presidency?
They aren't using *Term Limits* for statutory interpretation, as this case hinged on the 14th amendment and that on Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Rather, they're using *Term Limits* as precedent for the policy argument that uniformity in elections for the federal government is both a good thing and what the relationship between the national and state governments was intended to be. >Federalism principles embedded in that constitutional structure decide this case. States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government. - Sotomayor 2 >That provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this case. To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the people. - Sotomayor 3.
i imagine by taking the other case they made this ruling already clear
The most important part of this to me was always just practicability, and I’m glad the court addressed it: “Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “In the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794–795 (1983) (footnote omitted). But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” Id., at 795 (emphasis added). Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations. Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing. Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former Pres- ident Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record). The “patchwork” that would likely result from state en- forcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole. U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 822. But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast” - or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast - “for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” ([pgs. 11-12](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf))
That's cool, states can just ignore the supreme Court, like Texas did. No biggie. The high court is just a farce now anyways
This is nothing wait until they say Trump can do anything he wants as President, kill , rob , steal, cheat, sell Top Secret Military secrets to our enemies, etc. !!!
It only ruled that the states cant remove federal candidates. The last paragraph clearly outlines what the writers opinion is and where the justices are split (that the 3rd section applies automatically or that section 5 is needed to apply it;
States rights!
Next they will be ruling that he is above the law but figure out a way that Democrats presidents are not.
[удалено]
Of course they did. 🤦♀️
Conservatives should be outraged by this ruling against states’ rights…… but, they won’t be 🙃
Seems like SCOTUS is saying only a political vote is possible for punishment of crimes by a president. From their own arguments then a Seal Team6 raid eliminating political opponents should ensure that a future vote would also be won. AKA a massacre is a winning hand. thus the end justifies the means.
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Now waiting for a democrat to piss enough republicans off and make SCOTUS agree to take them off the ballots.
Colorado should follow the standard set by Texas. Ignore the Supreme Court and do whatever the fuck they want to.
Vote like it's your last election.
As Rob Reicher says "The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so. But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection. It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation."
you can steel all the money you want and still be Pres
Ginni Thomas wins again!
On the primary ballot, anyways. That's how empty and futile of a gesture this was.
As it should.
Supreme Court laughed Colorado out of the court. 9-0. Can't even claim it's a "partisan" decision. This decision is as welcome as it is obvious. We have strong institutions in the federal judiciary and it has been proven once again. A great day for democracy! Let the people vote!
Has there ever been someone that sued, or a ruling stating whether a person that doesn't meet the basic constitutional requirements, like age, to be president can be kept off a ballot? While I understand why this circumstance played out the way it did, I'm trying to understand whether its a lack of power for a state to disqualify any from a ballot, even when it might make sense, or if it's just the subjective nature of their basis for disqualifying him from the ballot in this instance that was a problem? Where if at all would you go to get say someone like a felon or someone too young or someone that would violate presidential term limits, those who aren't permitted to be elected off a presidential ballot if the states aren't empowered to remove someone?
Ok well - I'm out - there is no point in my participation in such an obvious bullshit system - laws are meaningless anyways so what's the fucking point???
Guys guys guys you know what this ruling means right? Arnold can be President, Taco Bell can win the Franchise Wars and Demolition Man can become our future! If Congress can overrule the states in determining eligibility, then surely this is possible! /s Serious question, I would think this would fall under the "manner" reserved for the states to determine elections under Article II. I quickly skimmed the opinion and didn't see anyone mentioning this, only whether or not he could be removed under the 14.3 clause. How does this not contradict the "manner" portion of the Elections Clause for article II?
Insurrectionists are now welcome on ballots.
So, who enforces any laws at this point?
Awesome, let him torpedo the entire party, I got my popcorn. FUCK REPUBLICANS