https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress alone has that power. Just Barrett (correctly, in my view) wrote separately to say that they Court should have just said the states can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
@sh76 saidPresident Trump!!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress ...[text shortened]... can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
Hey, you fellers cannot call this a MAGA Court anymore. It is coming at you from all sides!
@sh76 saidThis may be a fair ruling. It does however call into serious question whether the insurrection language in the 14th amendment can ever be enforced at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress ...[text shortened]... can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
@suzianne saidAre you calling Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor incompetents who may have never read the Fourteenth Amendment?
One wonders if they have even read the Fourteenth Amendment.
Most incompetent court ever.
But then they did reverse 50 years of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.
285d
@mchill saidCongress could pass a law that anyone convicted under statutes X,Y,Z is prohibited from holding any public office, including the Presidency. It could be added as a penalty in the federal criminal code (Title 18) to certain crimes.
This may be a fair ruling. It does however call into serious question whether the insurrection language in the 14th amendment can ever be enforced at all.
285d
@sh76 saidNo they couldn't; the Constitution sets the qualifications for the Presidency.
Congress could pass a law that anyone convicted under statutes X,Y,Z is prohibited from holding any public office, including the Presidency. It could be added as a penalty in the federal criminal code (Title 18) to certain crimes.
@sh76 saidCongress "could" do a lot of things, but they don't. The bottom line here is the insurrection language in the 14th Amendment is now just a toothless clause that no wants to deal with.
Congress could pass a law that anyone convicted under statutes X,Y,Z is prohibited from holding any public office, including the Presidency. It could be added as a penalty in the federal criminal code (Title 18) to certain crimes.
@sh76 saidBut they can enforce other qualifications like not being born in the US (as Gorsuch wrote in another case and have been applied in others)?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress ...[text shortened]... can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
The decision is a joke; the "patchwork" argument made by the concurrence does not rely on any textual basis nor does it explain the cases above. And the Per Curiam is even worse; it doesn't even try to explain why every provision of the 14th and other Amendments are self-executing despite Section 5 or identical language but the "Insurrection and Rebellion" Clause isn't.
This is a political decision having nothing to do with Constitutional language or the Framer's intent.
285d
Here's the law now:
Colorado determines Candidate A wasn't born in the United States. It can bar him/her from the State primary ballot regardless of what other States do.
Colorado determines the Candidate A engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It cannot bar him from a primary ballot because other States might not and you'd have a "pathwork" result.
Someone please explain how this makes any sense.
285d
@no1marauder saidSomeone please explain how this makes any sense.
Here's the law now:
Colorado determines Candidate A wasn't born in the United States. It can bar him/her from the State primary ballot regardless of what other States do.
Colorado determines the Candidate A engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It cannot bar him from a primary ballot because other States might not and you'd have a "pathwork" result.
Someone please explain how this makes any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to me at all, but you're the lawyer so I was hoping you could explain it.
@mchill said? Why wouldn’t an insurrection be dealt with, if it is an insurrection? There was none in this case.
This may be a fair ruling. It does however call into serious question whether the insurrection language in the 14th amendment can ever be enforced at all.
Why don’t you start a thread on insurrections. And maybe mention what did not happen on January 6.
@no1marauder saidNo no no…..Tha action of the CO sec of state was what was the ‘political decision “. You tryin to confuse somebody.? A sec of state Trump hater makes a decision to act on a ‘crime’ that Trump was never even charged with, or convicted of, committing.
But they can enforce other qualifications like not being born in the US (as Gorsuch wrote in another case and have been applied in others)?
The decision is a joke; the "patchwork" argument made by the concurrence does not rely on any textual basis nor does it explain the cases above. And the Per Curiam is even worse; it doesn't even try to explain why every provision o ...[text shortened]... is is a political decision having nothing to do with Constitutional language or the Framer's intent.
Don’t tell me, you will try to dig another hole on this thread.
285d
@no1marauder saidYour second paragraph I find astounding. He was never charged with nor convicted of insurrection.
Here's the law now:
Colorado determines Candidate A wasn't born in the United States. It can bar him/her from the State primary ballot regardless of what other States do.
Colorado determines the Candidate A engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It cannot bar him from a primary ballot because other States might not and you'd have a "pathwork" result.
Someone please explain how this makes any sense.
Do you still stand by this ludicrous second paragraph.? It is not even worth an analogy. You are so naïve, just consider the ramifications that would occur. If secretaries of state could do what she did all day long, to anyone they pick out of the crowd.
You are poisoning the minds of people like Suzanne and Kev.