“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”in the challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Donald Trump from the primary ballot. The primary election in Colorado is tomorrow, March 5, which likely dictated the timing of the Opinion.
The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5…..
For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further.
Well, you didn’t convince a single liberal justice. Zero for three. Guess who the rabid partisans really are? Guess who the real extremists are? Guess who’s actually been working to undermine democracy and the rule of law? Guess who’s been feeding the public misinformation? I’ve got a mirror, if you need to borrow one.
None of which has anything to do with this decision, which isn’t about whether Trump is one but about who gets to decide that.
Then again, there are many separate reasons why Trump is eligible for the presidency. That just isn’t one of them.While you’re correct that there is no mention of that issue. A mere accusation is not reason enough to take away people’s rights. If they were to take him off the ballot for Insurrection he would have to be convicted of the crime, otherwise he didn’t commit it in the eyes of the law.That is not true. There is no requirement for a conviction, and never has been.
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: LegInsurrection - 🏆 3. / 95 Read more »
Source: globepolitics - 🏆 12. / 78 Read more »
Source: globeandmail - 🏆 5. / 92 Read more »
Source: LegInsurrection - 🏆 3. / 95 Read more »
Source: YahooFinanceCA - 🏆 47. / 63 Read more »
Source: LegInsurrection - 🏆 3. / 95 Read more »