Month: February 2024
The Colorado Ballot Case: What Happened to the Conservative Notion of States Rights?
“The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power,” this is Chief Justice Robert’s assertion. While there are clarifications regarding what States can do in The Fourteenth Amendment, a good portion of The Fourteenth Amendment is to affirm the rights of all United States citizens and outline the protections that States are required to offer all United States citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment also offers additional guidance to States regarding federal office holding requirements.
Yes, States must defer to the Constitution and to the laws of the federal government. That, for sure, is explicitly stated. However, that doesn’t mean that the power that States have been granted in other parts of the Constitution have been erased or supplanted in some crazy way as Roberts appeared to imply with his questioning.
States have the authority to manage elections for federal offices. They have the authority to print ballots for federal offices. They have the authority to send delegates to the Electoral College to vote for President and Vice-President. When printing ballots, States have the authority and responsibility to follow the Constitution.
Additionally, the United States Constitution provides that you cannot be 34 years of age or younger to hold the Office of President. You cannot be a Naturalized Citizen to hold the Office of President. You cannot be an insurrectionist to hold the Office of President. You cannot give aid or comfort to insurrectionists and expect to hold the Office of President. This is clearly defined in the Constitution. The States are NOT limited in this power. The States can decide who is included on the ballot for all these cases. States can exclude anyone from the ballot if candidates do not meet the requirements to hold an elected federal office. Colorado was following the Constitution when its highest court made its ruling in favor of removing a disqualified candidate from its ballot.
If these candidates cannot hold the Office of President, then there is no legitimate reason for States to print disqualified candidate names on the ballot. Also, it is the federal government that has limited to no involvement in all these election processes managed by States not the other way around as Roberts suggested. Nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about taking away the States’ right to run elections for Federal government offices.
The Fourteenth Amendment only amends the power that States have as described in Article II of the Constitution, to clarify that the power States have cannot conflict with the Federal Constitution, Federal Government rulings or the general rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The amendment then goes on to indicate what powers States have, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” These inclusions in The Fourteenth Amendment are less of a limitation than they are a clarification.
Earlier in the Constitution, the second paragraph of Article Two clearly spells out the power States have, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Also, Article Two, paragraph 5, specifies, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, amends who can qualify as a Presidential candidate with additional requirements for the States: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Here, the federal government by way of Congress, does have the power to veto the State’s decision. But, overall, the Constitution gives States quite a bit of power.
Chief Justice Robert’s combative tone in his line of questioning on Thursday, February 8th, 2024, during oral arguments in the Colorado Ballot Case (Trump v. Anderson) seemed very odd and bizarre to me. There used to be a time when conservatives believed in States rights, especially in the ones that appear to be clearly assigned to States in the Constitution. What happened to that?
References:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://apnews.com/article/federal-government-role-elections-392a5567755549336fe91132b9fd5908
The Supreme Court and the Colorado Ballot Case: Only One Way to Rule
I’ve read and re-read Article II, section 1, paragraph 5 and The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution over and over, multiple times, and it seems really clear to me that there is only one way to understand these clauses. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand this text. It is written that well, in plain English. There is only one legitimate way to rule on this matter.
The Supreme Court must make their ruling based upon what is explicitly written in the Constitution. The Supreme Court must allow States to determine ballot eligibility based upon what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Trump must be booted off the Colorado ballot if Trump is an insurrectionist or if Trump has “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists.
Presuming that the court is not willing to define Trump’s status as an insurrectionist and/or collaborator, the court cannot take any other “offramp” that is somehow molded into a legitimate Constitutional argument that makes any type of sense in favor of keeping Trump on the ballot, not for any reason; even if the court thinks they need one to avert some highly speculative and imaginary negative Constitutional incongruity between the power the State and Federal governments might have. If the court does try to take any other offramp, the court risks compromising their own oath to protect and support the Constitution. Taking a procedural route would be just as bad for different reasons (they shouldn’t do it).
There is nothing to infer, nothing to doubt in this judicial review like in other controversial cases that have recently been overturned by the Supreme Court where the Constitution might have inferred a right but does not explicitly state one (i.e., Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, etc.). Ruling on the side of what is plainly written in the Constitution, especially when it is so clearly written, arguably, takes a lot of courage. It may not be popular or politically expedient. It may even be dangerous given all the right-winged crazies and thugs that exist out there but it is the right thing to do. It is the American thing to do.
We need to protect our country from insurrectionists who sway public opinion with falsehoods, exaggerations, fear and frenzied rhetoric. We need to protect our nation from insurrectionists who bring dishonor upon themselves and their autocratic enabling political party. We need to protect our citizens from insurrectionists who constantly blame others for all their problems. We need to protect ourselves from insurrectionists who never take responsibility for their own criminal actions but who are always happy to divide then destroy our Constitutional government for the sake of their own narcissistic, power-hungry appetite.
Without that protection, the Supreme Court will take one step closer to ending our democracy. The Supreme Court takes one step closer to ending our republic. One step closer to abandoning the Constitution, altogether. And if that happens, where would that leave the Supreme Court?
References:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women’s_Health_Organization
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-ballot-eligibility-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court-heres-what-to-know/ar-BB1hUWL1
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/norma-anderson-trump-colorado-ballot/index.html
The Polarity Resistance 