Constitution
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
Soliciting New Names for the Republican Party
Since the Republican Party no longer appears to be the Party of Lincoln (preferring dishonest seditious TV Reality Stars instead) and it is definitely no longer the “Law and Order Party” given their continuing unwillingness to hold dishonest politicians in their own Party accountable for their unethical and inciting offences, the Party should really consider a name change. Here are some ideas I have for a new name:
The News of the World Party
The National Enquiring Minds Party
The Chupacabras and UFO’s Really Exist Party
The Chest Hair Totalitarian Party
The 11,780 Missing Votes Party
The Alien DNA and Stop the Kabul Party
The Laser from Space Forrest Fire Party
The Seditious and Capital Vandals Party
The Censure Character and Integrity Party
The No Checks and Balances Party
The American Dear Leader Party
The One Dude Weird Worship Party
The Jim Jones Reinvented Party
The Grape Flavored Kool-Aid Party
The Kiss My Shinny Ring Party
The Alternate-Facts State TV & Propaganda Party
The My Pillow Party
The Forsake Our Founding Fathers Party
The Twisted Big Liars Party
The Bone Spurs and Lost Boats Party
The Walk to the Capital Party
The New Confederate Patriot Party
The Confederate Statue and Peculiar Reinstitution Party
The Throw Your Supporters Under the Bus Party
The Extort Another Foreign President for Political Gain Party
The Witness Tampering & Subpoena Obstructionist Party
The Vindictive Felonious Witness Retaliation Party
The Abuses of Power Party
The Russian Conspiracy Theory Champions Party
The Deference to Putin Party
The Alienate Your Traditional Allies Party
The Oops, We Found Another False Positive Dead Voter Party
The Dodge another Billion Dollar Law Suit Party
The Defamation of Character Party
The No Character and Wet Noodle Party
The Despicable Me Party
The Dr. Evil and Backwards Little Finger in the Mouth Party
I am pretty confident that one of the above names will be much more appropriate for the Republican Party. And, that way, by selecting one of those above names, the Republican Party no longer has to worry so much about soiling the good name of President Lincoln and his former Party that had once held a place of so much honor and respect for preserving America’s dedication to the rule of law and against the rule of men.
Pathetic Sycophantic Careers
Republican Senators may play to their misinformed Base during this impeachment phase by being unwilling to prevent a dangerous and seditious politician from ever holding public office again, but it will be the majority of Americans and history who will be the final judges regarding how little these Senators really care about justice, integrity, principles and the ideals of our Founding Fathers regarding their responsibility to be a check against absolute power and criminal abuses of power. These Republican Senators will be judged by their failure to honor their oath to protect our nation from insidious tyrants who attempt to thwart our Constitution. That will go a long way to justifiably put an end to their disgraceful and otherwise pathetic sycophantic careers as they cower in front of the disreputable beast they have deliberately chosen to pledge allegiance to.
The rest of America will then go forward to pledge allegiance to our more noble ideals that that justice is blind to wealth and power and that all men are created equal as represented by our nation’s flag. And those Pathetic Sycophantic Careers dedicated to lies and despotic ideals positioned against our democracy will just fade away forever into history as prime examples of how weakness of character can be the greatest threat to our republic and to any republic based upon constitutional law and self-rule.
The Polarity Resistance 