SCOTUS unanimously rejects Colorado law: Trump stays on ballot
Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Booting Trump from Ballot
In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling on Monday, asserting that states lack the constitutional authority to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. This verdict comes as a blow to left-wing activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who supported a challenge by Colorado voters to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court, which leans left, had previously ruled in favor of Trump’s disqualification in December.
However, the high court overturned this decision, emphasizing that it is Congress, not the states, that holds the responsibility of enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. The court firmly stated, “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.” This unanimous ruling serves as an embarrassing conclusion for those who touted the case against disqualifying Trump as “strong” on corporate media platforms.
By the way, the Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS ruling that states cannot kick Trump off the ballot is also a stunning rebuke to this very embarrassing column from a supposed constitutional expert.https://t.co/PD1EfZQhk3 pic.twitter.com/CKV8pwqeJz
The court expressed concerns about the potential creation of a “patchwork” of outcomes subject to partisan whims if the ruling had gone the other way. They stated, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and states across the county, in different ways and at different times. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
Trump faced similar challenges to his eligibility in both Illinois and Maine, where judges attempted to remove him from the ballot. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump celebrated the ruling as a “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA” in a post on Truth Social.
Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson, senior legal fellows at the Heritage Foundation, commended the court for restoring order ahead of the election. They stated, “The Supreme Court justices brought order to what could have become a chaotic election season by shutting down this partisan, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional effort in Colorado. This ruling, which came together with amazing speed for the Supreme Court, should serve as a stern warning that radicals cannot interfere in our election process.”
While Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan issued a concurring opinion, they disagreed with the majority’s ruling that Congress must create legislation to disqualify a president based on Section 3. They argued that “the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also wrote a separate concurrence, emphasizing the significance of the unanimous ruling. She stated, “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
What are the potential concerns about states’ ability to disqualify candidates based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
Ncerns about the potential abuse of power if states were allowed to disqualify candidates based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, author of the majority opinion, stated that allowing states to make such determinations could create a dangerous precedent, opening the door for states to use political motives to target candidates they disagree with.
The ruling reaffirms the power and responsibility of Congress to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section, often referred to as the “Rebellion Clause,” prohibits individuals who have engaged in rebellion or supported enemies of the United States from holding office. The court made it clear that Congress is the appropriate body to determine the qualifications of federal officeholders and candidates, and that states do not have the authority to override or undermine that decision.
The decision also highlights the principle of federalism and the division of powers between the federal government and the states. The court emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate elections, including ballot access requirements, they cannot go beyond their constitutional limits and infringe on the jurisdiction of the federal government. This ruling serves as a reminder that the Constitution is the ultimate authority in matters of governance and that all branches of government, including the states, must adhere to its provisions.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against booting Trump from the ballot not only settles the specific case at hand but also has broader implications for future challenges to the eligibility of candidates. It establishes a precedent that states cannot arbitrarily disqualify candidates based on their own interpretation of constitutional provisions. This decision strengthens the integrity of the electoral process and ensures that decisions regarding candidates’ qualifications are made through the appropriate channels.
The unanimous nature of the decision also sends a strong message of unity and stability. In a time of political polarization and division, the fact that the Supreme Court justices reached a unanimous agreement reflects a commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitutional rights and processes that govern our democracy. The decision also underscores the importance of an independent judiciary that can set aside political biases and make objective rulings based on constitutional principles.
As news of the ruling spreads, it is likely to be met with both applause and criticism from different sides of the political spectrum. However, one thing is certain: the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision against booting Trump from the ballot reaffirms the principles of federalism, the separation of powers, and the authority of Congress in determining candidates’ qualifications. It is a reminder of the strength and resilience of our judicial system and its commitment to upholding the Constitution.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Auto Amazon Links: Could not resolve the given unit type, . Please be sure to update the auto-insert definition if you have deleted the unit.