{"id":2172121,"date":"2024-02-09T10:04:02","date_gmt":"2024-02-09T15:04:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/states-dumping-trump-from-ballots-would-spell-disaster-for-the-republic-and-scotus-knows-it\/"},"modified":"2024-02-09T10:08:28","modified_gmt":"2024-02-09T15:08:28","slug":"states-dumping-trump-from-ballots-would-spell-disaster-for-the-republic-and-scotus-knows-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/states-dumping-trump-from-ballots-would-spell-disaster-for-the-republic-and-scotus-knows-it\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS knows removing Trump from ballots would be disastrous for the Republic"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fstates-dumping-trump-from-ballots-would-spell-disaster-for-the-republic-and-scotus-knows-it%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2172121&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<h2>Actions Have Consequences: The Battle to Keep Trump on the Ballot<\/h2>\n<p>Actions come with consequences. That\u2019s the root of human experience, but it\u2019s a maxim the \u200dleftists behind the \u200bColorado Supreme Court\u2019s decision to kick\u2062 former President Donald Trump off the Centennial State\u2019s\u2064 presidential primary ballot absolutely ignored. And their failure to consider the disastrous consequences \u2063might just be the leading reason why they are doomed to fail.<\/p>\n<p>During Thursday\u2019s oral arguments in <em>Trump v. Anderson<\/em>, U.S. Supreme Court justices \u2014 on the right and the left \u2014 peppered Jason Murray, attorney for the anti-Trumpers who brought the Colorado case, with questions of \u201cconsequentialist considerations.\u201d Said considerations include the likelihood of political reprisals.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cCounsel, what do\u2062 you do with the, what would seem to me to be plain consequences of your position?\u201d Chief Justice John Roberts asked Murray.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf Colorado\u2019s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. And some of those will succeed. Some of them will have different standards \u2064of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence,\u201d Roberts asserted. \u201cI would expect\u2062 that, you know, a goodly number of states will say,\u2064 whoever the Democratic candidate is, you\u2019re\u200c off the ballot. And others \u2062for the Republican candidate, you\u2019re off the ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt will come down to just a handful\u200b of states\u2063 that are going to \u200ddecide \u200dthe presidential election. \u2064That\u2019s a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-justices-pull-apart-colorados-argument-trump-should-be-banned-from-ballot\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Justices Pull Apart Colorado's Argument Trump Should Be Banned From Ballot\">pretty daunting consequence<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Murray shrugged\u2063 off the central question of truth and consequences, insisting over and over again that Trump \u201cengaged in insurrection.\u201d The word and its\u200c fellow noun \u201cinsurrectionist\u201d turned up 62 times in Thursday\u2019s\u200d oral arguments, making\u200b it a potentially deadly drinking game for those daring to consume at each utterance of the \u201cI\u201d word.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2018Awfully National\u2019<\/h3>\n<p>One of the consequential problems\u200c with\u200d the Colorado ruling, Roberts and his colleagues rightly predicted, is that\u2062 the Supreme Court would have to clean up the messy details if the Colorado Supreme\u200b Court ruling is\u2063 allowed to stand. And\u200b the high court would have to \u201cdevelop rules for what constitutes an\u200b insurrection.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Murray and the leftists he represents argue there\u2019s no \u200dneed. It\u2019s all cut and dried, spelled out in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision was written \u200cshortly \u200bafter the Civil War to deal with rebels who participated in a bloody war of secession. \u2062Section\u200b 3 prohibits anyone who has \u201cpreviously \u2062taken an oath\u201d to uphold the Constitution as an\u2063 officer of the \u2062United \u2063States and \u201cengaged in insurrection or rebellion against the\u2064 same, or given\u2064 aid or comfort to the enemies\u2063 thereof\u201d from holding a list of federal and state \u2063offices. It\u2019s all there in the \u201cinsurrection clause,\u201d Murray insists.<\/p>\n<p>Except it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s legal \u200cteam argues that the list of offices barred does not include presidents\u2062 or vice presidents, because the top executive \u200cbranch posts are not considered to be officers of the United States as\u200b laid out \u200din the Constitution. They\u200b also argue \u200bthat Congress has yet to pass a law to enforce Section 3, something that Supreme Court Justice Salmon P.\u2063 Chase in 1869 found\u2062 must happen in order for \u200bthe provision\u200d to take effect.<\/p>\n<p>Trump attorney\u200c Jonathan\u200b Mitchell argued there\u2019s no need to consider the\u2062 ramifications \u201cbecause the law is clearly on our side.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But the justices\u2063 had\u200c consequences on their minds. It\u2019s hard to \u200descape the disenfranchising effect of letting\u200c Colorado \u2014 or any other state \u2014 boot a presidential candidate from the ballot.<\/p>\n<p>Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan questioned Murray about the federal\u200d implications\u200d of disqualification. The attorney clerked for Kagan in his early law career.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cMaybe put most\u2063 boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single \u200bstate should decide who gets to be president of the United States,\u201d the justice said. \u201cIn other words, you know, this question of whether a\u200d former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is, you know, just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. \u2062So\u200d whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2>Who Decides Who\u2019s\u2062 an Insurrectionist?<\/h2>\n<p>While the liberals on the court raised\u2062 some pointed questions \u200babout the efficacy of the novel Section \u200c3 argument, they just couldn\u2019t seem to quit their unveiled contempt for Trump and their\u200b apparent preconception that Trump is an insurrectionist.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo why would this not be an [insurrection] \u200c\u2014 what is your argument \u2063that it\u2019s not? \u2064Your reply brief says that it wasn\u2019t because, I think, you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the\u200b government. So \u2014,\u201d\u2062 Justice \u200bKetanji Brown Jackson asked Mitchell.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s one of many reasons. But, for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government \u2062of the \u2063United States through violence. And this riot that occurred \u2014,\u201d the \u2063attorney replied.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo your \u2064point is that a chaotic\u2062 effort to\u200d overthrow the government is not an \u200dinsurrection?\u201d Jackson asked, cutting the attorney\u2064 off.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNo, we didn\u2019t concede that it\u2019s an effort to overthrow the\u200c government either, Justice Jackson. None of these criteria were met,\u201d Mitchell responded before Jackson cut him off again shortly afterward.<\/p>\n<p>Michael O\u2019Neill, \u2064Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Landmark Legal Foundation,\u2063 said the justices were \u200dclearly concerned with the consequences question, particularly the daunting uniformity issue.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe advocates of the Colorado case are attempting to broaden the authority of \u2064the states to set national policy,\u201d O\u2019Neill said. \u201cIf the Colorado Supreme Court decision were to be upheld you would conceivably and logically have different standards of what constitutes an insurrection under Section 3 of \u2064the 14th\u2062 Amendment based on state interpretations.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And clearance for the\u200c states to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-view-audience-gleeful-at-idea-of-trump-jailed-until-whoopi-reminds-them-of-cold-hard-fact\/\" title=\"'View' audience happy about Trump's imprisonment idea, but Whoopi brings up reality check.\">disqualify candidates based<\/a> on their individual interpretation of insurrection could\u2063 lead to ballot challenges on \u2062any \u200bnumber of charges. Landmark wrote an amicus brief in the SCOTUS case \u2062principally arguing that the Colorado \u2064decision would enable partisan officials to \u201cdisqualify political opponents by unilaterally declaring them insurrectionists.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Was Vice President Kamala Harris an insurrectionist when she endorsed the violent Black Lives Matter-led protests\/riots \u200dthat claimed lives and burned down portions of cities, the brief asks? Was U.S. \u2063Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., acting the part of insurrectionist when he pulled a fire alarm on Capitol Hill while Congress debated a spending\u2064 bill to avoid a government shutdown?<\/p>\n<p>Did Senate Majority Leader\u200d Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., attempt to incite violence when he stood outside \u2063the Supreme Court and in a pro-abortion rant declared, \u201cI want to tell you [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you [Justice Brett] \u200b Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the\u2063 price. You won\u2019t know what hit you if \u200byou go forward with these awful decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>O\u2019Neill sounded confident following Thursday\u2019s oral arguments, saying he\u2019s optimistic the Supreme\u2062 Court will overturn the Colorado court\u2019s ruling. The justices\u2019 line of questioning \u2014 particularly from the liberal justices \u2014 on the consequences of letting the state court\u2019s decision stand bolstered his confidence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019m fairly optimistic it could be a 9-0 ruling,\u201d the attorney said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"> <\/p>\n<h2> How does the disqualification \u2062of a \u2063presidential candidate \u200dbased on\u2062 the insurrection clause raise concerns about \u2063the potential imbalance of power among states in \u200cdeciding \u200bthe outcome of a\u200b presidential election?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  \u200c Ramifications of\u200b allowing a state to disqualify a presidential candidate based on the accusation of insurrection. O\u2019Neill \u2064stated, \u201cThe justices were\u200d grappling with\u2064 the fact that if a state like Colorado can disqualify a presidential candidate, then other states could <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/florida-drops-loyalty-pledge-from-gop-primary-ballot-requirements\/\" title=\"Florida removes loyalty pledge from GOP primary ballot requirements.\">potentially follow suit<\/a>, leading to a situation where only\u2062 a handful of states \u2063would decide the presidential election. This is a significant consequence that \u2062cannot be ignored.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The\u2064 argument made by Trump\u2019s legal team is that \u200cthe 14th Amendment\u2019s\u200b Section 3, often referred to as the \u201cinsurrection clause,\u201d does not bar presidents or vice presidents from holding office. They \u2062argue that the provision only applies to federal and state officers, and that Congress must pass a law to enforce Section \u200b3.\u200d This argument is supported by the fact that no \u2064president or vice\u2063 president has ever been disqualified based on the insurrection clause.<\/p>\n<p>The justices, however, seemed more concerned with the issue\u200b of who gets to decide who\u200d is\u200c an insurrectionist. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Trump\u2019s attorney on the definition of insurrection,\u2064 asking whether the chaotic events that took place on January 6th could be considered an attempt to\u200b overthrow the \u2063government. The attorney responded that for an insurrection to occur, there must be an organized and concerted effort to overthrow the government through violence,\u200d and \u200bthat none of\u2063 the criteria for an insurrection were met in this case.<\/p>\n<p>Justice \u2064Elena Kagan raised the question of whether it is appropriate for a single state to decide who gets to be president,\u2063 emphasizing\u200b that the enforcement of the \u2062insurrection clause should be a federal matter. This concern highlights the potential for a state to disenfranchise voters by disqualifying a presidential candidate from the ballot.<\/p>\n<p>The consequences of the Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s decision to kick Trump off the presidential primary ballot cannot be ignored. Not only does it raise questions about who gets to decide who is an insurrectionist, but it also opens the door for other states to disqualify candidates based \u200bon their own interpretation of the\u200b insurrection clause. This could lead to a situation where only a few states have the power to decide the outcome of a presidential\u200b election.<\/p>\n<p>The justices recognized\u2063 these consequences during the oral arguments and expressed their concerns. The fact \u2062that both conservative and liberal \u200cjustices questioned the implications of the Colorado ruling demonstrates the seriousness of the issue at hand. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will ultimately decide on this matter, but one thing is clear: actions have consequences, and the consequences of this decision could be far-reaching.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Actions have consequences, a fundamental aspect of human experience. However, the leftists responsible for removing former President Donald Trump from Colorado&#8217;s presidential primary ballot ignored this maxim. Their failure to consider the disastrous consequences may be the leading reason for their impending doom<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":656,"featured_media":2172122,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Supreme-Court-night.jpeg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2172121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Supreme-Court-night.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2172121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/656"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2172121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2172121\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2172122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2172121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2172121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2172121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}