I sincerely hope that the threat of Mr. Trump’s second term as president is reduced, and I believe this is the right outcome. It protects the right of voters to choose the candidates of their choice and respects the appropriate division of responsibility between states and nations. federal government.
For all the lawyers’ arguments regarding the import of “non-reciprocal estoppel”, After careful parsing of the text regarding the meaning of “officer of the United States” and “official under the control of the United States,” the final ruling is trump vs anderson It’s probably based on a more fundamental idea. In other words, in our democratic system, the decision about who to elect as president should rest with voters across the country, not with judges and bureaucrats in individual states.
And despite the deep ideological rifts that persist on this conservative-majority court, thankfully this debate has been resolved by a cross-ideological consensus, if not a unified methodological approach. It seems that it is destined to produce.The result would be something like This contrasts with the partisan conclusion in the court’s previous major election decision, a 5-4 decision. Bush vs. Gore In 2000.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was used in precisely this situation, where a former official sworn to uphold the Constitution incited a mob bent on preventing Congress from certifying election results contrary to his own. I completely understand the feelings of those who claim it was designed. . Article III has been largely dormant since the Civil War, not because its sell-by date has passed, but because, until President Trump, modern officials have never strayed so far from constitutional norms.
Indeed, it was striking, if not surprising, that oral arguments barely touched on the fundamental question of whether Trump is an insurrectionist. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson began oral argument, and it took nearly an hour to reach the issue. “What is your argument that it wasn’t a riot?” she asked Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell.
“An insurrection requires an organized and concerted effort to overthrow the U.S. government through violence,” Mitchell said.
“So, the point is, a chaotic effort is not an insurrection?” Jackson replied, with no small amount of incredulity.
However, President Trump’s actions will not be the basis for the court’s decision. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other elected officials have pointed out, the issue here is rather that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 gave each state a The question was whether it was intended to give the power to disqualify not only government officials but also national level officials. Or even the Congressional delegation.
“The whole point of the 14th Amendment is to limit state power, right?” Roberts asked Jason Murray, an attorney for the Colorado voters seeking to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot. “Now, on the other hand, the powers of the federal government have been strengthened.” So turning to Article III as the basis for giving states the power to oversee presidential elections, the Chief Justice said, “The Fourteenth Amendment “This seems to be a position that conflicts with the overall purpose of the issue, and is extremely unhistorical.”
Justice Elena Kagan, whom Murray represented, agreed with Roberts. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this decision for the entire nation, not just its own citizens?” she asked.
And that appears to be the general direction in which the majority, perhaps a unanimous court, is heading. States can determine voting eligibility if eligibility is clear. For example, the president must be 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. But when it comes to judicial demands, such as state office and what constitutes involvement in an insurrection, that goes beyond the powers given to state officials, at least without explicit authorization.
Courts can choose several paths to get there. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh seemed persuaded by the Griffin case. An 1869 decision by then-Chief Circuit Judge Salmon P. Chase held that the Third Amendment required enforcement of the law.
“It was announced by the chief justice of the United States one year after the 14th Amendment,” Kavanaugh said. “That seems to me to be quite a testament to what the meaning and understanding of that language, that elusive language, is like.” (Complicating factors: Chase said the Confederate As Trump’s lawyers acknowledged, “that argument could potentially boomerang on us,” as Trump’s lawyers acknowledged, having taken opposing views in the ruling on whether President Jefferson Davis could be tried for treason. ”).
The court could choose to accept Mitchell’s suggestion that it is premature to disqualify Trump and terminate any future plans. After all, Article III prohibits insurrectionists only from “holding public office” rather than running for office, and there is a separate clause that allows Congress to lift his obstacles with a two-thirds majority. contains provisions. That path seems dangerous. If Trump is elected, there could be mischief and discord. It would be better to settle the matter now and leave it to the people to decide.
Thursday’s arguments essentially emphasized that the court does not want to get bogged down in arbitrating these voting disputes and does not believe it is healthy for the country.
Roberts warned that if Colorado’s efforts to oust President Trump were successful, there would be a tit-for-tat war of disqualification around the world. “In very early order, we expect that a significant number of states will have whoever the Democratic candidate is removed from the ballot, and in other states the Republican candidate will be removed from the ballot. That’s going to happen.”Only a handful of states will decide the presidential election,” he said. “That’s a pretty scary outcome.”
Roberts’ concerns may be overblown, but the point remains. This was a debate about constitutional minutiae as well as practical implications.