Posted on 03/04/2024 7:41:13 AM PST by Red Badger
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.
“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
On holding that only Congress had the power to enforce the provisions under Section 5 of the amendment, it said its decision would apply nationwide.
"Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on '[t]he Congress.' As a result, such state enforcement might be argued to sweep more broadly than congressional enforcement could under our precedents. But the notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible," the court said.
Trump quickly celebrated the decision, writing on his social media platform it was a "BIG WIN" for the country.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that she was "disappointed" in the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Or leave him on the ballot but refuse to count any votes for him because he’s an insurrectionist.
Here is the conclusion of the ruling.
For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
That requires another lawsuit...................
As it is written, so let it be done......................
9-0 is a slam dunk. The libs don’t have anyone on the court that dissented.
Curious, but how often does the SC issue 9-0 rulings?
They will always do as much as they can get away with. Bet the rent on it...............
9-0 is exactly right
OMG THANK YOU SCOTUS!!! There comes a time when the laws of this nation can NO LONGER be ignored, I have to say I am VERY PROUD of the leftist justices they are seeing how out of control their side has become!!
From the article: "The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision"
9-0 SCOTUS decisions are the most common type. Maybe not a majority of decisions, but the most common. Most cases aren’t all that controversial, it’s just that a few of the cases are explosive.
Amazingly, Politifact has it totally correct on this. It must be so obvious that they had no choice but to fact check it correctly.
Can trump file a lawsuit against the states that took him off the ballot for violating constitutional rights.
Plus can these states be charged with election interference, or what about insurrection.
Agreed! And hopefully this ruling is making “Jack Smith” and his puppet masters at Rat Party Headquarters poop their pants.
Oh they’ll count the ballots alright, but it’ll fall just out of range to trigger a recount.
I didn’t expect that it would be unanimous. There’s sufficient stupidity on the Court that I expected at least some nonconcurrence.
Who would have thunk that it was illegal to brand someone as a criminal, repeat it ad nauseum, and then take them off ballots because of the propaganda they started?
I am shocked that the “wise Latina” and the “I’m not a biologist” concurred in this decision
It is a communist tactic to push and push until they get pushback. Then they whine and cry like they are the victims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.