that's actually exactly what the SCOTUS says in regards to the Colorado courts novel and radical interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution (an amendment by the way which was designed to keep high ranking Confederate politicians out of the US government after reconstruction post the fcking CIVIL WAR- not to keep the leading opposition candidate off ballots in 2024) on page 1 of their 20 page opinion....
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
Colorado way over stepped their bounds on something that is not within their authority nor jurisdiction to do so. No need to read a single thing after that sentence. What Colorado did was wholly unconstitutional, radical, extreme, and reckless- which is why they got their clocks cleaned in the Supreme Court of the United States of America 9-0.
I'm aware of what SCOTUS said. I'm also aware that SCOTUS, being quite learned and persuasive, can often reason backwards from a conclusion to find the justification that they want. Try reading an opinion sometime... Often you read the majority opinion and it seems absolutely simple and forthright why the Court decided the case. Then read the dissenting opinion, and you might suddenly find yourself starting to believe that the majority decided the case by cherry-picking and misapplying legal precedents from other cases and in fact the case should have gone the other way.
They relied heavily on the Enforcement Act of 1870 as their reasoning for why this must be Congress' job. But if you read the history around the Enforcement Acts, they were only passed because it was [very rationally] believed that the Southern states would abrogate their duty to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments and so they must be enforced upon them. But now it is used to say that the states cannot enforce them, and further that NOBODY but Congress CAN enforce the Amendments. That is the area where it is quite possible that they went WAY too far--as evidenced by the concurring opinions of Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson, and even the milquetoast two-paragraph concurrence from Barrett.
I also think there's an inherent contradiction. 14AS3 gives Congress the power, upon two-thirds vote, to reinstate someone who is removed from office under the insurrection clause. Why would it require a two-thirds majority to reinstate someone, when Congress is the ONLY body with the power to enforce the order and remove someone, which they could do by simple majority?
I understand the main finding. I think it does create a patchwork of inconsistent and potentially contradictory sets of election conditions for what is a national election. I'm not sure I'm entirely swayed by it--we've always had inconsistent and potentially contradictory rules regarding elections state-to-state, even with the Electoral College (i.e. most states assign all electors to the state popular vote winner, but Maine for example does not; they split their electors). But along the same lines I understand Cincy's point about due process; in that very same state of Maine the ruling came from a single person (the state AG I believe) to remove him from the ballot. That doesn't seem to be due process IMHO.
While it was 9-0 on the main finding of the case, it was basically 5-4 on how far the majority opinion was willing to go
beyond the main finding essentially saying nobody but Congress has any enforcement power.
I think they wrote it this way for two reasons:
- If Trump wins the election, but perhaps between Election Day and Inauguration (so he can't yet pardon himself) he is convicted in federal court of engaging in insurrection, SCOTUS can invalidate any attempt by anyone except Congress (such as the Attorney General) to stop him from taking office and/or remove him when he does. And if Republicans can hold 50%+1 seats in either house (potentially likely if their party takes the White House), then that won't happen. I think it was quite clearly motivated reasoning.
- I think they realize that they can't stomach the idea of granting full legal immunity to anything and everything a President does while in office, which is on their docket and so they're going to have to rule against Trump. So by not allowing anyone but Congress to enforce 14AS3, it's possible that he might still face trial for the insurrection, still be convicted, and still end up in the White House.
I think it's an interesting legal case. I think there are areas where SCOTUS went too far and there may be political motivation to go above and beyond the findings necessary to conclude this case. And I think that can be clearly and rightly criticized even if you agree with the main finding.
