So, what enforcement does the Supreme Court have if a state refuses to follow its ruling?
The same enforcement they’ve had for every other ruling they’ve ever made…
General recognition of their authority to make the final ruling on such matters.
Lol ask Hawaii
I do not know, but I hope we never find ourselves in a position where we need to find out.
EDIT: Grammar
That’s game, folks.
deleted by creator
The Constitution lays out 3 main disqualifying provisions from holding the office of the Presidency: Must be 35 years old, Must be a natural-born citizen, and as the 14th amendment section 3 states, “No person shall…hold any office…under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” (Removal of the bits that don’t pertain specific to what is clearly the OFFICE of the Presidency)
Multiple Constitutional scholars have said it is self-executing. Therefore, the States should not have been allowed to even put Trump on any ballots based on the above.
I guess the country is still in danger. We’ll have to see if half of the voting populace would rather have a 91-count-indicted probable-convicted felon as President who has literally called for authoritarianism, instead of the old and senile one. I fully expect Trump to win again because nearly half of the voters are fucking stupid, and the archaic electoral college will give it to him again.
What is it with liberals and not understanding the constitution? It’s not that hard of a concept, the vocabulary is a little dated, but it’s not complex. None of those disqualifications apply to Trump and unless you feel like BLM protestors should also be barred from holding office in the future, it’s a weird hill to die on.
First, I’m not dying on any hill. Second, I’m less liberal than you might imagine. Third, I’m pointing out exactly what literal Constitutional scholars have pointed out. So, instead of personal attacks, perhaps you should sit down, because yes, the 14th Amendment does apply and has been shown that numerous times across numerous jurisdictions, and by much more educated minds than us idiots on Lemmy.
The Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right. And they didn’t, yet again. And, yet again, we the people will have to clean up the mess which could, and likely will, take decades.
And lastly, BLM protestors did not try to subvert an election and incite a literal insurrection on the Capitol, so enough with the logical fallacies, please. If you want to spout off that nonsense, take it to Reddit where it belongs.
I must have missed the part where Trump went to trial for insurrection, and was found guilty of insurrection. I’m pretty sure that many of the people that were literally there on your sacred day in January were not found guilty of insurrection either. So while they may or may not be felons, which may or may not disqualify them from voting, they would still be able to run for Congress and President. So if the people you call “insurrectionists” are still eligible to run for federal office, why would a citizen who wasn’t involved in that, let alone brought to trial for that have anything to do with the 14th amendment?
This whole circus is basically “but her emails” for blue maga.
And there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires a trial or conviction either. And in fact Luttig and other scholars have said exactly that as well.
You’re inventing things and wasting my time.
I’m done replying to you.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.
The original article contains 845 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is an overly simplified summary that doesn’t describe the objection to mentioning Congress as the only body to enforce the amendment. It was 9-0, but 4 justices made a special declaration pointing that out.
While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.
Not really surprising. States have never had the power to over turn federal elections or laws, and the last time they tried there was a whole civil war thing about it.
There is a specific process states have to overturn federal laws, but that doesn’t include barring federal candidate from state ballots.
I don’t like the guy, but I like even less the government deciding to take candidates off the ballot.
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
"We agree that he should be disqualified, but we don’t want to disqualify him, so we’re going to make the ruling as narrow as we can without looking blatant about it. "
It’s more like, “We agree that he should be disqualified, but we’re afraid of what his cult will do to us if we rule that way.”
I thought we didn’t negotiate with terrorists?
Since when?
They do when they’re personally affected by it.
“State’s rights, except for when my wife is in this guy’s cult” - Clarence Thomas, probably
