Of course, if the SCOTUS rules that Colorado can’t remove a candidate for federal office because it might have an impact on the national election, then I assume they will, in order to remain consistent, also step in and not allow state enforced voter suppression because of the potential impact on the national election.
and 9 characters…
Putting my tin hat on for a few moments, I wonder about the potential for a “horse trade.”
Dems on SCOTUS could agree to vote 9-0 against the Colorado case (for previously mentioned reasons) in exchange for the Reps voting to both not stay the Fed DC case and to rule 9-0 that Trump is not immune.
Would be a way to deal with both issues that would likely have the same end result.
Yes, but the USSC doesn’t want to review the facts in the J6 cases, and also doesn’t want to review 50 different state decisions on this issue. The USSC was skeptical that the CO ruling should apply to the other states, and was wary of giving any state the 14A Section 3 power. Roberts seemed to have little confidence in the state courts on this issue of federal elections.
Yet, Congress gave this disqualification power to a single jury. A single jury could decide to disqualify someone from “holding any office under the United States”.
JUSTICE KAGAN: “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “if Colorado’s 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 of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence.”
18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection (became law in 1948)
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Now there is an interesting phrase:
# set on foot
verb as in bring to pass
So, tweeting out that everyone should come to a big demonstration on the 6th, promising “it will be wild”.
Winding up the assembled crowd on the 6th.
Then aiming the mob at the Capital building.
Would that be “set on foot”?
Thanks for bringing that bit of law to our attention.
More importantly, both decisions would be reasonably in accordance with the law, and would work to demonstrate the legitimacy of the courts. That’s good for the long term health of the country.
They wouldn’t invalidate the 14th amendment, just in essence say that this isn’t the way to enforce it on a candidate for President. Likewise, by refusing to take up the appeal of the immunity case, they would be saying that this was a good decision and we don’t need to slow the legal process by taking the case just to affirm it a couple of months later.
I’m not sure how the USSC formally announces their decisions to deny certiorari, but it would be good if they can do so by saying all 9 justices agreed with the decision.
Many if not most of the laws on the books that have been upheld by the USSC came out of state court decisions on the amendments. There was no problem with that. The rights of ordinary individuals are challenged in state courts up to the USSC.
The briefs will tell a different story. We do not know.
The justices are weighting the issues. Which really is not good for Trump.
Nah. Again, the Constitution specifically allows states to have different modes, methods, and manner of conducting elections. However, the qualifications for federal office are intended to be uniform across the states.
So they’re not concerned at the level of generality of “impact.” It’s perfectly fine for state decisions to have an “impact” on the outcome of elections - it’s inevitable, since (again) states are the ones who set the rules on how elections are conducted. What SCOTUS expressed concern about is whether the states would have inconsistent actions on qualification of candidates, which are supposed to be set federally and not by individual states.
OK, so who sets AND enforces the qualification of candidates federally? And how is this triggered?
Unclear. SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on the Colorado case, and I don’t believe there’s any other precedent dealing with the subject (other than the term limits cases that make it clear that States can’t impose additional qualification requirements).
If they rule in line with the issue they raised during questioning (which is by no means guaranteed), then they will likely rule that states and/or state courts lack the power/jurisdiction to impose qualifications on candidates for federal office, either new ones or state equivalents to the federal ones. IOW, that there can’t be a state rule or cause of action on whether a candidate for federal office meets the constitutional requirements for office.
They don’t technically need to reach the question of where those challenges go, if not state courts. They might leave that unaddressed. If they don’t, the obvious answers are either the federal courts (as a general matter) or to say that Congress has to set up a system if there’s going to be one.
On this point. I will agree. As the qualifications are a matter of Federal law, and Federal law overrides state law, only the Federal government can establish and enforce qualifications for Federal office.
I maintain, however, that the arguments that the 14th doesn’t apply to the POTUS, because the POTUS is not enumerated, or that the POTUS is not an “officer of the United States” are nonsense, that fly in the face of the clear language used in the 14th, and in the 1948 Insurrection act that another board member posted about recently.
If we as a nation want some clarity on this point, now is the time for a suit in the Federal courts to get the questions answered.
The states are meant as a check and balance on federal power. This is a prime case of what can go wrong with federal power if a dictator comes to power.