In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Trump was ineligible to be on the presidential ballot due to the fact that the 14th amendment bans insurrectionists from holding office. Trump has since appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court, with support from other Republican congressmembers including Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell. They appear to be throwing every legal argument they can come up with out there to see what will stick, including: that the January 6 insurrection actually wasn't an insurrection at all; even if it was, the Supreme Court shouldn't be making this decision in the first place; and that Trump never swore to uphold the Constitution so he's not susceptible to being disqualified for violating sworn support.
Members of the GOP have filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs arguing that the ruling skews the balance of power between the three branches of government, minimizing Congress's power because it was passed without Congressional approval. This relates to what we are currently learning in class, especially the argument that the judicial branch will always lack as much power as the executive and legislative branches, which would suggest that the ruling should not be overturned at all.
Republican lawmakers argue that Congress is a better judge on this ruling because it represents the various constituencies of the U.S. more widely and accurately. However, as we are learning in class, it's possible that congressmembers being dependent on their constituencies for reelection makes decisions like these far more biased and at times unethical, suggesting that the Supreme Court is in fact better poised to determine this ruling.
In my opinion, it's unlikely that any pivotal swing states or red states will end up removing Trump from the ballot, meaning this issue will constitute a purely symbolic victory for one side or the other. Additionally, attempting to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot for the 2024 election means making similar removals real possibilities for the 2028 election, 2032 election, etc. While there appears to be a clear legally correct decision, politically, what is the best precedent to set?
Links:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/politics/top-gop-lawmakers-ask-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-on-the-ballot/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/here-are-key-states-where-trumps-ballot-status-is-being-challenged/https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot-brief-arguments-rcna134689
3 comments:
On one hand, I can see how Trump would want to stop these decisions from setting a precedent for other states to take him off the ballot. However, I agree that major democratic and swing states are probably not going to be affected by this, especially since both Colorado and Maine(the only two states that have banned Trump from the ballot) have voted democratic the past few elections. If this is the case, then I think it almost hurts Trump to try and combat this ruling, because he doesn’t pose a very strong case. In my opinion, it diminishes his credibility to throw out these worthless arguments rather than just taking responsibility and just focusing his efforts on gaining support of red and swing states.
When I heard this, I was mainly fascinated by the idea of using that section in the 14th amendment to prevent Trump's eligibility for President. We learned how this amendment was passed with the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction era to prevent the people who had participated in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy from gaining an elected office. Since this amendment is permanent, it was interesting to me how it can still apply to today's political context.
Whether or not this has an impact on the election, it will even more clearly divide people in America. By suggesting to prevent Trump from even appearing on the ballot, this news may make people feel the "system" is against them, further driving them towards extremities. I feel that the Supreme Court is the right place to go, as it is where conflicts regarding the Constitution are meant to be resolved, but I can understand how people may worry that gives the judicial branch too much power. Removing a popular candidate from the ballot would dramatically flare up tensions in the country, which is always worrisome.
I think you bring up an extremely good point about how states removing Trump from their candidate ballots will set a precedent for future presidential elections. I think precisely for this reason, it's important that this case is decided by the Supreme Court, and not by Congress. We already know that Congress's decisions depend massively upon its partisan skew, so allowing Congress to decide on these sorts of decisions just seems flat-out dangerous. In a year of a presidential election with a Republican majority in Congress, if a Republican state decided to strike a Democratic candidate from the ballot and the decision as to whether or not it was allowed was made Congress, clearly the Republican Congress would have an incentive to sustain the ruling (and vice-versa). Additionally, it would become just another bottleneck and essentially another "veto" that blockades democracy.
Post a Comment