This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. 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.

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.

  • horsey@lemm.eeEnglish
    7·
    10 个月前

    I suppose this is a ruling based purely on constitutional merits - saying the federal government is in charge of enforcing that clause, not states. In principle though, it seems like bullshit if we’re still going with the idea that states are independent entities joined in a republic. States should be in charge of elections they hold. Could they say the same thing if a state had their own law that a candidate for federal office could be disqualified from the state ballot?

    I also wonder what the court would have to say about this anti-democratic atrocity some states have concocted lately (republicans, of course) where they want the state legislature to be able to discard election results and pick a candidate if they claim an election was corrupted.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      5·
      10 个月前

      That’s the thing. Like, I get it, it would probably cause some chaos. But now it’s really muddled what states control and what they don’t control. They control voters, by denying felons rights and things like that, but not candidates? But they can also change election results based on those state laws you mentioned?

      Maybe I’m just not cut out for law, but the philosophical inconsistency annoys me, even if I don’t completely disagree with the decision itself lol. I don’t want Trump to be able to run, but there’s probably some fear among the liberal justices about red states removing candidates.

      • horsey@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        10 个月前

        That is exactly what Sotomayor, I believe, was saying a few weeks ago - that they didn’t want to create a chaotic situation where Republican-led states started “retaliating” (and of course they would) by removing Biden from the ballot.

        A problem with making the decision with considerations like that in mind, though, is they’re basically coming up with the conclusion and then inventing a legal basis to justify it.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          3·
          10 个月前

          It’s this little blurb that I question …

          The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997).

          It’s like SCOTUS is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Only Congress can decide but we have to review and OK it as well.

          Bah.

          • horsey@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            10 个月前

            That is how any law works though, isn’t it? The Supreme Court can determine whether it’s constitutional?