Well, the Supreme Court in a per curiam, unanimous, decision has ruled that the States may not keep Trump off the ballot through section 3, the insurrection clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment. The attempt to use this relic of the post Civil War period in this manner was always farcial from a legal standpoint, and now is one with Nineveh and Tyre. Go here to read the decision.
Supreme Court: States May Not Keep Trump Off the Ballot
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
At last a small victory.
Yes a small victory. However the Left, Marxists, Dem will keep trying. They should be careful what they wish and try for because it might just backfire. Barry and Joe might. be surprised that they are in jeopardy
[…] Fertilization – Jesse RomeroI Don’t Believe It – David Griffey at Daffey ThoughtsSupreme Court: States May Not Keep Trump Off the Ballot – D. McClarey/The American CatholicAre They Sure? – Donald R. McClarey, Esq., at The […]
If they were so concerned about upholding democracy then they would allow him to be a candidate and let the citizens of the USA vote and decide…If the citizens of the USA want Trump to lead them then upholding democracy would mean they got the hell out of the way.
Biden and Obama had their turn. If they want another one then they can throw their hat into the ring otherwise bugger-off. They linger around like a bad smell.
I do not think the majority of justices saw this use as farcical. The semi dissenters to the decision uncharacteristically call for a very ahem conservative decision and are upset that the decision encompassed the question of Colorado’s authority AND the actual limited manner by which the authority in Section 3 can be exercised.
I believe the dissenters want their cronies to be able to call Trump disqualified after the election so they can throw the decision to the Court, or the streets. The novel term “oath breaking insurrectionist” is meant to be inflammatory and we will see it again.
The original intent of Section 3 was to control those who were philosophically opposed to those who passed Section 3. It was a message to the defeated that only the ones they ratified would be permitted to serve. It was lousy in Reconstruction and it is lousy now and it will cause trouble.
We have perhaps saved the election, but we have not secured a peaceful transition of power.
God help us all in 24.
“It was lousy in Reconstruction and it is lousy now and it will cause trouble.”
It had little impact after the first few years of Reconstruction due to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chase, sitting with as a circuit judge, ruling in 1869 in Griffen’s case that Section 3 was not self executing and that Congress under section 5 had to pass implementing legislation, which Congress never did. Democrat efforts to do so now will run afoul of GOP control of the House and a filibuster in the Senate. They would also quickly realize that any attempt to pass a bill of attainder restricted to Trump would be ruled unconstitutional and that the broader they attempted to define insurrection, the more likely it could be used against them: think of the Democrat sponsored BLM riots of 2220. This is a very dead horse that will not trot.
The original intent of Section 3 was to control those who were philosophically opposed to those who passed Section 3. It was a message to the defeated that only the ones they ratified would be permitted to serve.
==
The country would have been better off had the Southern states been subject to a federal trusteeship for a couple of generations.
Never would have happened Art. The strains caused by Reconstruction were unpopular in the North.
“The whole public are tired out with these annual autumnal outbreaks in the South.”
President Grant 1876