-----------------
Dr. Reich never ceases to amaze us with his astounding ability to agree or disagree with the issues of the day based only on his leftist perspective. The thing he opposes when they go against his politics are the same things he favors when they favor of his politics.
He always is supportive of court rulings that conform to his politics. So if, say, Florida had ruled that Biden could not appear on its ballot, Dr. Reich would be arguing the opposite of what is found below.
Dr. Reich is semi-adept at the rhetorical wigglings that are necessary to make it sound like he's being thoughtful and reasonable.
But he is an apparatchik spewing leftist talking points, nothing else.
It doesn’t just allow Trump back on the ballot but potentially disables enforcement of other provisions of the 14th Amendment
Friends,
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection (By what standard? By being charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection? Nope.)
Friends,
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection (By what standard? By being charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection? Nope.)
and even though the Constitution clearly bars insurrectionists from holding elected office, (Let's quote the actual constitutional language:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...
In order to be an insurrectionist one must be convicted of insurrection.)
the Supreme Court today ruled that Trump will remain on the ballot anyway. (With no discussion Dr. Reich presents this as a problem. But the Supreme court was very sensible in its ruling:
In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,6 and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.7 The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.
It's not a matter of insurrection, it's a matter of proper constitutional power.)
With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow, all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. (Dr. Reich repeats his charges but adds no new information.)
With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow, all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. (Dr. Reich repeats his charges but adds no new information.)
They agreed that allowing states to make such decisions would lead to a patchwork of ballots, undercutting federal authority. (In any other circumstance Dr. Reich loves federal supremacy. Only in matters that go against his politics does he raise the specter of government overreach.)
But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, (How can there be five justices in the majority when the vote was 9-0?)
But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, (How can there be five justices in the majority when the vote was 9-0?)
ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so. (The matter seems clear. The amendment empowers only congress to provide legislation, not the state of Colorado.)
But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit (Indeed. In the absence of legislation the Justice department is rightly denied power to act.)
But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit (Indeed. In the absence of legislation the Justice department is rightly denied power to act.)
alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection. (Dr. Reich keeps repeating his charges, but adds no new information.)
It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate whose party controls at least one chamber of Congress and therefore would not enact such legislation. (Why would congress to pass legislation after the fact? That is known as an ex post facto law.)
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were also rightfully concerned that the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the 14th Amendment — such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws.” (The argument is the same. The Federal constitution and its amendments are not matters for state judges to involve themselves in. By the same criteria, should state legislatures be able to pass amendments to the constitution? Of course not. That is a matter of the duties named in the constitution itself.)
Recall that these 14th Amendment provisions have been bulwarks against states that have discriminated against Black people, against LGBTQ+ people, and against women. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment was the foundation for Roe v. Wade.
But under the majority’s view of how the 14th Amendment should be enforced, Section 5 might first require Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to identify which defendants should be prosecuted under Section 1, before the Justice Department or any plaintiff could act against a state that’s abridging people’s rights. (A completely ridiculous argument. Again, this is ex post facto.)
States charged with violating the privileges and immunities clause, or denying people due process of law, or denying their citizens the equal protection of the law will almost certainly use today’s ruling in attempts to shield themselves from federal prosecution. (Another ridiculous argument. Dr. Reich is reversing the flow of the application of the constitution.)
By the way, Clarence Thomas should never have participated in today’s case, given his obvious conflicts of interest. (Left unnamed, because they don't exist.)
It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate whose party controls at least one chamber of Congress and therefore would not enact such legislation. (Why would congress to pass legislation after the fact? That is known as an ex post facto law.)
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were also rightfully concerned that the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the 14th Amendment — such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws.” (The argument is the same. The Federal constitution and its amendments are not matters for state judges to involve themselves in. By the same criteria, should state legislatures be able to pass amendments to the constitution? Of course not. That is a matter of the duties named in the constitution itself.)
Recall that these 14th Amendment provisions have been bulwarks against states that have discriminated against Black people, against LGBTQ+ people, and against women. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment was the foundation for Roe v. Wade.
But under the majority’s view of how the 14th Amendment should be enforced, Section 5 might first require Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to identify which defendants should be prosecuted under Section 1, before the Justice Department or any plaintiff could act against a state that’s abridging people’s rights. (A completely ridiculous argument. Again, this is ex post facto.)
States charged with violating the privileges and immunities clause, or denying people due process of law, or denying their citizens the equal protection of the law will almost certainly use today’s ruling in attempts to shield themselves from federal prosecution. (Another ridiculous argument. Dr. Reich is reversing the flow of the application of the constitution.)
By the way, Clarence Thomas should never have participated in today’s case, given his obvious conflicts of interest. (Left unnamed, because they don't exist.)
His participation makes the Supreme Court’s recently adopted “ethics” guidelines look like the sham they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment