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.
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.
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.
It’s this little blurb that I question …
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.
That is how any law works though, isn’t it? The Supreme Court can determine whether it’s constitutional?