Grab a black robe and gavel and you make the call

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Sid Schwab / Herald Columnist

The Supreme Court was right to overrule the Colorado court decision to remove Donald Trump from the state’s ballot, unanimously. It can’t be up to individual states to decide, on their own, who can be on the ballot for a national race.

But, going further, five justices asserted that it’s up to Congress to define and declare who is and isn’t an insurrectionist. Four otherwise concurring justices argued that current federal law suffices; that the majority made it nearly impossible for candidates to be disqualified for insurrection (Slate: tinyurl.com/nogood4us). In effect, they rewrote the Constitution. You know: originalism (HCR: tinyurl.com/2go2far4u).

The SCOTI chose not to challenge the Colorado ruling that Trump is an insurrectionist. He is, and so remains. The ruling, in other words, is not the “big win” for Trump that he claims. SCOTUS’s slow-walking of Trump’s absolute immunity claim, however, is.

There won’t be a congressional definition of insurrection as long as Republicans control a congressional house or the white one. Which is another reason why survival of the Republic depends on Democrats keeping two and regaining the third. At this historical moment, it couldn’t be more critical.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/schwab-grab-a-black-robe-and-gavel-and-you-make-the-call/

[Karadeniz]

1. I do NOT agree! The purpose of 14/3 is to keep traitors out of power. SCOTUS

had that one duty and they failed to do it! Let Colorado and the 20 or so other states remove Trump. The GOP would just find another candidate!!! 14/3 would have been obeyed!

[TomSlick]

2. I understand the concern about individual states barring a candidate from the ballot BUT

(1) We leave it to states to run elections. Why is this different? Why can the courts not enforce the insurrection clause? If a state court system goes rouge, SCOTUS can fix it on certiorari.

(2) The 14th Amendment is fundamental to a lot of US jurisprudence. There has never been a requirement for enabling legislation for the rest of the Amendment. Why is this one clause of Section 3 different?

(3) Like the rest of the 14th Amendment, there is nothing in the insurrection clause to suggest that it requires enabling legislation. If SCOTUS is willing to look to history to find the meaning of constitutional provisions, it can find a definition of "insurrection."

(4) Any statute inconsistent with the 14th Amendment would be held unconstitutional. Why is congressional inaction in violation of the 14th Amendment beyond review? Can congress render the insurrection clause empty by simple inaction?