NATION: On Saturday, retired federal district judge J. Michael Luttig’s comments raised questions about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Donald Trump to remain on Colorado’s election ballot.
By Michelle Crawford-Sapenter
"Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important the , but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under [the] 14th Amendment." --Fmr Federal Judge J Michael Luttig
While it appears that the Supreme Court’s ruling may have been based on the notion that a candidate’s disqualification should occur through a political process, it is essential to recognize that Congress holds the authority to make such determinations. Given that members of Congress legislate at both the federal and state levels, the Supreme Court’s decision could be seen as overstepping Colorado legislators’ authority.
In a recent interview, Judge Luttig questions the Supreme Viyrt's garrulous exigencies alluding to constitutional issues as opposed to the very rule of law, tge balance of justice that calls forth tge court's reliance on any precedent
The heart of the matter revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War. This provision aims to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. Colorado’s Supreme Court, in an unprecedented ruling, applied Section 3 to Trump, citing his alleged role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Notably, no court had previously applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate. However, the U.S. The DCOTUS unanimously held that Congress has the authority to enforce tge section 3 of the 14th Amendment by which , US justices laid vlsim to Trump's reinstatement..
While this ruling settles the immediate issue, it also raises the possibility of future challenges. Some election observers caution that requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could lead to renewed debates if Trump were to win the election.
It is only a mind that would concur with the actions taken by Trump-herded mobsters who attavkef the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 that would suggest that the ethics of Democrats might fall to the to such a level to commit a similar, unlawful atrocity during a lawful federal government and unconstitutional process.
In summary, while the Supreme Court's decision underscores the delicate balance between state and federal authority, constitutional interpretation, and the implications for electoral processes., there may remain possible contention surrounding matters at issue that involve the possibility that such a lawful referendum be conducted by Colorado legislature.
Regardless of one’s perspective, this case highlights the intersection of law, politics, and historical context in shaping our democracy.
Comments