Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wanted to share this as it was a point I raised earlier.

The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few States could decide the Nation’s next President would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Reconstruction Amendments “were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179(1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently.

Sheesh. States already determine the presidency, reconstruction amendment notwithstanding. If Texas went blue or California went red even by one vote, it would give the presidency to that respective president. If they're concerned with representation, let's have a popular vote, eh?

Please re-read what I quoted.

The point is the 14th Amendment was a rescinding of states' rights, not an expansion. To say that the state is allowed to use the 14th Amendment as they please is inherently conflicting with the whole reason it was created in the first place.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I wanted to share this as it was a point I raised earlier.

The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few States could decide the Nation’s next President would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Reconstruction Amendments “were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179(1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently.

Sheesh. States already determine the presidency, reconstruction amendment notwithstanding. If Texas went blue or California went red even by one vote, it would give the presidency to that respective president. If they're concerned with representation, let's have a popular vote, eh?

At the very least if they care about federal elections we should have uniform rules across states for federal offices, not a patchwork of county level processes. Like polling times, mail-in ballots, vote counting machines, drop boxes per capita, etc.

 

[Elixir]

The point is the 14th Amendment was a rescinding of states' rights, not an expansion

Yeah I get that. I also get that SCOTUS States Rights justices want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

It was, overall, good to see our SCOTUS unanimously employ common sense.

It is true that cowardice and cravenness can be consistent with common sense.

Only in the liberal realm.

What does "liberal" mean in that sentence?

Did the Republicans on Capitol Hill demand an accounting for the January 6, 2021 episode from the top leaders that instigated it?

Or did common sense cowardice and cravenness rule the proceedings?
Tom

It means that liberals embrace cowardice and cravenness and equate it with common sense. And by liberal, of course, the meaning is consistent: those who deny the values of conservatism and instead claim the values of pretend open-mindedness.

And your faux question presupposes that the Jan 6 incident was instigated by some hypothetical “top leaders.” Gee. I wonder what you mean?