Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

SCOTUS Overturns Colorado on Ballot Access 9-0

ctlaw
@ctlaw
Join to bookmark26likesJoin to like68comments
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.

supremecourt.gov

Open link

Per curiam with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurring in the judgment. Barrett concurred in part and in the judgement.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.

Discussion (68)

  • ctlaw@ctlaw

    Sotomayor et al. object to dicta about how the Constitutional provision would or would not be enforced at the federal level. From their opinion:

    Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain[] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.
  • The Reticulator@TheReticulator
    Replyingtoctlaw

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Sotomayor et al. object to dicta about how the Constitutional provision would or would not be enforced at the federal level. From their opinion:

    Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain[] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.

    How does this apply to the issue at the Texas border?

Scroll for later comments
+63 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 68 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.