Okay, let’s talk about the most recent US Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court has basically said that an insurrectionist can in fact, become President of the United States, because their ruling decides to reverse the ruling of the Colorado court. That did in fact, remove Trump from the ballot. But in doing so, the court did not reverse the findings of the Colorado court that Donald Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. The Constitution clearly says that, and insurrectionist, those that engage in such conduct, they can be barred from holding positions of government trust. As a matter of fact, we’ve done it before we barred people from running for president, we have barred people from running for Congress, under the same constitutional clause, all of a sudden, it’s not good enough. Now, this is going to be an interesting realization as we move forward. Because if you take the court’s ruling the Supreme Court’s ruling on face value, it’s suggest that somehow states are not able to enforce a constitutional right, or constitutional dynamics, they cannot uphold them. But that doesn’t make sense because States routinely engage in the enforcement of dynamics associated with the federal government, i e, Constitution, and federal law. The Supreme Court, while they made this ruling unanimously, they are split on the methodology and the mechanics of the law. While some are citing that basically this is a write codified only to Congress, others are saying, if this goes forward, it would allow states to basically run them up with their own way of doing a presidential primary. The reality is, while we have a presidential election, that is, in fact, a national election, it is carried out implemented and governed by state authorities. We have removed somebody from the ballot before and it was allowable back then. That was actually Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was removed from the ballot of multiple states. It was a slippery slope, obviously, it led to the Civil War afterwards. Now, I’m not saying that state should simply utilize this awesome power to dismiss individuals from the ballot. What I am saying is that I wish the Supreme Court would have been more thoughtful about the fact that the Constitution provides this as an equitable remedy. Just in case, it’s needed. The Supreme Court could have set aside the findings that indicate Trump is in fact in insurrectionist. Without the Supreme Court doing that. It clears the path to basically say that even if you engage in insurrection, you can still run for President of the United States.
Related
Dr. Rashad Richey
National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘The worst it’s ever been’: Young Americans on democracy
15 hrs ago
Dr. Frank Luntz
How to handle plunging US birth rate before it’s too late
15 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
Japan must confront reality of military threats
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
US may need to find new sources of uranium
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
Supreme Court wrong in overturning Trump’s Colorado ruling
Mar 8
By Straight Arrow News
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision a day before Super Tuesday, allowing Donald Trump to appear on the state’s ballot. The nine justices unanimously held that states cannot enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates from federal races and that the enforcement of the insurrection clause falls within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress alone. Trump handily won Colorado’s Republican primary with 63.3% of the vote.
Straight Arrow News contributor Dr. Rashad Richey explains how the country’s highest court got it wrong. Dr. Richey argues that Donald Trump, facing criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, should have been disqualified from Colorado’s presidential primary.
The Supreme Court has basically said that an insurrectionist can, in fact, become president of the United States, because their ruling decides to reverse the ruling of the Colorado court that did, in fact, remove Trump from the ballot. But in doing so, the court did not reverse the findings of the Colorado court that Donald Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist.
The Constitution clearly says that an insurrectionist, those that engage in such conduct, they can be barred from holding positions of government trust. As a matter of fact, we’ve done it before. We barred people from running for president. We have barred people from running for Congress under the same Constitutional clause. All of a sudden, it’s not good enough.
Now, this is going to be an interesting realization as we move forward. Because if you take the court’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s ruling on face value, it suggests that somehow states are not able to enforce a Constitutional right or constitutional dynamics — they cannot uphold them. But that doesn’t make sense, because states routinely engage in the enforcement of dynamics associated with the federal government, i.e. Constitution and federal law.
Okay, let’s talk about the most recent US Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court has basically said that an insurrectionist can in fact, become President of the United States, because their ruling decides to reverse the ruling of the Colorado court. That did in fact, remove Trump from the ballot. But in doing so, the court did not reverse the findings of the Colorado court that Donald Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. The Constitution clearly says that, and insurrectionist, those that engage in such conduct, they can be barred from holding positions of government trust. As a matter of fact, we’ve done it before we barred people from running for president, we have barred people from running for Congress, under the same constitutional clause, all of a sudden, it’s not good enough. Now, this is going to be an interesting realization as we move forward. Because if you take the court’s ruling the Supreme Court’s ruling on face value, it’s suggest that somehow states are not able to enforce a constitutional right, or constitutional dynamics, they cannot uphold them. But that doesn’t make sense because States routinely engage in the enforcement of dynamics associated with the federal government, i e, Constitution, and federal law. The Supreme Court, while they made this ruling unanimously, they are split on the methodology and the mechanics of the law. While some are citing that basically this is a write codified only to Congress, others are saying, if this goes forward, it would allow states to basically run them up with their own way of doing a presidential primary. The reality is, while we have a presidential election, that is, in fact, a national election, it is carried out implemented and governed by state authorities. We have removed somebody from the ballot before and it was allowable back then. That was actually Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was removed from the ballot of multiple states. It was a slippery slope, obviously, it led to the Civil War afterwards. Now, I’m not saying that state should simply utilize this awesome power to dismiss individuals from the ballot. What I am saying is that I wish the Supreme Court would have been more thoughtful about the fact that the Constitution provides this as an equitable remedy. Just in case, it’s needed. The Supreme Court could have set aside the findings that indicate Trump is in fact in insurrectionist. Without the Supreme Court doing that. It clears the path to basically say that even if you engage in insurrection, you can still run for President of the United States.
Related
Today’s college protesters are tomorrow’s world leaders
Protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza have spread across cities and campuses around the world as accusations of genocide continue to mount. And while U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken works to negotiate a peaceful resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to promise more violence, proclaiming that Israel will invade Rafah with or without…
Friday
Trump’s own behavior betrays his guilt
Donald Trump recently summoned his supporters to show up and disrupt the criminal proceedings against him in court. Although few supporters actually showed up to defend the former president, the call reminded some Americans of his rhetoric surrounding Jan. 6, 2021. Straight Arrow News contributor Dr. Rashad Richey argues that Trump is revealing himself as…
Apr 26
Support democracy or Trump, but you can’t do both
U.S. liberals trace their original suspicion and distrust of Donald Trump back to a series of red flags raised early in the 2016 campaigns. The red flags include several instances where Trump said that he would only accept the results of an election if he wins. Years later, on January 6, 2021, Americans watched that…
Apr 19
There is no GOP, there is only MAGA
Donald Trump faces a range of potential criminal charges across numerous cases, from minor civil suits all the way up to sedition and conspiracy against the United States. The former president has consistently portrayed himself as a victim of political “witch hunts” and has sought to delay his court dates to avoid criminal sentencing prior…
Apr 12
Narrative of Jan. 6 attack reveals conservative bias, spin
On Jan. 6, 2021, supporters of then-President Donald Trump overpowered police and federal officers, broke into the U.S. Capitol, and then searched the Capitol and surrounding areas for specific Congress members to kill or take hostage in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. While some took to social media and threatened…
Apr 5
Underreported stories from each side
Trump slams Biden over conditioning weapons supply to Israel
15 sources | 8% from the left
Getty Images
GOP official argues in favor of child marriage: Girls are ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’
11 sources | 0% from the right
New Hampshire House of Representatives
Latest Stories
Is a bill to require proof of citizenship for voting necessary?
Watch 4:52
10 hrs ago
GM to end production of the Chevrolet Malibu to make more EVs
Watch 1:23
10 hrs ago
First aid ship bound for new Gaza pier sets sail from Cyprus
Watch 1:55
11 hrs ago
Trump asks oil companies to raise $1B, vows rollback of Biden’s green policies
Watch 1:26
11 hrs ago
Migrants in Denver issue list of demands to city before clearing encampments
Watch 1:32
12 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Putin’s promise of a long war might be hollow threat
15 hrs ago
Leon Aron
Why the Trump family is missing from court appearances
16 hrs ago
Jordan Reid
Arizona bill legalizing shooting migrants is part of GOP brand
Yesterday
Ruben Navarrette
NYPD’s lack of lawsuit disclosure shields it from accountability
Yesterday
Adrienne Lawrence