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.
Dr. Rashad Richey
National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Is the US looking for a war?
7 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
How future generations could shift US support for Israel
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Why election of European Commission president is so important
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
‘Both completely corrupt’: What Americans think of Biden, Trump
Tuesday
Dr. Frank Luntz
Supreme Court wrong in overturning Trump’s Colorado ruling
Dr. Rashad Richey
National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.
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.
Don’t fall for GOP’s cheap racist attacks on Kamala Harris
Republican rhetorical attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris, the leading Democratic candidate for president, escalated as soon as President Biden announced that he was stepping back from the election. Many Republicans accused Harris of being “a DEI hire” and indicated that she only got her position because of her skin color or gender, not her…
8 hrs ago
Violent rhetoric in politics amplified by Republican leaders
In the wake of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, some Republicans were quick to blame Democrats for the attack, linking it to “incendiary rhetoric” about Trump. One recent example cited by his supporters is President Joe Biden’s comment: “It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. He’s gotten away with doing nothing…
Jul 19
America is in trouble
President Biden’s debate performance drew a variety of reactions from Democrats, with some calling for him to step down, others saying that he should support another candidate, and some still insisting that Biden remains the best choice. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded presidential powers and criminal immunity in its Trump v. United States decision…
Jul 12
Americans deserve younger candidates, better ideas
On March 7, President Joe Biden delivered a well-received State of the Union address, speaking clearly and in detail about the challenges that the nation must confront. Less than four months later, on June 28, a very different-looking president took the stage to debate Donald Trump. In both speech and physical appearance, this Biden suddenly…
Jul 5
Time for Christian evangelicals to part ways with Trump
As former President Trump vies for another shot at the White House, one loyal demographic he is counting on is white Christian evangelicals. More than 80% of evangelicals backed Trump in the 2020 election, and after endorsing a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, he’s gearing up for…
Jun 28
Underreported stories from each side
Group accuses Pa. teachers union of illegally using money to back Shapiro’s 2022 campaign
8 sources | 0% from the left
Getty Images
Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’
8 sources | 0% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
Congress still trying to figure out how to reduce wasteful military spending
Watch 2:29
2 hrs ago
US Navy, Air Force making waves with new weapons at RIMPAC
Watch 6:03
2 hrs ago
Israeli PM Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Watch 2:54
2 hrs ago
Growing US nuclear power resurgence reaches the nation’s heartland
Watch 1:19
2 hrs ago
Beer from the sun, other solar thermal projects get government funding
Watch 2:04
2 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump has an excellent opportunity with Black voters
7 hrs ago
Star Parker
Don’t fall for GOP’s cheap racist attacks on Kamala Harris
8 hrs ago
Dr. Rashad Richey
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
Yesterday
Jordan Reid
Why all the changes in European parliamentary governments?
Wednesday
Newt Gingrich