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.
How could RFK Jr. impact 2024 election?
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Global warming won’t impact Russian-Chinese shipping
Thursday
Peter Zeihan
Can other nations replicate success of US shale revolution?
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
Peace between Israel and Iran, at least for now
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
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…
Yesterday
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
Former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel grifted her way into NBC
Just a week after NBC hired former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel as a political contributor, a wave of public outcry from several of the network’s stars compelled it to reverse its decision. McDaniel had joined shortly after stepping down from her role at the RNC, where she had vocalized support for former President Donald Trump’s…
Mar 29
Underreported stories from each side
Biden’s 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically
8 sources | 13% from the left
AP Images
Jamie Raskin Slams Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Case: ‘Acting Like A Bunch Of Partisan Operatives’
6 sources | 0% from the right
AP Images
Latest Stories
Biden uses NFL draft ad to try to connect with young voters
Watch 2:16
22 hrs ago
Powering pot: Energy for US cannabis industry could electrify 13.5M homes
Watch 1:29
22 hrs ago
Allies plan for Trump to have more control over interest rates
Watch 3:07
23 hrs ago
FDA: Bird flu found in 1/5 commercial milk samples, suggests greater spread
Watch 1:21
23 hrs ago
China permanently deploys warships to second overseas base
Watch 2:58
23 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
House Speaker Johnson’s foreign aid bill shows a focused GOP
Yesterday
Star Parker
Trump’s own behavior betrays his guilt
Yesterday
Dr. Rashad Richey
Portraying far-left and far-right as equal in ‘Civil War’ is wrong
Thursday
Jordan Reid
Who will Trump pick for vice presidential running mate?
Thursday
Matthew Continetti