The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Illinois Court Rules Trump Disqualified from the Presidency Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
But the ruling will be effectively overturned if the federal Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump in the Colorado disqualification case, as seems likely based on the oral argument in that case.
Earlier today, in the case of Anderson v. Trump, Illinois circuit court Judge Tracie Porter ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore must be removed from the Illinois Republican primary ballot. Section 3 states that "No person" can hold any state or federal office if they had previously been "a member of Congress, or… an officer of the United States" or a state official, and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Judge Porter's ruling largely follows the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court decision on the same issue, which is currently being reviewed by the federal Supreme Court. She has stayed her ruling in anticipation of an appeal, and it will likely remain on hold until the federal Supreme Court issues its own decision.
I think the Colorado Supreme Court got all the major federal constitutional issues right, and therefore also agree with today's ruling. Unfortunately, the federal Supreme Court oral argument strongly suggests the justices are going to reverse the Colorado decision on the grounds that Section 3 is not "self-executing," and therefore cannot be enforced by state governments unless and until Congress enacts additional legislation. If that happens, the Illinois decision won't have any effect. The same goes for a December ruling against Trump by the Maine Secretary of State.
For those interested, I have filed an amicus brief in the federal Supreme Court case, which explains why a prior criminal conviction on charges of insurrection (or any other criminal charges) is not necessary for for Trump to be disqualified.
I have also written about other issues related to the Section 3 litigation writings, most extensively here and here. In a series of previous VC, I explained why the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol qualifies as an "insurrection" under Section 3 (see here, here, and here).
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don’t know why the Illinois judge didn’t hold off to see what SCOTUS did. This just seems pointless.
Unless it was, just say, important to the Illinois judge to let everyone know what the Illinois judge would have done were it not for the recalcitrant Supreme Court.
TL;DR: Virtue signaling.
More than that, IL primary ballots have already been mailed to early voters. My (deceased) grandmother received hers today.
More than just virtue signaling. She’s telling certain people “I want a new job, and you can trust me for the role”
What’s the new job though? It can’t be as a federal court judge – she’s destroyed any chance of confirmation she would have had. Higher court in Illinois? Partnership at Perkins Coie?
Well, they do have a Chicago office.
That’s easy. She’s signalling.
Don’t be surprised if one or more of these states refuses to accept the SCOTUS ruling against them. Biden lost the student loan case at SCOTUS and has effectively ignored it.
Editor’s Note: Biden has not “effectively ignored it.”
You can tell, because if he had, the states would’ve gone back to court to challenge what he was doing.
“I don’t know why the Illinois judge didn’t hold off to see what SCOTUS did. This just seems pointless.”
Because SCOTUS may not rule before the March 19 Illinois primary? The Circuit Court’s stay lasts only through tomorrow. Trump may be able to obtain emergency relief from the Illinois appellate courts, but if not, his name should not appear on the primary ballot.
The tight timetable for this state “enforcement” of Section 3 is another reason why it’s a stupid idea.
The supposed ‘insurrection’ was nearly 4 years ago at this point. That “tight timetable” is deliberate.
I fail to see how 3 years and a few weeks is ‘nearly 4 years.’
It’s to send a political message.
What are the established legal criteria for what counts as an insurrection or a rebellian under American constitutional law?
Funny how these state courts don’t really delve too deep into that…
I’ve noticed that….
I know that botching a withdrawal to leave American weapons and materiel for the Taliban to pick up is aiding and comforting an enemy.
when will this judge kick Brandon off the ballot?
That question was not before the Court.
???
Au contraire. Every court to have considered the question has considered in detail the appropriate meaning of “insurrection.”
Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Like the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3, the statute does not define insurrection or rebellion. In a federal prosecution under § 2383, it would be left to the trial court (probably with input from the parties) to instruct the jury as to the meaning of these terms. The analysis conducted by the state courts, especially in Colorado, of the appropriate definitions is likely more extensive than a judge presiding at a criminal trial would engage in.
“Funny how these state courts don’t really delve too deep into that”
Funny how you failed to read any of the state court opinions then just up and announced your ignorance.
Funny how?
Unfortunately, the federal Supreme Court oral argument strongly suggests the justices are going to reverse the Colorado decision on the grounds that Section 3 is not “self-executing,” and therefore cannot be enforced by state governments unless and until Congress enacts additional legislation
Why is this unfortunate?
Because Trump, obviously. That answers so many legal questions, you know.
Ilya finally had one of his pet legal theories tested and is likely to lose. Can’t feel good to know you’ve invested so much time, energy, and emotion into making a loser argument. Probably even worse to realize that not even the most liberal Justices seem willing to accept it. Hence unfortunate.
lol is this guy like 95 years old and not following the most basic legal news any longer?
‘Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (hereinafter “Section 3”) safeguards our republic against the threat posed by public officials who have previously undermined it by engaging in insurrection
or giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States’.
THIS BRIEF unquestionably gives ‘aid and comfort’ to America’s enemies.
‘In addition, the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is a fundamental aspect of our legal system’.
Tell that to NY regarding its Executive Law 63(12)…
‘Neither life, nor liberty, nor property is lost by virtue of disqualification from various public offices’. (Colorado’s due process suffices).
Question begging. Further, what if someone denied that they’d actually participated or engaged in an insurrection? What if they claimed it was a mischaracterization of the event? What if they said you had the wrong guy? What if a person said there had been an insurrection, but that he hadn’t participated or advocated for THAT, but merely vociferous protesting? Colorado’s quantum of due process was wholly inadequate here—even if one doesn’t think 2383’s particular criteria are required.
‘When interpreting Section 3, just as any other matter in the Constitution, courts must prefer ordinary meaning over “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation”’.
Would the ordinary people of 1868 have considered those who participated in Jan 6 2021 to have been ‘engaged in insurrection’—especially since they’d well remember 1861-65? Not a chance.
‘Senator Waitman Willey agreed, is: not . . . penal in its character, it is precautionary. It looks not to the past, but it has reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future’.
Tell that to the disqualified Confederates…
‘Moreover, in its implementation, Section 3 in the vast majority of cases would have been either unnecessary or utterly ineffective if interpreted to disqualify only persons convicted of crimes’.
This doesn’t answer the question of whether Section 3 MUST NONETHELESS be understood to operate in conduction with the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Tankie, whatever your real intentions, you have basically made the case for Trump’s eligibility. Thank you.
Essentially, all of the arguments that Trump incited tHe Insurrection®™ boil down to this.
Trump promoted Badthink®™, and because some people rioted on the basis of Badthink®™, that was an insurrection and Trump incited it.
Some may argue this applies to Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Charles M. Blow, and many others. After all, they chanted, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”. They claimed that the police habitually hunt down and gun down unarmed Black men. They claimed the criminal justice system is systemically racist. And some people rioted on this basis.
It would apply if this principle was enforced in an even-handed manner. But the same side that says that Trump was promoting Badthink®™ also believe that Cullors, Jones, and Blow were promoting Goodthink®™, and those who rioted based on this Goodthink®™ were not engaging in Insurrection®™, but fighting White Supremacy®™
‘Trump promoted Badthink®™, and because some people rioted on the basis of Badthink®™, that was an insurrection and Trump incited it.’
That is, in fact, one basic template for how an insurrection could go.
If you’re a Fascist, sure.
…oh wait, just saw who I’m replying to.
Yes, a fascist would use that template. In fact, one did!
Yes, you do use that template.
‘Trump promoted Badthink®™, and because some people rioted on the basis of Badthink®™, that was an insurrection and Trump incited it.’
So, if a person promotes an idea and another person agrees with that idea but uses violence to advance that idea, the first person should be held responsible for the violence and its consequences? That does not seem to me to be consistent with the First Amendment, as such a rule would certainly chill free expression and peaceful assembly.
It defies the First Amendment.
I would oppose this application to Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Charles M. Blow.
Of course, pretty much that promote the Insurrection®™ narrative also believe (if not promote) the Hands Up Don’t Shoot®™ narrative, and feel that Cullors, Jones, and Blow were speaking truth to power, and feel that those who acted with violence on tis feeling were fighting White Supremacy®™, not engaging in Insurrection®™.
You forgot to switch accounts before arguing with yourself.
RE: “Section 3 states that “No person” can hold any state or federal office if they had previously been “a member of Congress, or… an officer of the United States” or a state official, and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
That would raise the question: Is Former President Trump a person or not? What would the legal implications be?
That would explain the “not quite right” skin tone, the “not quite right” logic and the “not quite right” smell…
defaultdotxbe : More than that, IL primary ballots have already been mailed to early voters. My (deceased) grandmother received hers today.
How’s she planning to vote ?
According to my Ouija board she still wants to vote for Trump, but as long as no one steals the ballot before I pick up the mail it’s going in the shredder.
Honestly I never gave much credence to claims of election fraud, but seeing how easy it was to get all of her payments cut off (SS, pension, SNAP, etc) vs how hard it is to get her voter registration canceled makes me think they believe they are facilitating something here. I mean, the county clerk’s office knows she’s dead, they issued the death certificate, but they still send a ballot? Makes no sense.
So you’re saying she’s boting for Biden this time around, got it.
My Mother voted in the 2012 election, she died in 2010. The reason that I say this is that she lived with me and we voted at the same place. When I went in to vote in 2012 I was one of the first people there. When I went to sign in the book, her name had a ballot number and a signature that wasn’t hers. When I called this to their attention I was threatened with arrest. When I complained to the Bureau of Elections, I was told it was an error. The following year her name wasn’t in the book.
Yeah, my brother moved out of state as soon as he graduated. I spent a couple decades pointing out the fact that they still had him listed it the voter rolls next to mine, every time he voted. For all I know he’s STILL registered to vote there.
And you didn’t think to do anything about it?
Can we please get a non-paywalled link to the ruling? Not all of us have a subscription to the New York Times. Thank you.
Beginning in 2016 , the author of the original post wrongly propounded that President Trump had colluded with Russia, only in 2019 stating “special counsel did not find that Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. This crucial finding appears to exonerate Trump on the crucial issue of ‘collusion’ with Russia.”
How can we solve the problem of political ignorance (a laudable goal, as many agree: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/september/october-2016/solving-problem-political-ignorance) when educators are ignorant enough to be duped by words from someone as transparently misleading as Hag Hillary?
More to the point, why should anyone embrace the opinion of an easily-duped educator who has the stated goal of being a “bulwark” against the democratic will of the people?
[As a sidenote, Google search results now tamp-down statements in support of President Trump’s first impeachment (the one now known to have been based upon misinformation deliberately propagated by those, like Somin, who prefer Stalinist rule). This automated behavior has the effect of concealing and protecting the liars and fools who supported the first impeachment.]
Trump’s first impeachment was not based upon misinformation. Also, you don’t, of course, know what the word “Stalinist” means.
It was based on a desire to protect FJB.
I’ll have to take your word for what Prof. Somin did or did not say, but my recollection of my view at the time was that Putin wasn’t remotely stupid enough to trust an unstable idiot like Trump with anything like “collusion”.
The first impeachment was, obviously, solid.
Professor:
I am curious how you reconcile this statement:
I think the Colorado Supreme Court got all the major federal constitutional issues right, and therefore also agree with today’s ruling. (emphasis added).
with the immediately following statement:
Unfortunately, the federal Supreme Court oral argument strongly suggests the justices are going to reverse the Colorado decision on the grounds that Section 3 is not “self-executing,” and therefore cannot be enforced by state governments unless and until Congress enacts additional legislation.
Specifically, since the Supreme Court is the actual (i.e.,, final) arbiter of what the Constitution means — and not the peanut gallery professoriate — and assuming a pro-Trump ruling emerges as you suspect, does that not mean that your interpretation will be “wrong”? Will you recognize your interpretation as “wrong” under those circumstances? Or will you continue to insist your interpretation is “right” and the Supreme Court is the one that “got it [‘wrong’]”?
If your answer to the last question is in the affirmative, then I contend you are not a professor of law at all but a mere partisan.
Somewhat true, but we still have people that insist the second amendment only protects the right of states to have militias.
I myself still think Wickard was wrongly decided. And no need to rehash Roe.
The current state of the law does not include how you predict the Supreme Court might rule, right or wrong.
So long as you’re not a “legal realist”, anyway.
.
compare: Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
(Jim Rutenberg, New York Times, 8/7/16)
Mr. Rutenberg openly admitted that he is not a journalist at all but a mere partisan.
It increasingly seems that all of our society’s major institutions are run by “mere partisans.” And, oddly, all of these disguised partisans happen to be on the same side.
Being feral paranoid cranks is a self-fulfilling prophecy – when people are more or less obliged to treat you like the feral paranoid cranks you are, it’s obviously proof that they’re agin’ ye.
.
Are you a lawyer, Barry Sullivan?
Did you have a college degree?
A high school diploma?
Flailing clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Well, Reverend . . .
To answer your questions in reverse order:
1. No, I don’t have a high school diploma. I skipped high school and went directly to college; save for one semester where I took classes I couldn’t get in college such as driver’s education and auto shop).
2. Yes, I do have a college degree — B.A. (Economics) UCLA 1977 (received a couple of months after my 19th birthday.
3. Yes, I am a lawyer. I am an active member of 12 state bars (all the 9th Circuit states plus Texas, Iowa, and Florida). I’ve taken and passed five different bar exams and passed them all on the first try (California 1988, Nevada 1994, Arizona 2013, Hawaii 2016, and Florida 2018). The rest I got in through reciprocity.
In case you’re wondering, I attended two different law schools: i) Berkeley (then known as Boalt Hall) and, ii) Harvard Law School (where I was a visiting scholar.
By asking such questions, I guess you place great credence into credentialism. I’ve laid my credentials onto the table for everyone to evaluate accordingly.
Now it is your turn:
1 Are you a actual Reverend? If so, where did you get your theological degree?
2. Do you have a college degree in any subject?
3. Do you have a high school diploma?
For transparency’s sake, please give verifiable details as I did.
First, I don’t believe a word you write. You sound like a disaffected clinger more than a lawyer.
Second, a lawyer should know that a Supreme Court’s decision does not make its interpretation (or another interpretation) “right” or “wrong.” Was the Roe v. Wade Court’s interpretation “right” or “wrong?” Did it somehow change its stripes when the Court issued Dobbs? Will “right” and “wrong” change anew when Dobbs is (predictably, deservedly) reversed by a better Court that resembles modern America more than a gathering of white, male, obsolete Federalist Society members?
Third, I am associated with the Congregation of Exalted Region. No silly superstition. No childish nonsense. No ridiculous hats; senseless dietary rules; systematic facilitation and concealment of the widespread, longstanding sexual abuse of children; disgusting theocracy; nonsense-based schools; or religious violence.
Choose reason, every time. And, if you can’t live without religion, choose the Congregation of Exalted Region.
First, I don’t believe a word you write.
Well, Reverend, your refusal to accept verifiable facts reflects upon the arguments you raised. I don’t hide behind pseudonymity. My name is Barry Sullivan and proudly sign my actual name to what I write, including all my posts upon this board.
Anyone who reads this post can look me up with any of the state bars I mentioned before.
You are the one who went to credentialism as a form of argumentative rebuttal by snidely implying I am some sort of an educational imbecile. I openly supplied my credentials for all to see. Those credentials prove (verifiably) that I am a practicing lawyer in twelve different states. I also have a undergraduate college degree — unlike one of your other snide implications. True, I admit I am a high school dropout. But I ended my formal education at Harvard Law School; not bad, huh?. I leave it to the readers to decide whether I am qualified to render opinions on Professor Somin’s post given the educational standards you yourself raised.
As to the “right” or “wrong” issue, I agree with you that Supreme Court decisions sometimes change over time. But, unlike Professor Somin, I don’t hold myself out as a Professor of Constitutional Law who has special abilities to read the Supreme Court’s tea leaves. As the famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence said at a guest lecture he gave when I attended Berkeley Law, “professors are the morticians of the legal profession.” In other words, their job is to report on what the law is, not pretend they are on the Supreme Court themselves. For them to do otherwise is to leave the professoriate behind and graduate to mere partisanship. I really don’t care which path Professor Somin chose to follow. My original comment was designed to illustrate Professor Somin’s own words (in the same paragraph mind you), show he is a mere partisan in this regard.
Finally, as to your recitation of your credentials, why in the world would you raise legal education as the sine qua non to comment on this post? Maybe it’s just me but your credentials seem to lack legal heft.
Prof. Somin is a “mere partisan?”
What are you?
I infer that you are a disaffected, obsolete right-winger who has trouble with nuance, normal human interaction, and concepts involving reasonableness and judgment. Probably a conservative bigot, too. But most especially a partisan, to the point at which a lawyer might stay stupid things about whether a legal position is “right” or “wrong” based on a current or prospective decision from a particular court.
I credit you for this — you seem to be a relatively high-functioning example of a person with your apparent attributes. But not only a partisan but also a partisan who picked the wrong side of history, in the culture war, and at the modern marketplace of ideas.
Just another disaffected, conservative culture war loser.
(. . . yawn . . .) Oh, I’m sorry — did you write something substantive? [pause to review]. It seems not.
In your first reply you invoke the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy by implying I lack educational chops (“3. Do you have a high school diploma?”) such that other readers should disregard my original post
because it was made by a manifestly uneducated dolt.
Then, after I supply you with my verifiable legal credentials (which any reasonable person would conclude qualify me to opine on the law), in your second reply you commit the logical fallacy of “shifting the goalposts” (“. . . I don’t believe a word you write.”). Why did you ask if you weren’t going to believe the answer?
Now, in your third reply you resort to the tired logical fallacy of ad hominem attack by calling me names (i.e., “Just another disaffected, conservative culture war loser.”).
So, three reply posts — all devoid of any substance; nothing but shrill invective, logical fallacies, and name-calling.
Got it.
Your swipe at Prof. Somin about “right” and “wrong” (and partisanship) was partisan inanity, apparently in the service of the losing side in the culture war. Several comments later, you’re sputtering about credentials and name-calling, without addressing the stupidity of your original criticism of Prof. Somin.
Has anyone ever told you you might be neurodivergent?
Carry on, on-the-spectrum clingers!
Dude, fourth reply post, and again with the name-calling (on-the-spectrum clingers?
You know, I have to admit that watching keep stepping on the same rhetorical rake was amusing the first couple of times. But now it’s just getting tedious.
Laken Riley couldn’t be reached for comment.
It is interesting and illuminative that the lone right-wing law professor at this bigot-ridden blog who has the courage and decency to write much about Trump and the MAGA movement is the libertarian.
The only explanation for the others:
Trump got their tongue.
Carry on, obsequious clingers.
It makes no sense to apply US Term Limits to presidential elector appointments or presidential elections. The decision’s whole basis was Article I requirement placing the entire responsibility for selecting members of Congress. Under Article I, citizen-voters ARE the congressional electors, as a matter of constitutional right. For this reason, US Term Limits very understandably held that state legislatures cannot interfere with decision-making power the Constitution exclusively assigned elsewhere.
Presidential electors are totally different. Article II assigns the power to appoint Presidential electors exclusively to state legislatures. It’s their power! They can delegate that power, of course. But what they can delegate in the whole, they can equally well choose to delegate only in part. It’s their power! Why can’t they do whatever they want to with it, subject only to limitations, like no race discrimination, that are imposed on all state legislative powers?
To suggest that US Term Limits should apply to Presidential elector appointments makes as much a mockery of the constitution as taking a case strike down a state law as interfering with an exclusively federal power and then using that case to claim Congress also is prohibited from regulating it. It makes just as much sense. The previous case said this legislation is beyond “the legislature’s” power. Congress is a legislature, as much a legislature as presidential elections are elections. So surely any case that says something is beyond a legislature’s power must apply equally well to Congress!
It’s equal nonsense here. The Framers provided that each of the 3 branches of the government gets selected in a different way. Congress is the exclusively popularly elected branch. The judiciary is the exclusively appointed branch with no provision for popular input at all. The Framers kept the Presidency flexible, with state legislatures retaining the power and getting the to decide for themselves whether and how much of that power to delegate to the people. This includes the power to sometimes take some of the power back.
Liberals have painted a fundamentally false narrative of inevitable, inexorable progress in which things always go in one direction and one direction only. Power always becomes more centralized, with the states increasingly resembling mere provinces sovereign in name only. Democracy always becomes more direct, with citizen voters getting more and more decision making power, never giving back anything once gained. Individual rights only increase. And so on.
It just need not work that way. Congress can decide it has taken on too much and give the states more flexibility, as has happened with many issues in our past, most recently marijuana. States can decide to make popular ballot measures harder to pass. The Supreme Court can decide a past decision was a mistake. And state legislatures retain the power to take things back from the people and more closely supervise how Presidential electors get selected.
This includes, as I see it, not only the power to appoint the electors themselves, but also the power to split the decision up and use a hybrid approach, letting the people mostly decide but not entirely, such as letting them decide but only among choices cabined by limits the legislature sets.
Hybrids are standard and perfectly legitimate policy choices when people disagree about what to do. Compromises are part of American government and the power and right to compromise is an important feature of self-government that courts needs to respect. As I see it, a hybrid approach to appointing presidential electors is just as legitimate and permitted a way to compromise as for any other policy decision the Constitution assigns to state legislatures to make.
And let me say this. The framers feared a demogogue who could charm the people, or enough of them, right into a tyranny. They chose a convoluted compromise approach to selecting Presidents in part out of this fear.
For centuries we have dismissed this fear.
Perhaps the framers were right on this point. At any event, even though the escape hatch they gave state legislatures (and, I still think, the Electoral College) to choose not to go long with the popular will has not been used in over. Century except for the occassional maverick elector, the power remains. As I see it, it is a fully legitimate power, one the Framers deemed essential. The Supreme Court has no more right to turn it into a matter of mere ritual than they have a right to make the sovereign states mere administrative provinces of the Federal government.
But the presidential primary doesn’t pick any members of the electoral college.
Are you claiming states have the authority to limit residents of their states from going to national conventions, or to limit who they can support once they get there?
As long as state taxpayers aren’t asked to foot any part of the bill, people can do anything they want. Nobody’s suggesting that the Republican Party would be prevented from selecting delegates to whatever convention it wants to hold on its own dime.
Or are you suggesting that any organization that ever wants to have a convention has a right to force a state’s taxpayers to pay the cost of arranging for its members to select which delegates should attend it?
I still think most of the was-it-an-insurrection and is-Section-3-self-executing discussion is completely beside the point.
The presidential primary does not elect or choose any public official at all, state or federal. It chooses private citizens to go to the convention of a non-governmental organization.
If the state chooses to fund or facilitate this process (and it would be much better policy if they didn’t), they can’t use that funding as a tool to override the undisputable right to assemble and hold a convention to support anything or anybody, even if it were the presidential candidacy of an 16-year old genocidal maniac non-citizen convicted on 497 counts of insurrection.
The SC has made clear in many other contexts, e.g. ceremonial flag raisings outside city hall, that the options are to not fund/run the whole thing, or to fund/run it under rules that don’t differentially impact 1A rights.
Could one of the lawyers explain why this is wrong?
It’s just not so, Dixiecrats used this exact argument to claim a right to hold a whites-only primary. After all, state funding arguably shouldn’t interfere with a private non-commercial polical organization’s power to select its own members according to its own criteria any more than it (arguably) shouldn’t interfere with its power to select whatever leaders it wants.
If the argument were valid, giving blacks the franchise would hardly matter in states with near one-party rule, as most Southern states had in the 1960s. The Democratic primary outcome usually determined the overall election outcome.
But the argument was resoundingly rejected. State-funded primaries are part of the official state election process, and are not just purely private matters. That means Dixiecrats couldn’t make them whites only. A state funded primary is a state matter, bringing in the state’s powers and responsibilities.
Same here.
I don’t dispute the White People’s Power Party’s right to hold its own whites-only primary and send delegates to its own whites-only nomination convention if it wants to. But if it does so, it can’t use the state-funded primary process. It has to pay for having its lily white members select whatever lily white delegates they select its own lily white self.
I think the Colorado Supreme Court got all the major federal constitutional issues right,
You do?
Then why are you writing here? This is for serious discussion of the law by people who understand the law.
Not for the mindless babbling of imbeciles.
Even the most expansive reading of section 3 limits the states jurisdiction to state elections –internal legislatures and representation to the national congress. It does not extend to elections on the federal executive level.
But you keep doing you. You will, you don’t know any better
And it’s not even a federal executive election.
It’s members of a political party picking delegates to their own convention.
Which they remain free to do on their own dime. They don’t need to involve the public’s polling machines, officials, security, etc., or the taxpayers’ checkbook paying for it all, in their private political activities.
Here the state is willing not only to pay, but to give the winner a guaranteed spot on the general election ballot, but only for parties and candidates willing to abide by the state’s elector appointment rules. Any party that wants to conduct its nomination process on its own dime with no guaranteed spot on the general election ballot is free to do so.
There’s no First Amendment problem with this.
May I suggest you consider reading the constitution before calling people who have read it “imbeciles”?
If you had read it, you would have discovered that under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, Presidential electors are appointed by states, as directed by state legislatures. The Constitution specifically assigns the matter to the states, and all responsibility for it to state legislatures and ONLY state legislatures. It is, accordingly, under our constitution, entirely a matter of state jurisdiction. Under our constitution, federal officials have no right to interfere with matters, like this one, that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the states.
I don’t know why you think your imbecilic babbling is any more pertinent that Ilya’s.
But since you’re incapable of wiping the drool from your chin let me make it plain.
A primary isn’t about electors. It’s about delegates There is a difference.
The assignation of delegates is the purview of the party Not the state or federal government.
We’ve been through this before. After the Supreme Court struck down de jure whites-only elections, Dixiecrats tried all-white primaries making exactly the arguments you made. Private party, none of the state’s business. Primaries are about delegates to nominating conventions, not candidates. Exactly what you said.
In Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court said no. As long as a political party doesn’t involve the state in its delegate selection process, doesn’t ask its taxpayers to foot the bill, and doesn’t ask for an automatic line on the state’s general election ballot, its lily white members can do whatever their lily white asses please. But the minute it asks the state for any of these things, its primary then becomes state action, and is subject to both state regulatory power and constitutional limitations on that power.
Also, wouldn’t the assignation of the delegates be the purview of the prostitutes? I would think the Party Vice Chair would be responsible for that.
I understand Mike Gaetz is very experienced in this part of the party affairs business.
Unfortunately, the federal Supreme Court oral argument strongly suggests the justices are going to reverse the Colorado decision on the grounds that Section 3 is not “self-executing,” and therefore cannot be enforced by state governments unless and until Congress enacts additional legislation
Even if it’s “self-executing” you still need a how? When? Who decides?
Otherwise on Jan 7, 2021, any soldier in the military could refuse to take orders and say “Trump isn’t the President anymore, since he just gave us an insurrection”. Or on Aug 31, 2021, the military could say “Harris is the President now, since Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan gave our enemies aid and comfort”, etc. It’s a ludicrous argument.
I suppose, at his court martial, Section 3 would have been raised as a defence, and the military court would have convicted him anyway. Assuming there’s some sort of appeals procedure (sadly, I haven’t a clue about military law nor any particular interest in getting one), said soldier would eventually be fully and finally convicted, would go to Leavenworth (I think it is) and ultimately be dishonorably discharged some years later.
Where’s the problem you’re so concerned about?
I’m no Trump fanboy, but I don’t think his remarks on January 6th come close to insurrection. At worst, maybe incitement to riot, but probably not even that.
Insurrection is what Puerto Rican nationalists did when they entered the Capitol Building in 1954, shooting indiscriminately and injuring five members of Congress, including one seriously injured.
Insurrection is what the Weathermen did with continuing acts of violence against the government, ultimately culminating in the bombing of the Capitol Building in 1971.
All Colorado, Maine, and Illinois have done is to feed the claims that Democrats are out to get Trump. Their actions might even help him get elected.
Why did Trump’s organization intentionally and repeatedly mislead the Park Service concerning plans to send the mob to the Capitol?
You claim not to be a Trump fanboy, but you sound like a clinger.
What plans to send the mob to the Capitol?
Show us an actual citation.
Both the Jan 6 committee and the FBI tried like hell to find a smoking gun that showed Trump directly ordered or planned the riot, and couldn’t find anything.
Did they find the pipe bomber?
Look it up yourself. The authorities have the emails. The Trumpers lied to the government about whether they planned to send the mob to the Capitol after the speeches; lied some more when asked about it again; cautioned each other about the importance of refraining from disclosing the truth; and laughed about it.
What caused you to become a disaffected right-wing culture war casualty and obsolete, un-American misfit?
Just say that you have no cites, Artie, because you’re making shit up again.
Everyone knows that if you’re doing anything at all, there’s gonna be lies attached.
Trump’s “remarks on January 6th” are a small part of the insurrection case against him. If you think that’s all there is, then you are not very well informed.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf