On my last blog about Trump being removed off the ballot, we explored how some states are pushing efforts to remove Trump from the primary election for the presidential nomination of the United States for many reasons. One of those reasons being that Trump incited a riot, an act of insurrection, can read more information in another one of my recent blogs.
In response to states like Colorado and Maine taking steps through their state Supreme Court to remove Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently reviewed this case to set precedent. In a 9-0 ruling, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar Trump — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely-used constitutional provision that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. This was the first case ever taken in regard to the Insurrection Clause of the 14th amendment, which to refresh states that those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States are banned from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. This ruling by the SCOTUS effectively overturns Colorado and Maine’s efforts to remove Trump but also the efforts by any other state such as Illinois.
Critics of this ruling continue to argue that Trump’s actions are in complete defiance to United States’ principles and beliefs. These critics also feel that the events of January 6th were clearly an insurrection, and for that reason, Trump shouldn’t be eligible. Critics also fear that if Trump is allowed to be on the ballot, is anyone who commits crimes against the US allowed to run for president too? Fears like this are paired with fears about the SCOTUS ruling and its ability to overreach rulings in the future. Critics also fear that this decision decision — with its emphasis on congressional action — could limit the judicial branch’s power to interpret the 14th Amendment.
However, supporters argue that this ruling protects the integrity of our electoral process and reaffirms our republic’s foundational principles, particularly the principle of Federalism. Federalism is all about the sharing of power between states and federal government, with the federal government having more power. Supporters like the idea that the federal government was able to overturn all propositions by these few state governments.
Another argument being posed by supporters about this situation is in regards to the time when this amendment was written. This amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, was designed to disqualify individuals from holding office if they had previously supported the Confederacy after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution. Supporters feel that this situation with Trump is significantly different than when the amendment was passed, therefore not having relevance.
With more cases heading Trump’s way such as allegedly falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign (which is scheduled to start in New York later this month), his fate of candidacy for the president position is unsure.
Ayan Kumar's Blog 