Today has been an absolutely craptastic day for the rule of law.
Saying that there has to be a uniform rule for applying 14.3 for federal offices would be one thing. It’s not a terrible principle, just one not present in the text, so it would save Trump while showing how bankrupt the so-called “originalist” framework is. Ok.
But then going further and saying Congress is the only power who can implement 14.3 is just incoherent. It contradicts 250 years of understanding of the meaning of … words.
There are alternatives. For example, SCOTUS could craft a fact finding standard and due process to implement the intent of 14.3 in the absence of explicit legislation. Courts do that all the time.
@jpanzer from what I heard there are serious problems that would prevent the Court from doing that, not the least that such a question was not before it.
The dissent was already complaining that the Court went to far, but crafting such a process out of whole cloth makes that much worse.
But yeah, I understand that the court wasn't briefed on background that would be needed to craft such a standard, and without development below to rest on, it would be a significant overreach.
@volkris Sure. But their decision today forecloses that option in the future.
@jpanzer the option is only foreclosed unless there's a valid grant of authority to the states to intervene in federal elections that way.
Once states have such a power, everything changes, and the Court may be in a position to develop the sort of test you're talking about, hopefully through a solid legal process that was missing here.
At this point, when it comes to such a test, the Court would be developing a test for a procedure that was itself illegal.
The Court said that states didn't have authority over feds like this. The test would be about something that states couldn't do anyway.
@volkris The problem ia that the states already wield power over federal elections in a lot of ways and the Court is now making up new rules (not clearly spelled out) about that authority.
States rights folks are suuuuper quiet today. For some weird reason. Almost like their position is situational.
@jpanzer I agree that there is tension here between the grant of states to conduct their elections vs saying that this goes too far.
The Court does recognize that in its ruling, though, but goes through history and practicalities to draw the distinction, much like 1st Amendment cases draw distinctions between permissible and impermissible actions, when both impact speech.
One thing they highlight is that the 14th Amendment was specifically about taking power away from states, so it's weird to cite that in ways that would empower states over the federal government.
It sounds reasonable, if not rock solid, to me.
This action was not a minor, incidental regulation like setting the hours for a polling place. It was an outright policing of a federal candidate, which makes it something of a different level, analogous to viewpoint discrimination of speech.
@volkris The 14th section 3 stands alone though. And it’s a well established principle of the Constitution that states can control certain areas where Congress has not preempted with legislation. Here, SCOTUS seems to have granted Congress a “pocket veto” over the 14th amendment (or just 14.3?) which I can’t find anywhere in the text.
@volkris It wouldn’t empower states over federal govt to say that, where Congress has failed to act, the states may enforce. That’s how how the rest of the Constitution, overall, works.
@jpanzer the critical point is that this was found to be a federal process, and off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere else that state courts can enforce state laws against federal processes specifically.
The best I can think of is, say, local zoning laws preventing a federal agency from building where they want to, but those are laws of general applicability and not targeted specifically at regulating federal activity.
Yes, when the federal government is silent toward private activity, states can step in, but the huge difference here is that this is a state acting directly against the federal government, which changes it completely.
As for the pocket veto framing, no the amendment is still 100% in force. It's just that, as the court frames it, the actual force of the amendment is in handing congress authority, which it still has, whether it chooses to apply it or not.
As per this ruling, the amendment stands, it just doesn't do what a lot of people want it to do.
@volkris What specifically was found to be a “federal process”? The process of determining if someone is an insurrectionist under the 14th amendment’s provision?
If so, what distinguishes that from the Qualifications clause (14 years a resident of the US?). What distinguishes it from the 13th amendment, which has a identical Congressional enforcement clause, but afaik Congress has never passed a law giving a process to determine if f someone has been enslaved. Etc. Seems like a mess to me.
@jpanzer effectively the Court said that the process for electing federal officials was a federal process, even if states are delegated roles to play in the process.
And enforcement of the 14th was not within that delegation, but perhaps it could be if Congress extended that delegation.
For distinguishing, I don't think they touched those other issues in the ruling, but they did spend some time discussing them in oral arguments (and I'm sure elsewhere).
Among other distinguishing factors that was brought up was that Congress can allow an insurrectionist to serve but can't allow someone underage to serve.
This issue that the 14th gives Congress a way to "remove such disability" seemed important to the final ruling.
BUT, at oral arguments it was suggested offhand that MAYBE those other enforcements were illegal as well. It just wasn't before the Court in this case.
