The Supreme Court’s decision to allow Donald Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot shapes the way states can challenge federal candidates under constitutional rule.
An image of former President Donald Trump is displayed as members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol hold its last public meeting on Dec. 19, 2022. Surprising as it may seem, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the power of states to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal candidates for office or elected officials has particular bearing on the political questions tied to the finalization of the Equal Rights Amendment .informs questions about constitutional interpretation and the amendment process as another instance of Congress’s principal authority in national democratic decision-making.
More generally, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment’s limits on the powers of the states through the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause to reason that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal office holders within the balance of the separation of powers between the federal and state governments.
Similarly, the attempts by five states to rescind their prior ratifications of the ERA should be treated as a political question to be resolved by Congress. There is historical precedent for this position: New Jersey and Ohio voted to ratify the 14th Amendment and then voted a second time to rescind their prior ratifications. Nevertheless, Congress responded by passing a resolution declaring the 14th Amendment fully ratified and listed New Jersey and Ohio as two of the ratifying states.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: RollingStone - 🏆 483. / 51 Read more »
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »