DECLARE TRUMP INELIGIBLE

SUPREME COURT ERROR

1. Historical Context and Original Intent:
• Historical Basis: Amendment 14, Section 3, was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War to address the issue of former Confederates holding public office. The framers intended for this provision to be self-executing, meaning it would automatically apply without the need for additional legislation.
• Original Intent: By ruling that Congress must pass enabling legislation, the Supreme Court deviated from the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers likely did not anticipate that future enforcement of this provision would be contingent upon legislative action, especially considering the urgent need for its immediate application post-Civil War.
• Moreover, the decision wrongfully ignores the separation of powers and the mandate of the executive branch to enforce all laws including the Constitution. The Department of Justice has an entire section devoted to Constitutional enforcement.
2. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:
• Judicial Overreach: The Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism by requiring Congressional action that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is an overreach of judicial power.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court’s opinion restrains the immediate enforceability of constitutional provisions meant to address urgent national issues.
3. Precedent and Legal Consistency:
• Inconsistent Precedent: The decision is inconsistent with previous rulings where the Court has recognized self-executing constitutional provisions and enforcement is solely the executive branch's responsibility. This inconsistency could lead to legal uncertainty and confusion about the enforceability of other constitutional mandates without explicit legislative action. More importantly, the executive branch enforces all laws, including the Constitution. The opinion thus flies in the face of the separation of powers.
4. Section 5 Incorrectly Interpreted: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—most notably, the provisions of Section One. The section enables needed implementation if appropriate. It does not require legislation for Section 3. This is a fatal flaw in the Court's opinion.

Practical Implications

1. Enforcement Challenges:
• Delayed Implementation: Requiring Congress to pass legislation to enforce Amendment 14, Section 3, can lead to significant delays. In a politically polarized environment, securing the necessary legislative consensus may prove difficult, effectively stalling the enforcement of this constitutional provision.
• Political Manipulation: The necessity for legislation opens the door for political manipulation, where partisan interests may influence the enforcement of the provision. This could undermine the intended purpose of Amendment 14, Section 3, to prevent individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding public office.
2. Impact on Accountability:
• Reduced Accountability: The decision could potentially reduce accountability for those who engage in insurrection or rebellion. If Congress fails to act, individuals who would otherwise be disqualified under Amendment 14, Section 3, might remain eligible for public office, thereby weakening the constitutional safeguard.
3. Congressional Overload:
• Legislative Burden: The ruling places an additional burden on Congress to pass specific legislation for enforcement. Given the already heavy legislative workload, this requirement may divert attention and resources from other pressing legislative matters.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in their concurring opinion, expressed concern over the majority's approach. They criticized the decision to create a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3 without substantial constitutional support. They argued that the majority's decision unnecessarily limited other potential means of federal enforcement, thereby departing from the principle of judicial restraint​ (Justia Verdict)​.

See https://spriggslawgroup.blogspot.com/2024/06/preserve-protect-and-defend-constitution.html

https://spriggslawgroup.blogspot.com/2024/06/amendment-14-section-3-is-self-executing.html

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision requiring Congressional legislation to enforce Amendment 14, Section 3, challenges the original intent of the framers and may be seen as an overreach of judicial power. Practically, it introduces delays and political complications that could undermine the enforceability of constitutional provisions designed to protect the integrity of public office. Most importantly, it ignores the fact that enforcement of all Constitutional provisions is vested by the Constitution in the executive branch.