The podcast discusses a rushed Supreme Court ruling on Trump v. Anderson with unanimous errors. Critiques on lack of quality, notorious cases cited, and a flawed opinion dissected. Examining the 14th Amendment's enforcement and state/federal power dynamics. Debates on state autonomy, statutes in Colorado, and challenges of removing officeholders. Analysis of constitutional problems, lack of engagement with key points, and disqualification post-14th Amendment. Courthouse discussions on unity despite discord among justices.
States lack authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal candidates, as Constitution doesn't delegate such power.
Court challenges state preemption of disqualifying federal candidates, arguing for Congress' post-election removal powers.
Historical scarcity of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office holders challenges legitimacy of state authority.
Deep dives
The Court's Argument on Delegated Power to States
The court argues that states lack the authority to enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal office holders or candidates as the Constitution does not affirmatively delegate such power. They contend that the text of the amendment only empowers Congress to remove disabilities by two-thirds vote, not the states. The court maintains that granting states such authority would undermine the rebalancing of federal and state power intended by the 14th Amendment, relying on an originalist interpretation of text, history, and structure.
Challenges to State's Disqualification Power
The court challenges any plausible inference that states have the power to preemptively disqualify federal candidates before the election cycle begins. They cite historical congressional exercise of removal powers post-election, contrasting state preemptive measures. The court infers that the Constitution provides no implicit delegation to states for such enforcement, aiming to respect the party's chosen candidates. Referencing McCulloch v. Maryland for precedents on federal-state relations, they argue against states deciding candidates' eligibility ahead of congressional intervention.
Critique of State Authority on Section 3 Enforcement
The court questions any tradition of state enforcement of section 3 against federal office holders post 14th Amendment ratification, with Christie in Georgia being the sole example noted. This lack of historical precedence challenges the legitimacy of states enforcing such disqualifications. The footnote referencing only one case raises doubts about the respondents' claims of state authority in enforcing section 3, emphasizing the scarcity of historical examples to support the respondents' position.
Foundation of Congressional Power under the 14th Amendment
The court asserts that the 14th Amendment text limits the power delegated to Congress for the removal of disabilities, suggesting that states lack the authority to perform similar functions independently. By emphasizing the amendment's focus on rebalancing federal and state powers, the court questions any implicit state delegation for candidate disqualifications. Highlighting the absence of explicit provisions authorizing states to enforce section 3, the court underscores the primacy of congressional power outlined in the Constitution.
The Court's Interpretation of Historical Precedents
The court expresses concern over historical precedent and constitutional problems relevant to certain assertions. They discuss the lack of historical precedent as an indication of potential severe constitutional issues. There is a debate surrounding the interpretation of historical patterns and disqualifications of individuals from state and federal offices.
Congressional Power and Section Three Enforcement
The podcast delves into the court's emphasis on limiting congressional power in enforcing Section Three of the 14th Amendment. They explore how the court's rulings impact the ability of states and Congress to enforce disqualifications based on constitutional provisions. There is a discussion on the implications of restricting Congress in adjudicatory roles, highlighting potential chaos in elections and the importance of historical context in legal decision-making.
The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was. An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong. Concurrences that are dissents. A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices. Notorious cases cited with approval. The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error. The autopsy begins.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode