US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that appropriated legislation from Congress is needed to enforce 14th amendment of US Constitution

  • Claim


Name

US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that appropriated legislation from Congress is needed to enforce 14th amendment of US Constitution

Types

Claim

Broader claims

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that state courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over US presidential disqualifications

Opposing arguments

Supreme Court justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson in "Anderson v Trump" stated that Supreme Court of US should not limit how Section 3 of 14th Amendment can bar from becoming President, but only resolve whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot

Quotes that support the claim

For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997). Or as Senator Howard put it at the time the Amendment was framed, Section 5 “casts upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it, for the future, that all the sections of the amendment are carried out in good faith.” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid. The enforcement mechanism Trumbull championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, “pursuant to the power conferred by §5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

Topics

Outcomes of US Supreme court case No.23-719 - Trump v Anderson
US Supreme Court judgment in "Anderson vs Trump"

Referenced by

Outcomes of US Supreme court case No.23-719 - Trump v Anderson

US Politics

Topic

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that state courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over US presidential disqualifications

US Politics

Claim

For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a

US Politics

Quote