US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that responsibility for enforcing Section 3 of 14th Amendment of US Constitution against federal office holders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States

Claim

Name

US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that responsibility for enforcing Section 3 of 14th Amendment of US Constitution against federal office holders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States

Types

Broader claims

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that US Congress is the proper body to resolve questions concerning a US presidential candidate’s eligibility not a state court

Opposing arguments

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" respondent Anderson et al. claims states have the right to resolve questions concerning a US presidential candidate’s eligibility not only the Congress

Quotes that support the claim

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand

Although the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it plainly withdraws from the States this traditional authority. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869) (state judge). Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.”

Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794–795 (1983) (footnote omitted). But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” Id., at 795 (emphasis added). Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations

Although the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it plainly withdraws from the States this traditional authority. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869) (state judge). Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.”

Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office.2 But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle.

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794–795 (1983) (footnote omitted). But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” Id., at 795 (emphasis added). Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations

Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office.2 But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle.

The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5

Supporting arguments

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that US Congress is the proper body to resolve questions concerning a US presidential candidate’s eligibility not a state court

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

But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates

US Politics

In Supreme Court case "Anderson v Trump" Donald Trump claims that US Congress is the proper body to resolve questions concerning a US presidential candidate’s eligibility not a state court

US Politics