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

  • Claim


Name

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

Types

Claim

Broader claims

US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that appropriated legislation from Congress is needed to enforce 14th amendment of US Constitution
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 that decision if someone "has engaged in insurrection" under Section 3 of 14th amendment of US constitution lies within judicial branch of government

Quotes that support the claim

Moreover, the result of divergent standards and determinations is particularly problematic in presidential elections. As this Court has recognized, “in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest” because “the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation
The result is that 51 different jurisdictions may (and have) adopted divergent rulings based on different standards on the same set of operative facts.
Procedurally, section 3 is silent on whether a jury, judge, or lone state election official makes factual determination and is likewise silent on the appropriate standard of review, creating the prospect of some courts adopting a preponderance of the evidence standard, others a clear and convincing evidence standard, while still others requiring a criminal conviction.
Courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over presidential disqualifications.

Supporting arguments

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

Referenced by

Courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over presidential disqualifications.

US Politics

Quote

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

US Politics

Claim

The result is that 51 different jurisdictions may (and have) adopted divergent rulings based on different standards on the same set of operative facts.

US Politics

Quote