Per the unanimous decision from SCOTUS this morning, Donald Trump’s name can stay on the ballot in Colorado and votes for him will be counted.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, a historic decision that preserves Trump’s ability to seek a second presidential term.

Monday’s unsigned decision effectively ends the long-shot efforts that aimed to prevent Trump from returning to the White House, handing a monumental legal victory to the former president on the eve of Super Tuesday, when he is poised to close in on clinching the Republican nomination.

There are several notable things in this decision, which you can read in its entirety here. 

First, this was Constitutional law at its best and finest. As HotAir’s Ed Morrissey points out, SCOTUS reminds us that the 14th Amendment doesn’t expand, it LIMITS states powers. 

Secondly, the court, in its decision, focused on the law. What is the role of the 14th Amendment on the state and federal level? Does a state have the legal power to keep a federal candidate off a ballot? Their answer is no, no they do not. From the decision:

[b]ecause the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

~Snip

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.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her own decision in which she agrees that the states don’t have power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. However, she doesn’t discuss Section 5 of the 14th. As I’ve noted previously, Section 5 is very clearly written. 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That’s pretty blunt. Yet, over these last months, those in Colorado, Maine, and now Illinois along with Democrats and liberal pundits and a total of 36 states, have willfully and purposefully ignored Section 5. 

In the decision, even Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan skirt around Section 5 and the role of Congress in this. 

“decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and [Trump] from further controversy,” by announcing “that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of enforcement.”

In that, I disagree. This ruling does NOT shut the door on other methods of enforcement. Congress, under Section 5 has had that power all along. We all know that. Congress knows that, and has done nothing. Why? Because they don’t nor didn’t want to, even when the Democrats held the majority in the House and Senate!

Notably, those who wanted SCOTUS to rule against Trump are clutching pearls and the tantrums have commenced. 

Free Speech for People, a group that represented plaintiffs in several cases similar to the Colorado one, said the Supreme Court had “made a mockery” of the 14th Amendment: “As of today, states can exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot because he did not submit the proper paperwork with the proper number of verified signatures, but not because he fomented a bloody insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.”

Others were sniveling about the timing of SCOTUS issuing their ruling. 

https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1764441598639689961

And, of course, Colorado’s Secretary of State took to social media to whine about the ruling. 

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.

— Jena Griswold (@JenaGriswold) March 4, 2024

Jena is, as are so many others, willfully ignoring the very blunt language in Section 5 that proclaims it is the responsibility of CONGRESS to decide who on the federal level can or cannot be on a federal ballot. 

What the liberals also wanted is for the Supreme Court to rule on whether Trump is guilty of insurrection in this case.

Yes the Supreme Court ruled for Trump based on only Congress having the power to enforce the 14th amendment

But just as important as what they did is what they didn’t do

They did NOT expressly challenge that he was an insurrectionist—& the concurrence emphasizes that finding

— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) March 4, 2024

Except that wasn’t what this was all about. What THIS CASE is about is whether Colorado, or any other state for that matter, can keep a federal candidate off the ballot. You can darned well bet that the liberals will be muddying the waters with their cries of ‘But Trump Insurrection SCOTUS BAD!!’ schtick. 

As much as Justice Barrett would implore Americans to turn the national temperature down after this ruling, comments like this from Mario Nicolais, one of the attorneys for the Colorado plaintiffs, is completely out of line!

“I hope that the cowardice of the court today doesn’t lead to bloodshed tomorrow,”

Since the decision didn’t go the way Democrats and liberals wanted, hoping for violence and court-packing is about the only options they have left since they won’t touch Section 5 with a thousand yard pole. 

While many are opining that this was a win for Donald Trump, in my opinion, this ruling was a win for the rule of law; and most notably it was a win for our Constitution and this Republic. 

Feature Photo Credit: Constitution vote sticker via iStock, cropped and modified