Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al.

[James E. White]

As an example of Supreme Court illogic (and completely ignoring reading the law in English) also see the case of Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al., 601 U. S. ____ (2024) (i.e., v. the State of Colorado) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf. The Colorado public officer oath or affirmation includes "support the constitution of the United States" thus meeting the requirements of Article VI clause 3 (paragraph 3) of the United States Constitution. Norma adhered to that oath or affirmation in applying Amendment XIV Section 3 (paragraph 3) as did at least one prior court before the case reached the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court however ignored, Norma's oath or affirmation, their own Justice oaths or affirmations, and the "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" sentence of Amendment XIV Section 3. [my emphasis]

The Supreme Court did acknowledge Congress ("responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States" [my emphasis]) but flipped Congress's responsibility from being "remove such disability" to effectively inverting it, via "for enforcing," to "declare such disability" and then the Supreme Court grabbed the "remove such disability" to themselves and (ostensibly) did it. They also had the gall to charge costs to Colorado for its sworn or affirmed office holders obeying the Constitution. The Supreme Court's "and not the States" illogically also undoes States' (via their office holders) requirements to obey at least this one Amendment XIV section. All the Supreme Court's Amendment XIV perversions are logic (and plain English language understanding) failures and are wholly un-Constitutional violations of Amendment IX and Article V. The Supreme Court cannot modify the Constitution, only interpret it when there is an ambiguity or unanticipated new application for principle (e.g., telephone vs. Amendment IV). There is no ambiguity in the "But Congress…" sentence quoted above.

Oaths or affirmations of lawyers and State (and Federal) officeholders are to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court. Therefore, Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and any other state wherein those sworn to uphold the Constitution and responsible for providing ballots for the 2024 U.S. Presidential election and who have duly determined Donald J. Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution]" have a Constitutional mandate to leave Donald J. Trump off their ballots regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says. If Donald J. Trump is to protest such omissions to anyone it must, to be Constitutional, be to Congress.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has to be fixed. Only Congress, through impeachment for bad Behaviour (the opposite of "good Behaviour", Article III, Section 1), can implement the fix. Turning Amendment XIV Section 3 on its head, then all 9 Supreme Court Justices grabbing "remove such disability" for themselves, is very clearly not "good Behavior" and thus is impeachable. And I've asked Congress to do that through Elissa Slotkin, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Johnson, and Gary Peters with no result other than solicitations for campaign funds and being added to mailing lists. You, you, you, and you can help. There is no statute of limitations on Supreme Court bad Behaviour therefore you can vote out all current Representatives that represent you and all the Senators that represent you in Congress and make it clear to whoever you elect that fixing the Supreme Court, starting with impeachment, is your wish. If necessary gather behind a single write-in candidate who is NOT a politician and not beholden to any party campaign donations/advertising dollars.

Further I would suggest that the Supreme Court, whose size has not kept up with the growth of the country (from 3 million at ratification to 330 million today), be upped to perhaps 45 Justices with panels of 3 to decide each case always declaring precisely the why of their decisions in reasonably clear and succinct form. If the 3 are not unanimous then move the case to a panel of 9. Certainly more thought and discussion should go into restructuring of the Supreme Court but kicking out the egregious constitutional violators on the current Supreme Court should be a no-brainer. They've done enough damage to you, you, you, and me over many years.