More justices, more peace: The push to expand the Supreme Court 

Progressives in Congress just reintroduced a bill that would increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) from nine to 13. The intent is to minimize political influence on the court, a concern shared by the public. most americansthey question whether the court will be fair in making decisions affecting the 2024 election.

The bill cannot pass unless Democrats maintain a majority in the Senate and flip the House.But SCOTUS March 4th Colorado blocking decision and other states’ removal of Donald Trump and all other insurrectionists from their ballots, fueling distrust of the courts.The three minority justices even suggested that the majority opinion included: Free possession This is to protect Mr. Trump and other insurrectionists from future removal.

The SCOTUS decision established that only Congress, not states, can bar a candidate from running. Disqualification Listed in Section 3 of 14^th Modifications include having committed a rebellion.

The court missed an opportunity to reduce the confusion and distrust that prevailed in the country. Rather, the decision effectively downgraded disqualification under Article 3 to a political decision. Currently, insurgent activists whose party can win a majority of votes in Congress can hold elected or appointed federal positions. A more legally reasonable decision would be to affirm Colorado’s decision that Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore unfit to serve as president.

The justices pointed to, but disagreed with, two Colorado courts’ findings that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection.” Former SCOTUS held A state court’s findings of fact are presumed by a federal court unless clearly erroneous. So SCOTUS chose to run a judicially determined insurrectionist for president.

To justify this decision, the majority relied on Article 5 of the 14 articles.^th The proposed amendment states that “Congress shall have the power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation,” but Congress has not done so. However, it is Section 3, not Section 5, that gives Congress the power to ban candidates from state ballots or reinstate them on state ballots. with a two-thirds vote.

Inexplicably, the majority considered Article 3 to be merely “strengthening.” Article 5, as written by the justices, gives Congress the power to “prescribe” how eligibility determinations should be made. Curiously, the word “prescribe” is nowhere to be found in Section 5.

The majority opinion’s focus on Article 5 appears to be a dead end over Article 3. It is common sense that the need for a tougher exercise of power (a two-thirds vote) is superseded by an easier exercise of power (rather than “strengthening”) (a simple majority). As the minority opinion stated, “It is difficult to see why the Constitution would require a supermajority of Congress to disqualify a Congress when a simple majority can override the operation of Article III.” .”

A minority agreed with SCOTUS’ final decision to return Trump to Colorado’s ballot, but disagreed more than they agreed with the majority opinion.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the majority’s decision should be limited to finding that “states lack the authority to enforce Article III” and that “federal law is the only means to enforce Article III. I shouldn’t have said whether it was or not.”

The minority also argued that there is nothing to support that Article III disqualification is possible only by law, and that the majority would bar Mr. Trump and all other insurrectionists from eligibility for future federal office. He suggested that it was being done for free to protect against challenge.

All the justices seem to agree that there is nothing in the 14 cases.^th The proposed amendment would delegate authority to states to enforce Title III against candidates for federal office. However, the Constitution gives states certain powers to determine candidates for federal office.Article 2, Sections 1, 2 and 3 provide “Each State shall appoint its President…electors who shall vote by ballot…in such manner as the Legislature may direct.” In some states, electors may reject candidates they believe to be disqualified. .

The following points were raised in the majority decision: Circuit Court Decision of 1869 In the Griffin case, it was held that states did not have the constitutional power to enforce Article III with respect to federal positions, particularly the presidential position. However, the same decision states that “…construction that results in great…public…mischief shall never be [avoids it]”

Reflecting this, in 1996 the Colorado Supreme Court Zehner vs. City of Brighton When a constitution is susceptible to multiple interpretations, courts must interpret its text. “Considering the objectives to be achieved and the negative consequences to be avoided.” Leaving Mr. Trump ineligible would be a “great public mischief” by allowing someone who the courts have determined to be an insurrectionist to run for the world’s most powerful office. could have been avoided, and Mr. Griffin’s judgment would have been satisfactory.

And Trump promises to do a lot of “pranks.” As president, he says he will eviscerate constitutionally protected rights and privileges. take control federal government agency, attack freedom Reporters and aides indicted “betray” he, purge government of dishonest employees, and dismissal of attorney general Those who refuse to prosecute political opponents and critics.

We should believe President Trump’s words.It comes directly from the dictator’s strategy he praised me: Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Xi Jinping.

The majority justices expressed concern that if states could bar candidates from the ballot, Congress would be “forced to use its disablement powers to influence elections before voting begins.” expressed.[s]” But it is where there is no fire, there is smoke. Under Article III, even after SCOTUS disqualifies a candidate, Congress has the “discretion” to put the candidate back on the ballot with her two-thirds vote. That is, it is not forced.

The justices also expressed concern that having each state decide whether to ban a candidate would result in uneven ballots. However, this is an argument used by SCOTUS to affirm that Mr. Trump is not qualified to hold the office of president, so all votes are equal and do not include Mr. Trump.

most americans It is questionable whether SCOTUS will be impartial in its decisions affecting the 2024 election. In invalidating Colorado’s decision to exclude Trump from the ballot, the justices justified their concerns. Tragically, we have lost faith in the courts as our last and best means of pursuing unhindered justice. It is no wonder that calls for reform by adding more judges have resurfaced.

Neil Baron is an attorney who has represented many institutions involved in international markets and advised various branches of the federal government on economic matters.