Select Page

Court rules Trump to stay on the ballots.

Court rules Trump to stay on the ballots.

The United States Supreme Court made it very clear that state courts, state legislatures or state officials have no authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  By “very clear,” I mean it was a unanimous decision.

No one should be surprised.  It was the only decision that makes any constitutional or common sense.  Democrat efforts to argue this as a states’ rights issue makes no more sense than when they tried to ignore the United States Constitution with slavery, Jim Crow laws and so-called separate-but-equal school segregation as states’ rights issues.

The actions of Colorado, Maine and Illinois to remove Trump from the ballot would make a mockery of presidential elections.  It would lead to arbitrary decisions by various states to remove unfavored candidates in a hodge-podge of state elections. Very simply, it would end the concept of a national presidential election.

Yes, the Amendment is about insurrection as a specific issue, but so far that has only been a matter of arbitrary political opinions in terms of Trump.  Those proffering the argument that states can and should remove Trump from state ballots are proposing it as a political process – as opposed to a legal or constitutional process. 

We are living through a case in point.  While there have been accusations of insurrection, what happened on January 6, 2021, is still a matter of political opinion.  My own – and millions of others – is that January 6th was a riot, not an insurrection.  The issue of riot versus insurrection has never been adjudicated in a court of law – and only a handful of the thousand on Capitol Hill that day have been found guilty of attempting an insurrection.  The vast majority of other indictees have been found guilty of crimes commonly associated with rioting.

The Colorado Supreme Court opined that Trump was an insurrectionist as the basis of their decision to remove him from the ballot, but that case was not about the insurrection.  They claimed that Trump was an insurrectionist, but never actually put him on trial for the crime of insurrection.  The existence of an insurrection, and Trump’s potential involvement, was arbitrarily assumed by the justices.  Even Special Counsel Jack Smith has not charged Trump with insurrection – and that is THE major case about the events on Capitol Hill.

Consider what could happen if the United States Supreme Court had not ended the folly of states taking presidential candidates off the ballot by politically biased whim – as did the Secretary of State in Maine.  In Illinois, the determination was made by a Chicago judge who normally handles traffic cases.

One can appreciate just how wrong Colorado, Maine and Illinois were to have been struck down by a UNANIMOUS court decision – something rarely seen in politically-charged major cases. 

Still, the genetic Trump haters persist. They say the Supreme Court was wrong.  That the Court made that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment null and void.  They claim that the High Court made the decision even though they determined that Trump was an “oath breaker” and “insurrectionist.”  That is what members of the liberal faction said in their CONCURRING opinions.  Note … those were not DISSENTING opinions. 

In fact, they were nothing more than arbitrary PERSONAL opinions since the question of Trump’s culpability as an “oath breaker” or “insurrectionist” was not the official matter before the Court.  It was not a matter before the Colorado courts … or in Maine’s Secretary of State’s opinion … or the decision by the Chicago judge to remove Trump in Illinois.  In fact, Trump is not being prosecuted for insurrection anywhere in the country. 

Those on the radical left have decided that the Court threw the matter to Congress to act, and that will never happen.  Ergo no proven insurrectionist will ever be denied running for office.  In fact, people can still be charged with insurrection by federal courts, and if convicted, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment could be invoked.

Characteristic of the leftwing anti-Trump spin was Attorney Lawrence Tribe – a regular guest on MSNBC. (Need I say more?)  In a display of intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics, Tribe claimed it was actually a 5 to 4 decision, with five conservative justices producing the majority.  He even claimed that the pivotal vote was Justice Thomas, who he said should have recused himself.  That is a lot of bovine byproduct piled into one statement.  It demonstrates how far some of the more radical leftwingers will spin fairy tales.

Two facts Tribe is trying to obfuscate.  It was a 9 to 0 unanimous decision declaring that states do not have the authority to remove federal candidates from the ballot – especially the President.  And Thomas was not a pivotal vote any more than any one of the other nine.  In a 9 to 0 decision, there is no “pivotal vote.”  And the Court did NOT declare Trump to be an “oath breaker” or “insurrectionist” … period.  That is nothing more than a specious campaign narrative proffered in the court of public opinion.

The Supreme Court decision was a correct one – the only correct possibility.  It was a strong decision without a single dissent.  Yes, Trump could be seen as a winner.  But so is the Constitution and the nation.  It exposes the extent to which the anti-Trumpers will go to stop him out of fear that the American people may reelect him.  The Supreme Court showed its value as a pillar of our constitutional democracy by ignoring the conflicting political narratives of the moment to uphold the Constitution.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. frank stetson

    I would say RussaGate looked stronger than this one. Yesterday’s news. Nice tie-in to Jim Crow and slavery. Where’s Hitler?

    • Dan tyree

      Where’s the connection between Jim Crow, slavery and Hitler? Jim Crow and slavery belongs to the democrats. Hitler has no connection with America

      • frank stetson

        Dan, up top while talking about the Colorado decision by SCOTUS, it was said: “Democrat efforts to argue this as a states’ rights issue makes no more sense than when they tried to ignore the United States Constitution with slavery, Jim Crow laws and……..” I just figured “Hitler” had to be the missing connection… :>)

  2. Joseph S. Bruder

    Not allowing a single state to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot was the right decision. However, the conservative majority went a step further and said “only Congress can address this issue”. That was a step too far. Why should the Supreme Court remove courts from the decision?

    If a 25-year old was running for President, and a state allowed that person to be on the ballot, his opponents or the opposing political party could sue to have him removed. And if a federal court rules the candidate ineligible, it can go to SCOTUS for a final ruling. If the question had to be resolved by Congress, there would be no hope of getting the issue resolved by a divided Congress or in a timely manner. How is that not different from this question? If need be, whether a candidate participated in activities banned by Article 14 should be decided by SCOTUS. Unfortunately, SCOTUS was asked to rule on whether the state could decide, and not whether Trump is still eligible or not. Trump is playing the delay game, but hopefully that issue can get resolved before the November elections.

    Horist tries to spin Trump’s eligibility as a political decision by making fun of the issue with a cartoon (most likely copyrighted and stolen, since the author’s name is stripped off). It is not political, it is a Constitutional decision. The 14th Amendment really was written (and voted on by Congress) to “protect Democracy”. It is as much a part of the Constitution as any other Amendment, and should not be ignored.

  3. Mike f

    Larry, As per usual, you ignore the facts regarding Trumps culpability for inciting an insurrection. A majority of elected legislators in the Congress determined that he had incited an insurrection and voted to impeach and convict him of such. The majority of Republicans did not, preferring instead to deal with him again this election year, something I suspect they will regret. So there tis-end of story…

  4. Darren

    Since when does the Biden White House do Anything in accordance with the Constitution?
    They have the news media treating the people of this country like Mushrooms, in the dark and soon
    to be cool as they shut off the gas to homes.
    The only reason the Clinton team has not killed Trump is because it would mean the next Republican would win
    with 80% of the Vote.
    I leave out 20% because of the people in office sucking the monetary life blood out of our country.
    They would execute their own mother to stay in power!
    The cartoon is EXACTLY CORRECT!

  5. Andrew Gutterman

    What’s fascinating about this is the Constitution only says they cannot hold office. It says nothing about running for said office. So like I said before, people voting for Trump are actually voting for his VP choice.

    • larry Horist

      Andrew Gutterman … you raise another issue that the Supreme Court would have to decide if it ever came to that. But for now, only federal action can remove a presidential candidate from the ballot according to the recent 9/0 Court decision.

      • Andrew Gutterman

        The case was weak from the start. Every time I read the text in the Constitution I kept coming back with it not allowing insurrectionists to hold office. It said nothing about being on the ballot. So if Trump gets convicted of the Jan 6 fiasco….

        • larry Horist

          Andrew Gutterman … when you talk about Trump getting convicted of the January 6 “fiasco”, you do know that no where is he being charged or indicted for insurrection — not even by the Special Counsel. Unless that changes, Trump is eligible to run and serve.