The flagrant error, which is to falsehood upon which the Colorado decision rested was for the Court to hold that in order to be effective, the constitutional provision in question required enabling legislation. To don't have to have gone to law school to know that this is wrong.
The second flagrant error was to hold that states lack the a…
The flagrant error, which is to falsehood upon which the Colorado decision rested was for the Court to hold that in order to be effective, the constitutional provision in question required enabling legislation. To don't have to have gone to law school to know that this is wrong.
The second flagrant error was to hold that states lack the authority to decide the substantive factual question that was presented in the case, when the Constitution clearly delegates the administration and conduct of elections to federal office, which entails things for setting terms for filing to get on the ballot and screening such filings for qualifications, to States.
..In effect the Court said that "in this special case", the question presented was a federal matter in to which Colorado has no business sticking its nose. This second error went hand in hand with the first. There is no case here to be decided, and if there were, it would note be up to you to decide.
Parenthesis: it would be up to us.
This did the Court rule in favor of its own role as goalkeeper. And revealed it's determination, not surprisingly, to assert its own power. In this instance the Court used it to nullify a constitutional provision.
Why did it do so, given how transparently wrong the decision was. Because they were afraid of the consequences of doing what they knew to be right.
The lawyers said it was "self-actuating". Which also sounds sophisticated and deep in meaning. Macht nicht... It either is what is: a prohibition; ,or is not. The Court said it is not. Nothing to see here !
The flagrant error, which is to falsehood upon which the Colorado decision rested was for the Court to hold that in order to be effective, the constitutional provision in question required enabling legislation. To don't have to have gone to law school to know that this is wrong.
The second flagrant error was to hold that states lack the authority to decide the substantive factual question that was presented in the case, when the Constitution clearly delegates the administration and conduct of elections to federal office, which entails things for setting terms for filing to get on the ballot and screening such filings for qualifications, to States.
..In effect the Court said that "in this special case", the question presented was a federal matter in to which Colorado has no business sticking its nose. This second error went hand in hand with the first. There is no case here to be decided, and if there were, it would note be up to you to decide.
Parenthesis: it would be up to us.
This did the Court rule in favor of its own role as goalkeeper. And revealed it's determination, not surprisingly, to assert its own power. In this instance the Court used it to nullify a constitutional provision.
Why did it do so, given how transparently wrong the decision was. Because they were afraid of the consequences of doing what they knew to be right.
The pundits say it's self effectuating.
The lawyers said it was "self-actuating". Which also sounds sophisticated and deep in meaning. Macht nicht... It either is what is: a prohibition; ,or is not. The Court said it is not. Nothing to see here !