Library/9-0 and the Rule of Law

9-0 and the Rule of Law

Mar 4, 2024· 30:59· 20K views·indexed 5mo ago

supreme court trump vs anderson section 3 insurrection clause political law bipartisan standards colorado ruling federal office election governance

THIS VIDEO

◈ Key takeawaysAI summary · 10 points

Charles Hoskinson discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on whether Trump can be on the ballot in a video dated March 4, 2024.

He emphasizes his belief in the rule of law and the need for equal application of legal standards across political parties.

The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous (9-0) in the case of Trump versus Anderson, affirming nonpartisan principles.

The ruling clarifies that while states can disqualify individuals from state office, they lack the constitutional authority to enforce disqualifications for federal offices, including the presidency.

The decision states that powers over elections and qualifications must be specifically delegated to states, not reserved.

Hoskinson notes that the standard for insurrection is not formally established, referencing U.S. Code Chapter 115, Section 2383, which addresses rebellion and insurrection.

He mentions that various states, including Colorado, Maine, and Illinois, have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot, but the Supreme Court ruling counters these actions.

The video serves as a follow-up to Hoskinson's previous commentary on the Supreme Court's review of Trump's ballot eligibility.

The ruling is presented as non-controversial, reinforcing the idea of nonpartisan legal standards.

Hoskinson expresses disappointment at the backlash from those opposed to Trump following his earlier video.

Generated from the transcript — jump to any point to verify.

TranscriptAI-cleaned

⌕

Hi, this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm, sunny Colorado. Today is March 4th, 2024, and I'm making a bookend video to complement the other video I made a few weeks or months ago discussing the Supreme Court reviewing whether Trump could be on the ballot or not.

As you know, I’m a rule of law type of guy. Generally speaking, I like objective standards that are applied equally to all people. In some cases, that disadvantages a political party like the Republicans; in other cases, it disadvantages a political party like the Democrats. But it’s bipartisan, and there should be equal application of the law.

When I made that prior video, I said if the court is nonpartisan in this, it should be nine to zero, no dissent. It’s unlawful for a state to arbitrarily decide to remove someone from the ballot without citing some form of federal standard. Of course, people who hate Trump came in and said that’s a terrible thing, and Colorado can do whatever it wants. Maine did something, and I guess Illinois also did that.

Now we have a ruling from the Supreme Court, hot off the press: 9 to 0. It was nonpartisan in Trump versus Anderson. This ruling outlines the case and discusses what the Supreme Court of Colorado was talking about and all the different arguments. On page six, it raises the question of whether 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.

It goes on to say that such power over governance does not extend to federal office holders and candidates because federal offices owe their existence and function to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion of the people. Powers over elections and qualifications must be specifically delegated to, rather than reserved by, the states. Nine to zero—not controversial.

If you’re curious about what the standard for insurrection is, it’s never really been formally established, but we do have three different ways to look at it. One is the U.S. Code. If you look at Chapter 115, which covers treason, sedition, and subversive activities, Section 2383 has a rebellion and insurrection clause. Whoever incites, sets foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than

MACHINE-GENERATEDSOURCE ↗

9-0 and the Rule of Law

Related talks