Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

Griswold Responds To SOCTUS Decision
The Scoop

Griswold Responds To SOCTUS Decision

The Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D-CO) has come under fire after initially declaring former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot. Griswold cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the insurrection clause, as the basis for her decision. This caused significant backlash as neither Congress nor any court had found Trump guilty of insurrection. Many critics saw her decision as a clear overreach of power and an attempt to enforce her own political agenda.

Following the outcry, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3, especially when it comes to federal offices like the presidency. This decision effectively overturned Griswold’s initial order and cleared the way for Trump to appear on the Colorado primary ballot. The ruling was met with mixed reactions, with some praising the Court for upholding the Constitution and others criticizing Griswold for her actions.

In an interview with MSNBC host Katy Tur, Griswold expressed disappointment with the Court’s decision, stating that she believed states should have the power to bar “oath-breaking insurrectionists” from the ballot. She also mentioned that the decision leaves open the door for Congress to pass legislation authorizing states to enforce Section 3. However, she also acknowledged that Congress is currently dysfunctional and that ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to decide the fate of our democracy in the upcoming election.

Critics were quick to point out the contradiction in Griswold’s statements, as she had originally tried to enforce her own decision to bar Trump from the ballot without any input from Congress or the courts. Many saw this as a clear abuse of power and a violation of democratic processes. The Daily Caller’s Geoffrey Ingersoll called it “absolutely bats***” that Griswold was worried about democracy being subverted when she had just attempted to do so herself.

Others also questioned Griswold’s claim that her decision was motivated by a desire to protect democracy. They argued that her attempt to unilaterally remove a candidate from the ballot was an undemocratic move and showed her own disregard for the will of the people. Some even accused her of using her position as Secretary of State to advance her own political agenda and silence opposing voices.

Griswold’s actions have also raised concerns about the role of states in the electoral process and the powers granted to them by the Constitution. While states do have the authority to set their own requirements for candidates appearing on the ballot, this must be done in accordance with the Constitution and existing laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that state officials should not overstep their boundaries and should adhere to the principles of democracy and due process.

Despite the ruling, Griswold’s actions have raised questions about the potential limits of the Supreme Court's power in policing state actions. Some have argued that the Court’s decision may set a precedent for similar situations in the future, where states may try to bar candidates from the ballot based on their own interpretations of the law. It also brings attention to the ongoing debate about the role of the judiciary in shaping state legislation and ensuring fair and democratic processes.

Moving forward, Griswold’s actions and the Supreme Court’s decision will likely continue to spark debate and raise important questions about the balance of powers between states and the federal government. It also highlights the vital role of the American voters in safeguarding democracy and upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law. As the country prepares for the upcoming election, it is crucial for all parties to respect the democratic process and for state officials to abide by the Constitution when making decisions that may impact the electoral process.

Written by Arthur Higgens - March 5, 2024