Full Breakdown: Trump's 9-0 Win in Supreme Court

well the Supreme Court just decided that

Donald Trump can indeed remain on the

ballot I'm going to go through some of

the core pieces of what the Supreme

Court and their unanimous decision said

and I'm also going to show you where

there was well let's just say um there

were some justices that were a little

poed at how far the court went in this

case uh first on ec.com I wrote down uh

some items uh where I thought and

predicted that Donald Trump would

probably win the Supreme Court case uh

and one of those had to do with officer

versus office of this just has to do

with the distinction between the fact

that can you run for office or as a

candidate or can you or is is the

section three of the 14th prevent you

from holding office and really the court

agreed that uh as an office you have to

resort to impeachment to prevent

somebody from being in that office and

there's nothing in the 14 that says you

can prevent somebody from running for

office we're going to see that in the

actual court documents remember section

three does specify elector of president

but it never actually talks about the

office of President uh it really gives

Congress that right a lot of this case

has to do as predicted with States

versus Federal rights there was no talk

about the first amendment really in this

so we left the First Amendment out of

this in the actual decision the disr

disenfranchising voters concern did come

up in the case section 2383 did come up

in the case Trump's statements did not

come up in the case and double jeopardy

did come up in the case so a lot of what

we kind of predicted this case on did

come up in the actual ruling and I want

to highlight some of the most important

components of this so the most important

components really come in

here the Supreme Court decides that

states May disqualifying people from

holding a state office but they say that

states don't actually have the power to

determine whether a federal candidate

can be on a federal ballot because it

would create too much of a patchwork of

uh results we'll get into how they break

that down in a moment but first they

make it very clear look States you can

decide how State elections are run but

and you could decide the rules for State

elections but you don't don't have the

power to decide how Federal elections

are run and this would be this really

goes back to small States versus big

States and federalism arguments remember

small states got the benefit of having

Senators every state gets two senators

big States through compromise got the

benefit of having Representatives

through the power of how much of a

population you have that was a

historical compromise uh and the Supreme

Court argues look let's just say that

you know Joe Biden today self- declares

he's an insurrectionist would states

have the power to actually remove Joe

Biden the answer is no only Congress can

do that through impeachment and remember

Donald Trump was already impeached but

he was not fully removed by the Senate

impeached in the house not removed by

the Senate they also argue if you're in

prison for a federal crime can a state

protect you and the answer is no a state

cannot they also make it clear that you

can't stop somebody from running for

office that people might claim that but

there's nothing in the 14th amendment

that says somebody cannot run for office

this is something we talked on over here

at EAC as it really breaks down the

prevention of section three is

preventing somebody from holding office

not running for office remember ec.com

I'll I'll throw up the actual annotated

text in a moment on eag.com so you can

get my whole breakdown here of the

ruling

uh and I throw all my research up on

that website just sort of as a free

compilation but anyway uh Congress has

the power to remove any

disqualification like let's say you're

an insurrectionist let's make it very

clear you're an insurrectionist and you

want to run for office can you yes if

Congress through a two-thirds vote says

you can but otherwise states don't have

the power to say no no no it's okay you

can and that becomes very important in

this ruling states have no power to

impede burden or in any manner

control the operations of constitutional

laws there's no federal precedent there

is State precedent but the lack of

federal precedent screams that this is a

constitutional issue at

heart and the Supreme Court rules on

constitutional issues the Supreme Court

then directly asked Colorado why did you

not bring up a case against Trump under

Section

2383 which would disqualify the

president uh or or really anybody

through an Insurrection claim and the

Supreme Court decided not to use or

sorry the the state supreme court or the

state of Colorado itself decided not to

use 2383 they punted why they didn't use

2383 Supreme Court didn't like that of

the United States said we already have

rules that exist that you could use and

now you're trying to create new rules

don't work that

way uh the Supreme Court is not aware of

any legislation that exists to enforce

Section 3 and there's nothing explicitly

that says states have any power in fact

section five of the 14th amendment gives

power specifically to Congress and the

whole 14th Amendment is designed to

limit the power of States so the 14th

amendment limits the power of states and

gives more power to Congress

so why would the Supreme Court here

interpret that the state should have

more power than Congress they see that

as implausible in fact they specifically

say the idea that states would have more

power than Congress is implausible via

this

section they also argue that there are

risk that states might apply the law

differently not because just maybe like

some states are going to be biased like

obviously there's going to be a

difference and bias between like a

California and an Arkansas but also that

different states might have different

procedures and stand standards some

states might require the preponderance

of evidence which is what use we use in

civil trials whereas others might use

the Reasonable Doubt standard which is

what we use in criminal cases since

there's no standard here you would end

up with likely a a patchwork or

nonuniform result of who could run for

office and you'd basically have a bunch

of different states putting different

people on the ballot and be a complete

disaster in addition to that we get the

double jeopardy argument that if someone

was allowed to remove someone from the

ballot in one state then let's say that

person becomes president it's entirely

possible the state could try to undo

that presidential seating and therefore

all of the work that President does

could come into question that'd be a big

problem now uh all nine members agreed

with this it was so order this was a

unanimous decision however the opinions

were not unanimous we did have uh Amy Co

con Barrett provide a a majority opinion

this was 54 split not in the actual

decision but in how the opinion was

written so five justices uh supported

the ruling as they made

it however four of them led by soda

mayor and Jackson argued that yes states

do not have the power to move somebody

from the ballot however they went as far

as saying you should not have a uh an

argument by the Supreme Court that says

hey look only Congress has the power to

enact the section uh a three terms

they're basically arguing hey you know

what look you know how there's a rule

that says you can only have a a

president who served for two terms and

after that the president can't run

anymore that's in the 22nd amendment we

don't have an extra law or case law that

says okay once you're passed two terms

you can't it's just enshrined in the

Constitution and so the minority here is

a little peeved that the Supreme Court

maybe went a little too far A little too

far maybe to the right to argue that uh

this this section three is so

steadfastly clear that states have no

power so if I were to just simplify this

let me make this very very simple I

would would say uh nine out of nine

justices said

States uh

cannot

remove uh people from

ballots all right people from fed

ballots okay that was nine out of nine

however five out of four said that

states have no

power uh via the Third

and four sorry four out of nine there we

go four out of nine said whoa whoo

whoo

um don't go that

far so they're kind of just like

preserving a little bit of like a hole

there in the longer term

future so that's it that is basically

what just happened here so uh you know I

mean I think this was pretty obvious but

I mean yes as predicted Donald Trump won

this you could say that in an unbiased

manner because the Supreme Court if you

listened to the hearing there was no way

you could have looked at that hearing

and said oh yeah uh Colorado's good

they've got a chance they really didn't

I've talked about that on the channel

numerous times so anyway that's my

summary thank you so much for watching

and folks we'll see you in the next one

goodbye and good luck