‘Also as I predicted, the court offered a brief history lesson to remind everyone that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments exist to limit states’ powers, not to add to them‘

COMMENTARY by Ed Morrisey, for | HotAir.net

Precisely as I had repeatedly predicted. The only surprise here, and it’s only a mild surprise, is that the court ruled unanimously against Colorado in its attempt to disqualify Donald Trump over his supposed status as an insurrectionist.

The nine justices took this so seriously, in fact, that the court issued the decision per curiam.

Even the concurrences simply amplify the arguments in the ruling, although the liberal wing’s concurrence takes exception to their scope.

In other words, the nine justices want to make sure this lesson in constitutional law sticks, and that the decision in Trump v Anderson offers no purchase for any more nutty theories about the 14th Amendment.

And even more as expected, none of the justices offered any opinion on Trump, his actions on January 6, or his status as an alleged “insurrectionist” … because that was unnecessary.

As I also predicted, the court offered a brief history lesson to remind everyone that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments exist to limit states’ powers, not to add to them:

This case raises the question whether the 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. …

The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office.

But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States.

The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.

This can hardly come as a surprise, given that the substantive provisions of the Amendment “embody significant limitations on state authority.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427U. S. 445, 456 (1976).

Under the Amendment, States cannot abridge privileges or immunities, deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, deny equal protection, or deny male inhabitants the right to vote (without thereby suffering reduced representation in the House).

On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment grants new power to Congress to enforce the provisions of the Amendment against the States. It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office. ##