In a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling, a measure designed to prevent former Confederates from obtaining positions of power has been utilized, leading to mixed reactions. The decision has drawn criticism from former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who believes that the ruling is misplaced and inconsistent with the intent of the 14th Amendment. Bolton argues that the amendment grants Congress the authority to enact legislation to enforce its provisions, including those pertaining to Section 3, which pertains to individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the United States.
Expressing his concern about the interpretation of the federal constitution, Bolton questions the notion that state courts should be vested with the power to decide matters involving the highest elective office and determining what constitutes an insurrection against the federal government. He suggests that such a system would lead to chaos and argues that the Supreme Court should intervene to provide clarity on the matter. Additionally, Bolton doubts the intentions of the framers of the 14th Amendment, stating that those who wanted to suppress secessionist advocates and governments would not have intended to grant decision-making authority on this critical question to the states, especially the former secessionist states.
Regarding the recent ruling, Bolton emphasizes the need for Congress to enact new legislation if they want to define the meaning of Section 3, as they haven't done so in the past 150 years. He believes that it should not be left up to the states to determine what the provision entails.
Twitter Post On Supreme Court to Review Former Confederates' Return to Power Decision
While Bolton has been critical of former President Trump, he expresses his disagreement with likening Trump's rhetoric to that of Hitler. Referring to Trump's comments about illegal immigrants 'poisoning the blood of the country,' Bolton deems them as disrespectful and racist. However, he cautions against the comparison to Hitler, emphasizing the uniqueness of Hitler's actions and the danger of normalizing his image through such comparisons. Bolton insists that there is already enough evidence to demonstrate why Trump is unfit to be president without resorting to overstatement.
Ultimately, Bolton urges for caution in invoking Hitler, stating that it could unintentionally grant Trump the opportunity to rebut the claims and further polarize the debate. He believes that the case against Trump should not be overstated, as there are legitimate critiques of his presidency that do not require invoking such historical comparisons.
In light of the controversial ruling and the reactions it has generated, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will review and potentially reverse the decision. Many are closely watching to see if this case will set a precedent and impact future elections.
