March 4, 2024 is the day of "double happiness" for former U.S. ** Donald Trump
On the same day, he won the North Dakota Republican primary by a landslide, winning the primary again.
At the same time, nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned Colorado's lawsuit, making it clear that no U.S. state can no longer invoke the "insurrection clause" to disqualify Trump or other ** candidates.
How to view this result and what impact it will have on American politics has become a topic of concern.
1) The federal-local rift is getting worse.
The U.S. Constitution has a certain amount of ambiguity in its provisions on federal and state powers. In the article on the power of the Federation, in addition to expressly granting it explicit powers, it also tacitly allows the Federation to have the power to legislate in order to maintain its effective functioning, which leaves the door for the expansion of the power of the Federation**.
In the provisions on state powers, the Constitution reserves to the states powers that are not conferred on the federal **. However, given that the powers conferred on the federal ** are not clearly defined in the Constitution, the specific content of the powers reserved by the states is also unclear.
This deliberate ambiguity is mainly to prolong the timeliness of the content of the Constitution, so that the system can be reasonably flexible in the face of new environments and new problems. But it also provides a legal basis for the struggle for power between the federal and state governments.
In the process of cooperation, the two sides often worry that the other side will interfere with their own sphere of power. Rather than focusing on how to better solve social problems, both the federal and state governments are more concerned with "who has the power to propose solutions to this problem". This "off-topic" has led to a long-term lack of solutions to many social problems.
In reality, the Supreme Court often applies "double standards" in its rulings in order to consolidate federal power. For example, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Arizona's Law Enforcement and Neighborhood Safety Act, finding that much of its immigration-related provisions violated the federal authority. However, the federal appeals court recently recognized the entry into force of the immigration bill passed by Texas, allowing the state's law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain illegal immigrants who cross the border, and did not overturn the relevant Texas bill because the immigration bill is supposed to be within the power of the federal government.
Returning to Trump, the heart of the ruling is that the Supreme Court has held that states do not have the power to remove Trump from the ballot under the "insurrection prohibition" clause of the 14th Amendment, because that power belongs to Congress, not to the states. This kind of "power-only" ruling fully reflects the increasingly serious differences between the federal and state governments in areas such as the judiciary.
2) An undercurrent of constitutional crisis is surging.
The United States is a dual-constitutional federal state. The federal and state states constitute the dual political subjects of American society and have their own constitutions and legal systems. **Power is distributed and shared among binary political subjects in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. This determines that, unlike the local ** of most countries, the US states** have a relatively high degree of independence, and also have exclusive powers guaranteed by the constitution in some social fields and things, and even have the ability to check and balance the federal ** to a certain extent.
In this case, the Colorado ruling has raised concerns among many social groups. They argue that such a ruling is detrimental to the federal political system of the United States. If states follow suit and set standards for "insurgency" based on local political leanings, it will exacerbate the constitutional crisis.
While the Supreme Court's ruling has temporarily suppressed the crisis, structural issues remain unresolved. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying it deprived the state of its authority to enforce the disqualification provisions. She worries that the Supreme Court is leaving the decision to Congress, which is unlikely to act. Thomas Kicker, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, said: "Trump faces almost zero consequences after the Capitol riot, which bodes badly for the health of the nation's democratic institutions. ”
3) Judiciary and politics are intertwined, and judicial fairness is seriously corroded.
The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial powers is the cornerstone of the American political system, but with the increasing polarization of political competition, the judiciary has become increasingly involved in politics. In this case, for example, five conservative officials argued that at the federal level, only the U.S. Congress could disqualify someone from running for office on the grounds of insurrection.
While U.S. judges have long had distinct political leanings, this is the first time that judicial decisions have been directly involved in political elections. This non-traditional approach undoubtedly challenges the traditional role of the U.S. judiciary and raises public doubts about judicial neutrality.
As the highest judicial body in the U.S. system, the Supreme Court's decision is based on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the review of various bills and acts, but it also reflects the socio-political environment and the personal political tendencies of the officials at the time of the decision.
This plurality of understandings not only provides a space for debate at the legal level of political disputes, but also enables certain political issues to eventually transform into legal disputes.
4) The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are becoming increasingly antagonistic and politically polarized.
Colorado and other states have disqualified candidates from running through rulings of the state's judicial system, which shows that the vicious competition between political parties in the United States has begun to shake the "neutral" position of the judicial system in the ** election.
Just imagine, if this ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court is not overturned by the Federal Supreme Court, then the practice of invoking the "insurrection clause" to disqualify the ** candidate from running, thereby expelling the more threatening contenders, is very likely to become a new strategy adopted by various political parties in the United States in the future ** elections. Of course, even now that it is overthrown, the legitimacy and legitimacy of the electoral process in the United States is being weakened and further exacerbating the ideological rift in society.
Quentin Fulks, manager of the Biden campaign, was unimpressed by the Supreme Court's ruling. "It's not the way we plan to beat Donald Trump, it's to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box," he said in an interview. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson accused the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling as a "purely partisan attack" against Trump and the Republican candidate, a "radical and undemocratic" political act. Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz called the ruling a failure to "interfere with the election through legal means."
The constant turmoil and insistence on different opinions have exposed the tension between the vicious competition of political parties and the neutrality of the judiciary in the United States, reflecting the crisis of the federal system of dual constitutional government, and contributing to the continuous tearing apart of American politics.