Send us a Text Message.

Donald Trump is now a convicted felon, Hunter Biden is now a convicted felon. If we think this wasn't political, think again. This begs the question, how far is too far when vague statutes are used to wage political warfare with jail as a consequence? Ron takes you into executive expansion, agency power, vagueness in criminal statutes and the several cases up this term before the Supreme court that will determine if the Supreme Court has elected to protect our constitution or destroy it.

Quote: "As this term progresses and you start to see the Supreme Court strike down the overly broad interpretation of Sarbanes Oxly 800 January 6th defendants will have their convictions impacted..."

Check out Ron's Book Discussing Executive Overreach: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book

Contact Ron Here: httys://ronaldwchapman.com

Send us a Text Message.

BONUS EPISODE United States v. Trump oral argument.

Website: https://ronaldwchapman.com
Book: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Trump. In this bonus episode I recap some of the oral argument as well as a prediction for the outcome of the case.

In August 2023, Donald Trump was indicted for allegations that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing presidential immunity for his official acts.

The D.C. Circuit disagreed causing Trump to file in the Supreme Court.

On April 26, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in what justice Gorsuch would call "a decision for the ages".

Send us a Text Message.

Website: https://ronaldwchapman.com
Book: https://ronaldwchapman.com/book


The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling which had ordered that Donald J. Trump be excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress, not the States. Therefore, Colorado's action to disqualify Trump from the ballot was found to be beyond the state's authority. All nine Justices agreed with the outcome, emphasizing that only Congress has the power to enforce the disqualification provisions of Section 3.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Anderson centered on the application and enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses the disqualification of individuals from holding office due to engagement in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The case arose when a group of Colorado voters contended that Donald J. Trump, by his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach, fell under this disqualification and thus could not be listed on the presidential primary ballot for the 2024 election. The Colorado Supreme Court had ordered the Colorado Secretary of State to exclude Trump from the ballot, interpreting Section 3 as applicable to him and within the state's authority to enforce.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, holding that the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates is a power vested in Congress, not the states. The Court reasoned that allowing individual states to enforce Section 3 would create a fragmented and inconsistent electoral landscape across the country, undermining the unity and direct relationship between the national government and the people, which the Framers deemed essential. Such a "patchwork" enforcement mechanism would disrupt the presidential election process, potentially nullifying the votes of millions and altering election outcomes based on disparate state actions.

The Court underscored the historical context and intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing Congress's role in enforcing its provisions through legislation. It pointed to past instances where Congress exercised its power to enforce or relax Section 3's disqualifications, illustrating the established practice of federal, rather than state, enforcement. Moreover, the Court highlighted the absence of historical precedent for state enforcement of Section 3 against federal candidates, viewing this lack of precedent as indicative of the constitutional allocation of enforcement authority to Congress.

The decision reaffirms the federal government's primacy in matters of constitutional enforcement related to the eligibility of individuals to hold federal office. It clarifies that while states have significant authority over their electoral processes, this authority does not extend to enforcing constitutional disqualifications for federal office, which is a matter reserved for Congress. This ruling has broad implications for the country, ensuring a uniform approach to enforcing the disqualifications outlined in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and preserving the integrity of the federal electoral process.

In essence, the Court's ruling prevents states from independently determining the eligibility of candidates for federal office based on Section 3 disqualifications, reinforcing the centralized role of Congress in these matters and maintaining consistency across the nation's electoral system.