House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., slammed experiences that Democrats are ginning up laws in response to the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution Monday to maintain former President Donald Trump off the 2024 poll.
“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 Court wrote, including that “the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.
According to a report published in Axios Monday, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said he is already crafting federal legislation that would force Trump off the ballot.
But a spokesperson for Speaker Johnson told Fox News Digital on Monday night that his Democrat colleagues should “get a grip.”
SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY FOR TRUMP IN COLORADO BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION DISPUTE
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
“Democrats must get a grip. On this nation, the American individuals resolve the following president—not the courts and never the Congress,” the spokesperson said.
According to the Axios report, Raskin referenced legislation he introduced in 2022 with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. that would allow the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
“We’re going to revise it in mild of the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution,” Raskin told the outlet. He suggested that the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an “revolt” and that those involved “engaged in revolt.”
Trump is dealing with numerous federal prices associated to the 2020 election, however he has not been charged with revolt.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
In the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, the nine justices unanimously agreed that states don’t have Section 3 enforcement authority. But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority went too far when it said Congress has sole enforcement authority.
“The bulk declares {that a} disqualification for revolt can happen solely when Congress enacts a selected type of laws pursuant to Part 5 of the Fourteenth Modification. In doing so, the bulk shuts the door on different potential technique of federal enforcement,” the trio stated.
The Supreme Court justices. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)
“The Courtroom at this time wanted to resolve solely a single query: whether or not a person State might hold a Presidential candidate discovered to have engaged in revolt off its poll. The bulk resolves way more than the case earlier than us. Though federal enforcement of Part 3 is by no means at subject, the bulk declares novel guidelines for the way that enforcement should function,” the three wrote.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“It reaches out to resolve Part 3 questions not earlier than us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate beneath that provision,” the three stated.
Rep. Raskin’s workplace didn’t instantly reply to Fox Information Digital’s request for remark.
