MSNBC’s Joy Reid reacted on Monday to the Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado’s primary ballot with The ReidOut’s signature lack of reason as she warned that the Court has opened the door to 12-year old presidents.
Reid began by claiming the Court’s three liberals have divine qualities, “I'm sorry but the three dissenters, my three amigas, as I call them, they give me life, I’m sorry, they give me life everlasting, every time they write something it’s like boom shacka lacka, I love it.”
In this case, the liberals wrote a concurrence, not a dissent, but important details aside, Reid read from the decision, “It says ‘The case raises the question of whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons 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.’”
Turning to NYU law professor Kenji Yoshino, Reid then read the Constitution’s provisions that require the president to be at least 35 years old, be a naturally born citizen, and have lived in the country for at least 14 years. After she finished the reading, she asked, “So, if States can't enforce Section 3 of Article 14, can they enforce that? Couldn't a 12-year-old say 'I'm running for president,' or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could a state knock them off the ballot? Because that's a federal office. They would be running for president. If the states can't enforce it, can they enforce this?”
Thirty-five is 35 and it is greater than 12. Austria is Austria, not the United States. These are indisputable facts of math and political geography. In a free country, whether someone is guilty of a crime they have not even been charged with is not an indisputable fact, yet that is basically what the Colorado Supreme Court argued. The liberals justices Reid claim give her "everlasting life" would not agree with her on this.
Here is a transcript for the March 4 show:
MSNBC The ReidOut
3/4/2023
7:12 PM ET
JOY REID: Absolutely and I'm sorry but the three dissenters, my three amigas as I call them, they give me life, I’m sorry, they give me life everlasting, every time they write something it’s like boom shacka lacka, I love it. This is another thing, let me read, this is from section, this is from the reading—the ruling. It says “The case raises the question of whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons 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.”
Okay, so if that's the case, let me come to you Kenji, first, Yoshino, first. In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, now I'm playing play lawyer on TV, it says “no person shall except for a natural born citizen or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, nor shall any Person be eligible who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
So, if States can't enforce Section 3 of Article 14, can they enforce that? Couldn't a 12-year-old say “I'm running for president,” or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could a state knock them off the ballot? Because that's a federal office. They would be running for president. If the states can't enforce it, can they enforce this?
KENJI YOSHINO: Yeah, absolutely, if I want Taylor Swift or Prince Harry to be president, two figures that I know are near and dear to my colleague Professor Murray's heart, then why shouldn't I be able to vote for them as well?
So, Chief Justice Roberts has an answer to that in saying the 14th Amendment was a part of the Reconstruction Revolution that gave a lot more power to the federal government, but whether or not that's a sufficient answer I think is a really important question for us to be asking. And there's certainly a stark textual contrast in between the obviously self-executing provisions like you need to be 35 years old or you need to be a natural born citizen on the one hand, and you can't have engaged in, by the way, an insurrection as an oath breaker, right, on the other.
