Connect with us

Economics

Full steam ahead for Donald Trump after Supreme Court ruling

Published

on

AN OBSCURE patch of the constitution from 1868 never looked likely to keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot in 2024. It was not clear that the idea of turning to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—which bars officials who engage in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding future office—would gain traction in any of the 35 states where lawsuits emerged. But litigants had a viable claim: after taking an oath to protect the constitution, the 45th president had arguably thwarted the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th 2021 and was therefore (according to Section 3) barred from recapturing the presidency. Judges and officials in Colorado, Maine and—just last week—Illinois found this reasoning persuasive.

On March 4th, a day before Colorado and 15 other states are set to vote in primaries on Super Tuesday, the Supreme Court punctured any remaining hopes that the post-civil-war provision (originally designed to keep former Confederates at bay) would stop Mr Trump’s third run for the White House.

The justices voted unanimously to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that disqualified Mr Trump from the state’s primary ballot. They had given strong hints in the hearing on February 8th. Justices from right to left said that states may not unilaterally erase presidential candidates from the ballot because they are purported insurrectionists.

The decision is “per-curiam” (“by the court”) with no noted author. It proceeds on the premise that the 14th Amendment was intended primarily to restrict state autonomy—an emphasis that militates against giving states latitude to remove candidates themselves. The opinion also leans heavily on Section 5 of the amendment, which assigns to Congress the “power to enforce” the amendment’s many guarantees (from the “equal protection of the laws” to the bar on unduly depriving people of “life, liberty or property”). It is fine, the court notes, for states to disqualify candidates for state office. But “with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency”, the constitution “does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the states”.

The court writes that “state-by-state resolution” of the disqualification question “would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer” across the country. The “patchwork” that would result “could dramatically change the behaviour of voters, parties, and states across the country”, potentially “nullify[ing] the votes of millions and chang[ing] the election result”. The constitution cannot be read to impose such “chaos” on the country.

Although the decision was unanimous, the four female justices criticised their five male colleagues for deciding more than they needed to—and foreclosing other methods of enforcing Section 3. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced”. For Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the opinion could have started and ended with the proposition that empowering Colorado to remove Mr Trump from the ballot risked “a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our nation’s federalism principles”. In their view, the five men were excessively bold, deciding “novel constitutional questions” that rope off future challenges under Section 3.

The majority went further than necessary, the court’s three liberal justices charged, “creat[ing] a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3” that does not apply to any other provision of the 14th Amendment. There is “next to no support” for the proposition that Congress must pass a statute to enforce Section 3, the opinion continues. By overreaching, the court in effect “insulate[s] all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office” and “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement”—in a federal court, say, or via an act of Congress that is, in the eyes of a future Supreme Court majority, disproportionate or incongruent.

These disagreements mean that Trump v Anderson goes down as both a unanimous decision barring Colorado from removing Mr Trump and a 5-4 ruling giving the Supreme Court final say on congressional action disqualifying any oath-breaking insurrectionist from pursuing public office. But for the leading Republican candidate for president, the message is clear: full steam ahead. 

Economics

After a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal

Published

on

Donald Trump is the most powerful Republican politician in a generation, but the president-elect is still no match for the most nihilistic members of his own party. The budget chaos that unfolded on Capitol Hill as the Christmas break approached is only a preview of the difficult realities Mr Trump will face when he starts to govern next month.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why Congress is so dysfunctional

Published

on

Budgetary chaos is a sign that governing will be harder than Donald Trump might assume

Continue Reading

Economics

PCE inflation November 2024:

Published

on

Key Fed inflation measure shows 2.4% rate in November, lower than expected

Prices barely moved in November but still held higher than the Federal Reserve’s target when looked at from a year ago, according to a Commerce Department measure released Friday.

The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, showed an increase of just 0.1% from October. The measure indicated a 2.4% inflation rate on an annual basis, still ahead of the Fed’s 2% goal but lower than the 2.5% estimate from Dow Jones. The monthly reading also was 0.1 percentage point below the forecast.

Excluding food and energy, core PCE also increased 0.1% monthly and was 2.8% higher from a year ago, with both readings also being 0.1 percentage point below the forecast. Fed officials generally consider the core reading to be a better gauge of long-run inflation trends as it excludes the volatile gas and groceries category.

The annual core inflation reading was the same as in October while the headline rate rose 0.1 percentage point.

The readings reflected little increase in goods prices and a 0.2% rise in services prices. Food and energy prices both posted 0.2% gains as well. On a 12-month basis, goods prices have fallen 0.4% but services have risen 3.8%. Food prices were up 1.4% while energy fell 4%.

Housing inflation, one of the stickier components of inflation during his economic cycle, showed signs of cooling in November, rising just 0.2%.

Income and spending numbers in the release also were a bit light compared to expectations.

Personal income rose 0.3% after having jumped 0.7% in October, falling short of the 0.4% estimate. On spending, personal expenditures increased 0.4%, one-tenth of a percentage point below the forecast.

The personal saving rate edged lower to 4.4%.

Stock market futures held in negative territory after the report while Treasury yields also slumped.

The report comes just two days after the Fed cut its benchmark interest rate another quarter percentage point to a target range of 4.25%-4.5%, the lowest in two years. However, Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues reduced their expected path in 2025, now penciling in just two cuts compared to four indicated in September.

Though Powell said Wednesday that inflation has “moved much closer” to the Fed’s goal, he said the changes in the projected path for rate cuts reflects “the expectation inflation will be higher” in the year ahead.

“It’s kind of common sense thinking that when the path is uncertain you go a little bit slower,” Powell said. “It’s not unlike driving on a foggy night or walking into a dark room full of furniture. You just slow down.”

Continue Reading

Trending