Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Methinks the Roberts court sides with Colorado.

Not so sure about that. The Supreme Court does not routinely follow state supreme court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. If this were based on a Colorado-specific requirement, you might be right.

Neil Gorsuch, as a CO and District Court judge and justice, held that Colorado alone could determine who was eligible or not for their ballots.

Was that in regard to a Colorado-specific requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

Well that is debatable

This means, at least theoretically, that politicians who participate in or encourage a rebellion against the government can not only be removed from office but prevented from holding state and federal offices in the future. However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear.

https://constitution.findlaw.com › ...
Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment - FindLaw


What were the findings of the January 6th Committee?

The committee believes Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack, but notes he was impeached on that charge already. The report summary specifically concludes there is enough evidence to convict, and, therefore, charge him with “assisting, aiding or comforting” the insurrection.Jan 6, 2023

And Trump was acquitted by the Senate, which is the underpinning of Trump's claim of double jeopardy. The 14th Amendment issue seems to be a political question, not a legal one (as the previous poster keeps insisting). That's another way that the Supreme Court could reverse the Colorado Supreme Court.

He wasn't acquitted. He was simply not removed. A majority of senators found him guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

Well that is debatable

This means, at least theoretically, that politicians who participate in or encourage a rebellion against the government can not only be removed from office but prevented from holding state and federal offices in the future. However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear.

https://constitution.findlaw.com › ...
Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment - FindLaw


What were the findings of the January 6th Committee?

The committee believes Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack, but notes he was impeached on that charge already. The report summary specifically concludes there is enough evidence to convict, and, therefore, charge him with “assisting, aiding or comforting” the insurrection.Jan 6, 2023

The J6 Committee is not a court and was not, let's put it politely, without its political biases and selective approach towards evidence and testimony it gathered and presented. The word "incite" is very vague and can be applied broadly to mean anything you want it to be.

No, it is a pretty straightfoward word and one has to be wearing orange-colored glasses to see it any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

Well that is debatable

This means, at least theoretically, that politicians who participate in or encourage a rebellion against the government can not only be removed from office but prevented from holding state and federal offices in the future. However, how disqualification works under the 14th Amendment has never been clear.

https://constitution.findlaw.com › ...
Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment - FindLaw


What were the findings of the January 6th Committee?

The committee believes Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack, but notes he was impeached on that charge already. The report summary specifically concludes there is enough evidence to convict, and, therefore, charge him with “assisting, aiding or comforting” the insurrection.Jan 6, 2023

The J6 Committee is not a court and was not, let's put it politely, without its political biases and selective approach towards evidence and testimony it gathered and presented. The word "incite" is very vague and can be applied broadly to mean anything you want it to be.

Oh please - play semantics as much as you like but we lived through it and saw him rallying his motley crew of insurrectionists all day and not calling them off for hours. I still remember him Giving shout outs to both the proud boys and russia in the days before Jan 20. Apart from the insurrection, he has compromised national security with reckless handling of Classified documents at his golf club in Florida. He has continued his election fraud lies and threats to anyone who gets in his way.

The Supreme Court is probably even more partisan than the House. So good chance the Colorado will be overturned .

I commend Colorado for making a legal stand for enforcing the most basic of standards for a presidential candidate - that they cannot have attempted a violent rebellion of elected government.

The Republicans who served on the Jan 6
Committee were privy to the extensive evidence against the president and voted to impeach him. They were then forced out of office. Republican conduct is beyond irresponsible and delusional.

If you want to excuse inexcusable presidential behavior go ahead but I am very glad there are courts with the guts and brains to use judicial checks and balances to contain that menace to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Methinks the Roberts court sides with Colorado.

Not so sure about that. The Supreme Court does not routinely follow state supreme court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. If this were based on a Colorado-specific requirement, you might be right.

Neil Gorsuch, as a CO and District Court judge and justice, held that Colorado alone could determine who was eligible or not for their ballots.

Was that in regard to a Colorado-specific requirement?

Thanks. The Supreme Court might end up distinguishing that decision for various reasons, since it doesn't deal with the 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment, with the latter having inherent ambiguity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

[Anonymous]

Deranged Texas Lieutenant Governor Patrick suggests taking Biden off the ballot, "because we (DON'T) believe in democracy" - never mind there actually has to be a legal process that Texas would have to follow in order to do that... like "nah, we'll just take him off, just because" and it's all some dumb right wing revenge porn...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Deranged Texas Lieutenant Governor Patrick suggests taking Biden off the ballot, "because we (DON'T) believe in democracy" - never mind there actually has to be a legal process that Texas would have to follow in order to do that... like "nah, we'll just take him off, just because" and it's all some dumb right wing revenge porn...

Of course Texas doesn't care about the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of such an action...

[Anonymous]

Refreshing to see conservative legal minds wanting to return the country to sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

[Anonymous]

Democrats can’t handle people voting for who they want to vote for.