Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

I never understood that. Obama's mother was American, so by law he is American no matter where he was born. Just like Ted Cruz and John McCain.

How would proving Obama was born in Kenya have changed anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You seem to have an odd understanding of due process. Due process refers to, this section of the 5th Amendment:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

How does declaring him ineligible to serve as POTUS based on a later Constitutional Amendment (the 14th) deprive him of life, liberty or property?

And as another PP pointed out, even if you somehow managed to believe that this somehow applies, he was given "due process of law" with the 5 day trial in Colorado where his lawyers participated and concurred with the evidence submitted. They did not deny any of the evidence as presented. And then, Trump, himself, was invited to testify, but chose not to. So, how was he not accorded due process of law?

I'm nitpicking, but since it's Colorado supposedly working the deprivation, I think it would be the due process provision in the 14th (rather than the 5th) at issue. And, while I agree that disqualification from a federal office you'd like to have isn't a deprivation of life, liberty, or property at all -- it's not an argument that I find completely out of bounds. Like, if a court decided that the right to seek office is a protected liberty interest, I wouldn't have strong negative feelings about the decision. But ultimately that's beside the point because Trump got all kinds of process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

I never understood that. Obama's mother was American, so by law he is American no matter where he was born. Just like Ted Cruz and John McCain.

How would proving Obama was born in Kenya have changed anything?

It was never a good faith argument. It was like that quote about LBJ calling an opponent a pigf**ker. When told that wasn't true, LBJ said, "I know, but I wanna make the sonofab**ch deny it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You seem to have an odd understanding of due process. Due process refers to, this section of the 5th Amendment:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

How does declaring him ineligible to serve as POTUS based on a later Constitutional Amendment (the 14th) deprive him of life, liberty or property?

And as another PP pointed out, even if you somehow managed to believe that this somehow applies, he was given "due process of law" with the 5 day trial in Colorado where his lawyers participated and concurred with the evidence submitted. They did not deny any of the evidence as presented. And then, Trump, himself, was invited to testify, but chose not to. So, how was he not accorded due process of law?

I'm nitpicking, but since it's Colorado supposedly working the deprivation, I think it would be the due process provision in the 14th (rather than the 5th) at issue. And, while I agree that disqualification from a federal office you'd like to have isn't a deprivation of life, liberty, or property at all -- it's not an argument that I find completely out of bounds. Like, if a court decided that the right to seek office is a protected liberty interest, I wouldn't have strong negative feelings about the decision. But ultimately that's beside the point because Trump got all kinds of process.

But the due process portion of the 14th amendment says the exact same thing as the 5th:

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Okay, I'll grant you that this could be construed as a limitation on liberty. According to the Legal Information Institute

The term “liberty” appears in the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual.

and it could be said that barring him from appearing on the state primary ballot could be considered depriving him of liberty of seeking public office, if this were considered arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon him.

However, as so many others have pointed out, he was definitely accorded due process of law where there was a 5 day court case, where he had lawyers there representing him, the evidence was laid out, he did not deny any of the evidence and he refused the invitation to testify at the trial. And the panel of judges unanimously agreed that the evidence presented showed he had committed insurrection against the federal government by his actions against Congress and the legslative branch of the government performing their Constitutional duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

I never understood that. Obama's mother was American, so by law he is American no matter where he was born. Just like Ted Cruz and John McCain.

How would proving Obama was born in Kenya have changed anything?

Something about skin color played a significant role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You seem to have an odd understanding of due process. Due process refers to, this section of the 5th Amendment:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

How does declaring him ineligible to serve as POTUS based on a later Constitutional Amendment (the 14th) deprive him of life, liberty or property?

And as another PP pointed out, even if you somehow managed to believe that this somehow applies, he was given "due process of law" with the 5 day trial in Colorado where his lawyers participated and concurred with the evidence submitted. They did not deny any of the evidence as presented. And then, Trump, himself, was invited to testify, but chose not to. So, how was he not accorded due process of law?

I'm nitpicking, but since it's Colorado supposedly working the deprivation, I think it would be the due process provision in the 14th (rather than the 5th) at issue. And, while I agree that disqualification from a federal office you'd like to have isn't a deprivation of life, liberty, or property at all -- it's not an argument that I find completely out of bounds. Like, if a court decided that the right to seek office is a protected liberty interest, I wouldn't have strong negative feelings about the decision. But ultimately that's beside the point because Trump got all kinds of process.

Team Trump had due process in this case. they had the opportunity to dispute the facts presented or otherwise make a case that Trump had nothing to do with the violence that took place on Jan 6. Instead they did not dispute the facts presented in any way, shape or form.

iourt of law, no dispute of facts. What else would constitute more "due process?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

I never understood that. Obama's mother was American, so by law he is American no matter where he was born. Just like Ted Cruz and John McCain.

How would proving Obama was born in Kenya have changed anything?

The argument was because his mom was underage and the citizenship law at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Huh? No. That's a fake fact.

[Anonymous]

I'm really hoping that the Supreme Court passes on this case on states' rights grounds. Not sure why they would want/need to get involved, especially since doing so would open up multiple cans of worms for little benefit to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

People don’t remember it because you made it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

There literally is camera footage of Schumer, Pelosi and McConnell, with McCarthy and others in the background, yelling at the attorney general, assistant attorney general and then someone at DoD re Trump refusing to call in the National Guard on 1/6. You are full of $hit.

[Anonymous]

Would Jan 6 happen without Trump? No. He is the ringleader. The cause. The motivator. The cause. None of those people would’ve been there without Trump’s direction.