Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

Where does the constitution say it requires a criminal conviction? Can’t find that in my copy.

Traitors don’t need to make sense of their pretzel un-logic. They like their lies. It gives them power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

You’re a traitor to your country.

What if PPs country is Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest

Not related to this case at all:
"The break-in was preceded by a two-vehicle crash at 13th Avenue and Lincoln Street in Denver, near the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, which houses the state supreme court. A person involved in that crash 'reportedly pointed a handgun at the other driver,' the release said. That individual then shot out a window on the east side of the judicial center and entered the building." It took place at 1:15 a.m.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

The 14th amendment specifically said "engaged in" not "convicted of".

On this web-page, there are 8 people who were deemed to be disqualified by the 14th amendment from holding further public office. 5 of the 8 people were not convicted of a crime and yet they were still barred by the insurrection clause from holding future public office.

That said, there were hundreds of people barred from future public office at the end of the Civil War and the majority of them never went to trial, let alone received a conviction.

The GOP has somehow distorted the 14th amendment to require a conviction for insurrection, despite it never having been a requirement in the past, including after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was passed and when the majority of those people guilty of the insurrection were still potentially going to run for public office.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

There is no requirement for a conviction for insurrection. It really is that simple.

[Anonymous]

Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

+1. They basically never claim that he peacefully and voluntarily transferred power after losing to Joe Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

The 14th amendment specifically said "engaged in" not "convicted of".

On this web-page, there are 8 people who were deemed to be disqualified by the 14th amendment from holding further public office. 5 of the 8 people were not convicted of a crime and yet they were still barred by the insurrection clause from holding future public office.

That said, there were hundreds of people barred from future public office at the end of the Civil War and the majority of them never went to trial, let alone received a conviction.

The GOP has somehow distorted the 14th amendment to require a conviction for insurrection, despite it never having been a requirement in the past, including after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was passed and when the majority of those people guilty of the insurrection were still potentially going to run for public office.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

There is no requirement for a conviction for insurrection. It really is that simple.

To be particular, a majority of the US Senate "convicted" Trump of insurrection. It simply didn't rise to the 2/3 majority to bar him from office via the impeachment route because the rest of the GOP said the courts should handle it.

Well, the courts are handling it and now the GOP move the goalposts again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

The 14th amendment specifically said "engaged in" not "convicted of".

On this web-page, there are 8 people who were deemed to be disqualified by the 14th amendment from holding further public office. 5 of the 8 people were not convicted of a crime and yet they were still barred by the insurrection clause from holding future public office.

That said, there were hundreds of people barred from future public office at the end of the Civil War and the majority of them never went to trial, let alone received a conviction.

The GOP has somehow distorted the 14th amendment to require a conviction for insurrection, despite it never having been a requirement in the past, including after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was passed and when the majority of those people guilty of the insurrection were still potentially going to run for public office.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

There is no requirement for a conviction for insurrection. It really is that simple.

Even if he was convicted of insurrection, they would just say it doesn't count because it was a biased DC jury. There's always another excuse and rationalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

The 14th amendment specifically said "engaged in" not "convicted of".

On this web-page, there are 8 people who were deemed to be disqualified by the 14th amendment from holding further public office. 5 of the 8 people were not convicted of a crime and yet they were still barred by the insurrection clause from holding future public office.

That said, there were hundreds of people barred from future public office at the end of the Civil War and the majority of them never went to trial, let alone received a conviction.

The GOP has somehow distorted the 14th amendment to require a conviction for insurrection, despite it never having been a requirement in the past, including after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was passed and when the majority of those people guilty of the insurrection were still potentially going to run for public office.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

There is no requirement for a conviction for insurrection. It really is that simple.

To be particular, a majority of the US Senate "convicted" Trump of insurrection. It simply didn't rise to the 2/3 majority to bar him from office via the impeachment route because the rest of the GOP said the courts should handle it.

Well, the courts are handling it and now the GOP move the goalposts again.

I agree with the Colorado decision and think Trump is barred from office. But it has nothing to do with the impeachment or majority of Senators voting for conviction. Totally separate process. In this context, Congress' role is to (if they chose) vote to remove the disability caused by his attempt to overthrow the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

That's ridiculous. The definition of officer includes:
one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command

also

a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office.

The oath of office that he took:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

He most definitely held and executed the office of the President of the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

Haha. Yes. Makes no sense at all that we'd bar him from being a deputy postmaster but it's totally o.k. to let the insurrectionist be President. And to reach that conclusion, you have to decide that person holding the office of President isn't an officer of the United States. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "textualists" on the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution really meant "an officer of the United States except for the office of President" where the exception is written in invisible ink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

That's ridiculous. The definition of officer includes:
one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command

also

a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office.

The oath of office that he took:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

He most definitely held and executed the office of the President of the United States.

He also came fairly close to executing the Vice President of the United States. 🥁

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

You’re a traitor to your country.

What if PPs country is Russia?

What if Joe Biden knows he has dementia?