Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

It is a patently absurd position to state that the provision applies to every officer EXCEPT the POTUS. He takes an oath just like the rest of them. And, if anything, it should apply to him/her the most, as the most powerful position in government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

Maybe the drafters decided it was so obvious that the President was included that they didn’t need to spell it out. That it was redundant. That if you specify one position do then need to list all the other positions? I’m not convinced they removed president because they actually thought the president should be immune from the consequences of their insurrectionist actions.

[Anonymous]

The president is included.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, 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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

Maybe the drafters decided it was so obvious that the President was included that they didn’t need to spell it out. That it was redundant. That if you specify one position do then need to list all the other positions? I’m not convinced they removed president because they actually thought the president should be immune from the consequences of their insurrectionist actions.

In fact, during the debates on the amendment, a senator asked this question and the sponsor said it obviously included the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

Maybe the drafters decided it was so obvious that the President was included that they didn’t need to spell it out. That it was redundant. That if you specify one position do then need to list all the other positions? I’m not convinced they removed president because they actually thought the president should be immune from the consequences of their insurrectionist actions.

In fact, during the debates on the amendment, a senator asked this question and the sponsor said it obviously included the president.

“It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.“

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

There were charges of seditious conspiracy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

Trump is currently being charged basically of insurrection; he hasn't been convicted yet, but that doesn't mean that some people who participated on J6 weren't insurrectionists, Trump included.

There’s no “basically.” There are no charges for insurrection nor despite frantic posts above, have there been any trials for such charges, for Trump or anyone associated with J6.

There was a trial where the court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Your demand for a criminal trial or whatever requirements you're trying to read into the document simply don't exist in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

The argument that the office of President isn't a federal office is a tough one to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

"Smacked down." Do you hear yourself? I have no doubt that the Republican partisans on the Supreme Court will, notwithstanding their self-promotion as "textualists" will find a way to ignore the text of the 14th Amendment. But that doesn't mean they are "smacking down" the solid reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court. Just that they have power and will use it for partisan ends.

[Anonymous]

The idea that the drafters of the 14th Amendment thought Jefferson Davis was excluded from every federal office EXCEPT President is moronic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

It is a patently absurd position to state that the provision applies to every officer EXCEPT the POTUS. He takes an oath just like the rest of them. And, if anything, it should apply to him/her the most, as the most powerful position in government.

It makes *complete* sense that the president would be excluded. The people vote directly and have the final say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.

"Smacked down." Do you hear yourself? I have no doubt that the Republican partisans on the Supreme Court will, notwithstanding their self-promotion as "textualists" will find a way to ignore the text of the 14th Amendment. But that doesn't mean they are "smacking down" the solid reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court. Just that they have power and will use it for partisan ends.

I think Colorado’s case is so weak that it won’t be only the conservatives voting to smack them down. That’s my point.