Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

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

This.

The main issue/concern appears to be the floodgates of what different states might do if the floodgates were opened. Many red states have threatened to call Biden's treatment of the border an "insurrection"

Mu main concern is...why is it ok to allow an insurrectionist like Trump to be eligible to hold office, and if this isn't the remedy, as the SCOTUS seems to be tending, then what is?

The Senate didn't do it post-office deferring to the courts.
Well, here are the courts and they will punt.

Which means, there is no accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This.

The main issue/concern appears to be the floodgates of what different states might do if the floodgates were opened. Many red states have threatened to call Biden's treatment of the border an "insurrection"

Mu main concern is...why is it ok to allow an insurrectionist like Trump to be eligible to hold office, and if this isn't the remedy, as the SCOTUS seems to be tending, then what is?

The Senate didn't do it post-office deferring to the courts.
Well, here are the courts and they will punt.

Which means, there is no accountability.

It’s going to come down to us. Get active. Start by making calls for NY-3 race on Tuesday, donate & volunteer to register voters in swing states NOW.

[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.[/quote

]

Very cool! Thanks for the follow-up!

[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.

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.

No, the people in American do not vote directly, where have you been.

[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.

"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.

Actually Colorado's case is strong, but more importantly, Colorado's case is protected. This court including several in the conservative majority have spent most of their SCOTUS careers trying to establish that states rights are protected. Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney have all had instances where they have said that certain laws should not be federally mandated, but should be left up to the states to decide. Most notably, they said this is Dobbs when they overturned Roe v Wade. In this case, the Constitution says that states are responsible for holding elections and determining how to assign state electors to send to Congress on electing the President and Vice President. The Constitution says that each state determines how to conduct their elections. This means that Colorado can decide that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot, but that doesn't have to convey to any other state.

This Yale law professor's arguments are quite sound and convincing for why SCOTUS should uphold Colorado's decision. First, he argues that Trump does qualify because there was an insurrection that occurred before the civil war when outgoing President James Buchanon's cabinet members try to do exactly what Trump tried to do, stop the peaceful transfer of power, and they were barred from running for office again. They were not impeached nor were they accused or convicted in a court of law. But they were held to be ineligible to be elected to office. Second, the 50 state solution that the Roberts court has been very supportive of over the last few years, basically returning control in many situations back to the states. And since the Constitution specifically says that states should conduct elections without instructions for how they do so, this follow the originalist intent of the authors to give states the rights to set the rules for how they determine electors for the offices. Hence, Colorado has the right to determine that Trump is ineligible in their election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html