Reply to Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.  [/quote]
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?[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]
Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now? [/quote]

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.[/quote]

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

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

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics