Breaking News

H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
CPUSA said:
Aww!! You're fantasizing again!! How adorable!!
But let's look more at the REALITY, Goober...SCOTUS most definitely WILL be pissed...at the retards that call themselves CO Supreme Court Justices...and will strike down that unconstitutional BS in about 5 minutes and finally put an end to frivolous activist BS.
THAT would be the only LEGAL outcome,,,
Click to expand...

Explain what is unconstitutional. Be as specific as you can.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
HemiHauler said:
As I stated, States have wide berth. Political parties (which are private entities) can do almost whatever they want.

In this case, GOP electors sued to see if he was eligible to be on the ballot. The lower court ruling established that Trump participated in the “insurrection”.

The same lower court threw out the ruling, finding Trump wasn’t an “official”, i.e., didn’t hold office while President.

CO Supreme Court found that he was an official, and off the ballot he goes.

That he participated in an insurrection isn’t the question being appealed here; only whether or not he was an officer.

In short, yes, states can keep people off the ballot for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. There are 3 requirements and only 3 for qualifying for President.

A novel theory about the application of the14th amendment does not change those requirements.

It sure is funny that some states are trying to keep him off the ballot while at the same time not providing the due process required of them by the very same amendment. Care to point out where Trump has been convicted for having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? One would think, at the very least, that such conviction would be a prerequisite for the use of that clause.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
What a load of crap. There are 3 requirements and only 3 for qualifying for President.

A novel theory about the application of the14th amendment does not change those requirements.

It sure is funny that some states are trying to keep him off the ballot while at the same time not providing the due process required of them by the very same amendment. Care to point out where Trump has been convicted for having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? One would think, at the very least, that such conviction would be a prerequisite for the use of that clause.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment isn’t written in a fashion that requires a conviction to be disqualified. Following the Civil War, thousands were disqualified from offices without even seeing the inside of a courthouse - precisely the way the amendment was constructed.

Here’s an interesting read.

www.electoral-vote.com

The Fourteenth Amendment, Part II: Let Us Have Peace

Click on the map for the article
www.electoral-vote.com www.electoral-vote.com
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
HemiHauler said:
The 14th Amendment isn’t written in a fashion that requires a conviction to be disqualified. Following the Civil War, thousands were disqualified from offices without even seeing the inside of a courthouse - precisely the way the amendment was constructed.
Click to expand...
It absolutely does, which is why there is 18 USC 2383 on the books.

Square away, if you can, the due process protections afforded by the Constitution with your suggestion that allegations and innuendo are sufficient for the barring of one running for office. Based on your view, and apparent lack of support for the rule of law, it seems you would be OK with the elimination of the Judicial branch.
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
It does not mean that. The only thing it means is that the Colorado court is a pack of fascists who should have their heads put on a pike.
Click to expand...


You mean the Trump appointed conservatives that read the constitution and interpreted it correctly?

Or the republicans who read the constitution and brought the lawsuit?

Or the constitution that explicitly states those that engage in insurrection should not be allowed to run for office.?
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
I think this is the part that frankly disturbs me the most. If you want to keep say, a FELON of the ballot, he would have to be a person convicted of felony - or jeez, at the very minimum, CHARGED with a felony in a court.

To the best of my knowledge, Trump has never even been CHARGED with "insurrection" or shown to have had anything to do with one, and yet a state Supreme Court somehow managed to do something never before in U.S. history - strike someone from the top ballot - on the basis of a crime he never committed or was charged with?

Fine, strike Biden off all the ballots for bribery. Why even bother to prove it, he's clearly guilty.
Click to expand...


That is wrong the lower Colorado court found him responsible for the insurrection on January 6th

In November, a trial court in Denver found that the events on Jan. 6 satisfy the definition of insurrection, and concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement. Judge Sarah B. Wallace ultimately determined that the language of Section 3 is unclear as to whether it covered the presidency and the former president, and ordered Griswold to list Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot.

The justices rejected claims from Trump's lawyers that the breach of the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection and instead concluded that the record in the case "amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country."

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review the district court's ruling, and held arguments in the case earlier this month. The justices weighed whether the events of Jan. 6 could be considered an "insurrection," and, if so, one that Trump "engaged in." They also considered whether the president is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3.

In their ruling, the four justices in the majority acknowledged that "we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression."

www.cbsnews.com

Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot

The decision marks the first time a court has found former President Donald Trump to be ineligible to return to the White House due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us," the majority wrote. "We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
What a load of crap. There are 3 requirements and only 3 for qualifying for President.

A novel theory about the application of the14th amendment does not change those requirements.

It sure is funny that some states are trying to keep him off the ballot while at the same time not providing the due process required of them by the very same amendment. Care to point out where Trump has been convicted for having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? One would think, at the very least, that such conviction would be a prerequisite for the use of that clause.
Click to expand...


I did.

in November, a trial court in Denver found that the events on Jan. 6 satisfy the definition of insurrection, and concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement. Judge Sarah B. Wallace ultimately determined that the language of Section 3 is unclear as to whether it covered the presidency and the former president, and ordered Griswold to list Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot.

The justices rejected claims from Trump's lawyers that the breach of the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection and instead concluded that the record in the case "amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country."

www.cbsnews.com

Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot

The decision marks the first time a court has found former President Donald Trump to be ineligible to return to the White House due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
It absolutely does, which is why there is 18 USC 2383 on the books.
Click to expand...

No, Amendment XIV and 18 USC 2383 are similarly worded, but different. 18 USC 2383, for example, wouldn't preclude anyone convicted under it from seeking office.

reason.com

If Donald Trump is Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. § 2383, Will He Be Disqualified From Serving As President?

[This post is co-authored with Seth Barrett Tillman.] The impeachment process has now drawn to a close. It remains to...
reason.com reason.com

Statutes at Large reports that the bill was "Approved, July 17, 1862." 37 Stat. 592. President Lincoln signed this bill into law, along with an explanatory act. 37 Stat. 627, also dated July 17, 1862.

If the members of the 37th Congress and Lincoln understood the phrase "office . . . under the United States" to include elected federal positions, then the statute would impose additional qualifications on elected federal positions. And, according to Hamilton in Federalist No. 60—and the Supreme Court's not-yet-issued decision in Powell—such a statute would be unconstitutional.

What about the Fourteenth Amendment? Doesn't this 1862 statute's predicate offense track Section 3? Yes, there are similarities between the language of the statute and Section 3. And we address those similarities later in this post. But this 1862 bill was enacted before the 1868 ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, Congress could not have enacted this law based on its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress would have to rely on the Constitution of 1788. And, as explained, the original Constitution did not permit Congress to add additional qualifications for elected positions.
Click to expand...
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
HemiHauler said:
No, Amendment XIV and 18 USC 2383 are similarly worded, but different. 18 USC 2383, for example, wouldn't preclude anyone convicted under it from seeking office.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is in the express wording of the statute -
18 USC 2383 - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Click to expand...
Maybe you have forgotten that to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution that the Legislature must make the laws authorizing it.
Article I, section 8 - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Click to expand...
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
Actually, that is in the express wording of the statute -

Maybe you have forgotten that to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution that the Legislature must make the laws authorizing it.
Click to expand...


Imagine being more mad at the Constitution than you are at the person who tried to start an insurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top