Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, accepting the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him in an explosive decision that could upend the 2024 election.
Ina lengthy rulingordering the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the justices reverseda Denver district judge’s finding last monththat Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it from holding office — did not apply to the presidency.
They affirmed the district judge’s other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated.
Mr. Trump is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tuesday’s ruling applies only to Colorado, but if the Supreme Court were to affirm it, he could be disqualified more broadly. The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, to allow time for appeals.
The Colorado Supreme Court is the first court to find that the disqualification clause applies to Mr. Trump, an argument his opponents have been making across the country. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify him. The plaintiffs there have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
The cases hinge on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?
Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who madethe district court rulingin Colorado, had said yes to all but the last question.
Because Section 3 enumerates several offices but not the presidency, and because the presidential oath is worded differently from the oaths of the enumerated offices, Judge Wallace concluded that the broad phrase “officers of the United States” was not intended to include the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed.
The big squeeze is juiced!
looks like trumpsters on the SCOTUS will be strapping on their knee pads soon. pucker up, thumpers...
LOL, told you so....
Every single lie the former 'president' told that day and months before and after he lost the election, every single lie he told that fraud had been committed and that dead people had voted, every single lie, and that were a lot during his 'speech' (incitement) since he lost and every single lie he told leading to the insurrection, he did indeed incite since he lost and leading up to 1/6, it was planned and plotted and incited and carried out by his white supremacist/neo-nazi/scum 'tourist' supporters.
that cult has selective hearing...
No conviction to disqualify him, just party hatred. . It’s Soviet style “democracy” in action. The state tells you who you can vote for. congrats on making trump a martyr for dmeocracy.
“The state tells you who you can vote for…”
No, the court has decided who is not eligible to be on the ballot due to a candidate’s acts. The supremes will hear the case and more than likely overturn the CO ruling.
But yet another feather in the maga cap of infamy.
But yet another feather in the maga cap of infamy
progressives just threw the leading candidate for President off the ballot in a temper tantrum and you think this is a feather in maga cap of infamy? LOL
... apparently just as easily as some states that can force women to give birth.
No one in America is being forced to give birth.
Get real!
try convincing your dumb ass texas AG paxton of that...
Why not try to prove your wild-ass, stupid claim just for a change of pace?
oops
more like the poster boy for assholery
And permanent resident in TDS ridden fools heads.
looks like living up to an oath to defend the constitution is optional for maga...
Well, it is a well known fact that he has already been tried and convicted in the hard core leftist liberal kangaroo court of public opinion. That is the only court that matters to some these days./s
Tell us everything you know about the J6 committees findings. This shouldnt take long.
there's plenty of examples of the fascist, autocrat, and white supremacist perspectives ...
Yawn, the SCOTUS will bitch slap the liberal Colorado SC and overturn their “decision”
there will still be plenty of time for traitorous trumpster scum in my awesome home state colorado to move to a different state, that allows trump on the primary ballot, and establish residency to vote for their demigod. good riddance.
Not based on Trump's defense. Trump never claimed that he did not take part in an insurrection, his defense was based on 2 things.
1 - He is not an officer of the United States.
2 - He never swore to uphold the Constitution.
Time will tell …..
Was Trump convicted of insurrection?
Was he ever charged with insurrection?
You're not keeping up with the news, are you?
sorry, that's not required by section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution. good luck getting that amendment repealed and going thru multiple legal processes before november ...
Dimbulbs on the liberal left are still trying to hang their hats on Jan 6th being an insurrection. Only fools and useful idiots believe that nonsense.
We have a U.S. Court that not only says Jan 6th was an insurrection but also that Trump incited it.
Do you know anything about Jan 6th and what led up to it? because it doesnt sound like you do.
Courts are far from infallible.
That's what I thought, It will be great to see a Red State remove Biden form the ballot for providing aid and comfort to our enemies.
maybe after the house GOP's high crimes and misdemeanors debacle does a face plant... oh wait, trumpsters believe a POTUS is immune from prosecution for any crimes committed while in office. bummer...
but, not from impeachment!
Nope................
So it is hard to see what the court based this on.
The Tx Lt Governor has already floated the idea.
Fantastic, it has just as much merit as this bullshit ruling.
Do you know something that the rest of the country doesn't? Please share where anyone has charged him with insurrection or rebellion as required.
That is not required . Again, you havent read any of the decision.
“…as required.”
By what court of public opinion and in what purely partisan jurisdiction is a conviction required before a potential violation of the constitution and its ramifications can be adjudicated?
The answer is obvious. You’re arguing two separate things here, and thus rendering the argument moot.
[deleted]
And it hasn't been proven that he has. Otherwise there would be charges somewhere other than in the minds of the Never Trumpers.
You seem to be saying that the SCoCO conducted a trial and found him guilty without being charged. I don't give two shits what they used as their basis. J6 Clown Show or not
The courts decision yesterday gives, in great detail, the evidence that Trump incited and gave comfort to insurrection. He does not have to be convicted. The court decided that the events of and surrounding Jan 6th met the definition of insurrection.
When you display even minimal understanding of the evidence against Trump we can have a discussion. Until then, I'm not wasting my time.
If that is the case and the "evidence" was so damning, why the 4-3 decision and not a sweep?
why was roe overturned 5-4 ?
why was heller decided 5-4 ?
Apples and grapes John
Nope
While you think the ruling is bullshit, a state supreme court has a lot more merit than a fox news interview. All you can do is hope the SCOTUS overturns it.
Personally I think we are reaching absurdity levels in politics and I don't see much short of mass riots getting politicians to back the fuck down on their stupid and get back to governing. I read somewhere the last few days this year's House has been the least productive in history... Our government has been reduced to tit-for-tat bullshit.
Please....enlighten me.
I know something folks [deleted] are not capable of understanding when it comes to Trump. He’ll never get a fair trial in the swamps of DC, New York etc and you see, the triggered have no problem with that because it feeds their brain rot.
There is no way Trump will get true justice from them or their ilk and that would bother any fair minded American. [deleted.] Which speaks to much worse deep rooted issues.
They’ll have a hard time getting past this quote:
A good defense attorney will be smoking them on that comment alone.
Left wing crackpottery only goes so far when it comes to the law.
More ad hominem attacks.
You just keep looking weaker and weaker John. I suggest you find a better hook to hang your hat on than a state Supreme Court with judges, all appointed by Democrat Governors.
More weakness coming out ….
Reactionary propagandists pretend that Jan 6th was a "normal tourist day" at the Capitol. Only imbeciles believe that B.S.
Speaking of reactionary propagandists. Feel free to show me where I even alluded to such a thing.
Yes, your comment was textbook reactionary propaganda.
No it wasn’t but yours was. Absolutely.
Here’s your sign:
Attempting to put words in someone elses mouth that are completely false.
Textbook, just like your chosen ones teach …..
1. Maybe you are unaware of what reactionary propaganda is. Re-read your Comment 3.2.5 for a clear example.
2. Show where in my Comment 3.2.31 that I stated I was quoting you or indicated that was something you said. Although, it would surprise no one if it is.
Irrelevant. Your response stretched my comment beyond the breaking point. In other words. It was not even close to what I said.
Excellent psychobabble admitting that is not what I said and then …. You doubled down on the inaccuracy of your comment. And you were so close ….
1. Your Comment 3.2.34, where you attempted to put words "in my mouth" that I didn't say is a classic example of projection.
2. Your Comment 3.2.36 is complete double talk trying to dig yourself out of the rhetorical hole you dug, and takes psychobabble to a whole new level.
Your arguments are total inanities. Now, move on...
In other words, you have no knowledge of the findings of the J6 committee. You are just sure that Trump is being railroaded based on your "feelings".
The trumpsters on NT are reaching for new lows. Not one of them can intelligently comment on the evidence complied by the J6 committee, which was largely based on sworn testimony by Republican officials. This whole discussion is ridiculous.
... and achieving them.
It's very telling.
It is absurd. They're divorced from reality.
No, in other words I’m not a triggered fool with TDS brain rot.
lol …. You go boys, you go …..
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
As I have told you before, please get back to us when he has been tried and convicted in a genuine court of law with a judge and jury. When that happens and he is found guilty I will happily agree with you. Until then all there are is allegations and innuendo. If there was rock solid evidence of his committing or promoting insurrection he probably would have been properly tried by now.
Yep, and sour ones at that.
It's that hive minded drone nonsense that he is always projecting that the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals are guilty of.
[removed]
Ooooooh, the humanity...
Slowly they turned. Step by step. Inch by inch. Then POW! Right in the old disqualification clause. One state down, forty nine more to go...
And the first domino falls.
No, AZ, MI and MN courts have already looked at this and came to a very different conclusion than Colorado’s 4-3 decision.
The CO decision is the ice breaker. Now, if the SCotUS weighs in (and I think it absolutely must), we will have some (or full) clarity on this issue. If the SCotUS allows Colorado to proceed as it is has determined, then I agree with JBB. If not, then this all comes to an abrupt halt. In which case, the dysfunctional, morally-impaired current GoP will very likely nominate Trump.
States Rights.
Gotta love it.
I recall the right wing saying that states should be in charge of federal elections... Well, that's the way it goes! LMAO! !
I suspect Trump is going to have the last laugh.
... when his checks start bouncing?
Continue?
Only time will tell either way.
Now, let's see how many write-in votes he get's in the general election!
That would require his supporters to be able to spell and write legibly.
Even then, the state may disqualify him.
This is the only way Democrats can win elections.
What a great statement this makes for Democracies everywhere.
China and Russia are loving this.
If trump was to be re-elected, Xi and Putin would be pulling all of trumps strings.
trump is the universal cock holster for dictators world wide...
Nice. Trump must be choking on it right about now.
Colorado voted Democrat in 2016 and 2020, so this may have little practical impact for that state in 2024. I wonder, though, if there are any states that voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020, which would follow Colorado’s lead.
Arizona, Minnesota, and Michigan have tried it, and failed. This latest attempt is likely to fail also.
The fact that so many find him an evil human being should give you pause. He is a despicable person.
So you don't vote for someone based on what other people think of him?
Yes, that is what the chosen one has instructed her useful idiots do after he had the temerity to beat her in 2016.
I personally hate Trump because he is a stupid, evil fascist who is trying to divide this country.
I also hate the idiots who support him.
Haven't hated fascists this much since Nam.
Well, at least you got a good 45-50 year break in fascist hatred.
What makes you think I took a break?
Which fascists have you hated between Nam until now?
As of 2021 all the judges sitting on the Colorado Supreme Court have been appointed by Democrat governors. You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas ….
Umm, yes and no I think. This was for the Republican primary, not the general from what I read. Don't know if this continues on in the general but figure it would be resolved one way or the other by then. I suspect SCOTUS will overturn and he will be on the ballot for the primary. I'm more concerned about the fallout from this. First there would be little to prevent a Republican state & court to remove a Democrat from office. Secondly, this IMO makes Trump more of a martyr to his followers. They can look at this action and the action of the DNC in Florida to not even have a Democrat primary and see that the "elites" are picking and choosing what should be the people's choice.
Yes, we "elites" tend to have IQs over 150.
Far right-wing fascists have IQs around 80.
Source?
An intelligent person would look it up for himself.
[deleted]
That's being generous.
[deleted]
Source?
People that feel the need to brag about their intelligence, usual aren’t.
More like in the single digits
And once again, as in 2016, you dumb fucks, no STUPID fucks embolden him by persecution. He hasn't been tried, let alone convicted, of anything. This is going to blow up in your respective faces...............and it will be glorious to watch.
So, what you are saying is there is no proof, not trial, no convictions. They just removed him because......hurt feelings? Sounds like a continuation of what we've heard since the Democrats tried to steal the election in 2016.
Is there any way to get you to stop saying silly things?
I'm not the one saying he's guilty when there has yet to be any charges, trials or verdict. Those like yourself.....
Is there any way to get you to stop with the ad hominem attacks when people simply hold a different opinion than you do?
where does it say anything about a conviction in section 3 of the 14th amendment?
there does seem to be a lot of hurt feelings, on the right...
[deleted]
”…there does seem to be a lot of hurt feelings, on the right...”
…the chickenshits have come home to roost…
[deleted]
Bingo!
Far right wingers say silly things because they have low IQs. There is no cure.
Fox gave them a voice they didn't deserve.
Far right-wing idiots should realize their mental limitations.
[deleted]
They're too stupid to know how stupid they are.
I couldn't agree with you more. Stupid is as stupid does.
Have you or any of the Trump apologists on this site read the Colorado Supreme Court decision?
Here it is 96292b55-full.pdf (nyt.com)
Beginning on page 100 of the opinion, and continuing on for many pages, the decision lays out why Trump is implicated in an insurrection, with specificity. You all laughed at the Jan 6th committee, but none of you can dispute its findings on the basis of fact. The Colorado Supreme Court just reaffirmed the findings of the Jan 6th committee, in that the court used them to reach and justify its findings.
We now have a high court in one of the United States deciding , legally, that Trump incited an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.
In and of itself, this should give great pause to people who think it is "ok" to support Trump in 2024.
Won't stand up John and I think deep down, you know it. Other states tried. Colorado is a liberal bastion of feeeeelings. Way to bolster his chances....................
Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection.
Leftist BS is leftist BS. Just another batch of leftist judges legislating from the bench to get the results they want.
China and Russia are proud of the Democrats.
So no charges, not trial and no conviction. Their OPINION is based solely on hurt feelings and no proof. Just like everything that we have seen since the 2016 election when Democrats tried to steal the election.
And we still are laughing at the J6 Shit show and those gullible enough to believe anything they've cried about.
You have zero credibility on this site. Now you are saying that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Trump on the basis of "hurt feelings".
Please do us all a favor and dont vote.
You guys repeatedly demonstrate that you nothing about the facts surrounding Jan 6th.
I'm not the one spouting off fiction and trying to pass it off as fact. Not my issue if you don't like it.
Exactly, Nikki Haley put it perfectly, the left are exhausting, they no longer have an original thought or idea, they just wander around mindlessly muttering trump. It's all they can talk about, when someone controls your thoughts they own you, and trump proves he owns the left daily.
[deleted]
[deleted]
oh, they know they just don't want to admit it
"It was just tourists!"
Actually it was "mostly peaceful".
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course it will stand up.
LOLOLOLOL
[Deleted]
We all saw the videos from that day.
Trump's people were insane.
Trump told them to do it.
Trump should be in prison.
[Removed]
[removed]
I don’t think an insanity defense will work for most.
Where in the constitution does it say there has to be?
It doesn't, but it does say the individual has to engage in an insurrection. Being that insurrection is a crime, and Trump has not been indicted or convicted, the SC will easily overturn the Colorado decision.
Once again you claim that what was provided by the Jan 6th committee is bullshit.
As I have illustrated in the past, you refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump. He has now been formally indicted and will be tried on felony accounts yet you ... in spite of this ... refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing.
You ignore the testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans who put their political careers in jeopardy by testifying under oath against Trump.
You refuse to acknowledge that Trump lied to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that the US electorate was disenfranchised. Yet here is Trump doing exactly that:
Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias which leads to living in a false reality and, thus, being wrong most of the time. The evidence of Trump's wrongdoing is overwhelming yet you claim this is not real and that those who are acknowledging this overwhelming evidence are merely gullible and driven by emotion.
Just incredible.
That seems like the 50th time you have posted the same links. They 're not interested. [deleted]
The supreme court of Colorado does not have to convict or even formally charge Trump with a crime. They were not dealing with the question of whether or not Trump committed a crime. They were dealing with the question of eligibility.
You are inserting a spurious requirement. Adjudication (especially with a supreme court) deals with specific questions and will make rulings on those questions while leaving other questions (e.g. did Trump commit a crime?) unanswered.
The Colorado supreme court determined that Trump did indeed act in a way that satisfies the "engaged in insurrection" phrase of §3 of the 14th. They did not pursue this and deal with the question of criminality (or any other aspect) since their focus was strictly on eligibility.
Exactly.
Which the CO. SC found he did.
Maybe. But never know.
When crazy claims are made, all one can do is ignore them (often) or rebut them. This time I chose to rebut.
This will never change the minds of those who are ignoring reality. All it does is remind readers of the substantial evidence that is part of actual reality.
Unless the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment requires them to.
I believe the word is agnorant.
Correct. The SCotUS is a higher court and thus can overrule a lower court.
The point I made, however, is that a court does not have to formally convict or even formally charge an individual before they can determine if that individual's behavior qualifies for the question at hand.
Hey, did you hear about the recording they have of the former 'president' pressuring Michigan to defraud? Maybe Michigan should now follow Colorado's lead.
Michigan Court of Appeals rules Trump can remain on 2024 GOP primary ballot
The court upheld two lower courts’ rulings.
That absolutely depends on the nature of the question at hand. In this case, for instance, some judges have said you don't. Others have said you do need a conviction or that only Congress can remove a Candidate for engaging in an insurrection. The answer will likely be provided by the Supreme Court.
Yes, the SCotUS, as I have stated repeatedly, has the final say. If they do not weigh in then the ruling by the Colorado supreme court appropriately and legally applies in the state of Colorado.
If so, other than a bad precedent, it will likely have little effect on Trump being nominated and may help.
Colorado is almost certainly not going for Trump regardless of this ruling.
This ruling is already likely helping Trump in general since anything against Trump from the 'establishment' improves his polling position.
The Trump effect is an unfortunate enigma. I remain amazed that one con-man can ensnare the GoP.
Exactly.
Agreed that Co, likely wouldn't go Trump in the general, I am reminding myself this ruling applies only to the primary ballot affecting only Colorado voters in their primary and who they get to vote for in that race.
iF Trump were to win the national nomination at the convention and advances to the general ballot in Nov, the mentioned court would likely have to make another ruling that would be under scrutiny of the FEC as well to cover that separate ballot .
A lot can happen between now and then. Just read the USSC denied the request to determine Trumps immunity status today via fast track thus putting all prosecutions on hold until that makes it's way through the appeals process.
Yes, quite a bad sign that the SCotUS is allowing Trump to delay the resolution of this critical question.
It was the prosecutor that petitioned the court to fast track a ruling on presidential immunity, the SCOTUS simply said follow the appeals process,they may or may not get to hear this depending on appeals, but if I were a betting person I would bet they want those exhausted first.
Yes. Trump wanted to go through appeals first and the SCotUS is effectively giving Trump what he wants.
Well to my way of thinking , agree or not , being this is a landmark case (I have heard/ read it called that), not necessarily the first of its kind , but likely the first of its kind at this level , it would be prudent to go the entire appeals process to lay the legal judgement basis down for precedent sake( for whatever thats worth) based both on law and constitutionality in case it should ever come up again in the future
Except, if Trump (God Forbid) or anyone of the other Alt-MAGA gop contenders except Chris Christy gets elected, they will pardon the whole "Trump Mess" into legal nonexistence...
I dont think that is the issue being put before and requested of the courts that T,G and i are contemplating .
My understanding is the issue/s before the court is , exactly what is covered by "immunity" and how far and long does it exist .
And how does it apply to trump.
The first issue has to be decided before the second can be and the first will be setting how any future president can or would be held accountable .
the second part , how it applied in trumps case , will be setting how every future president will be judged in the future .
i think the court is dotting their i,s and crossing their t,s because this has future applications/implications going forward even 100 years from now .
Nobody including Presidents are above the law and speech, when it is a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a Presidential election, is not legally immune no matter what!
I agree that it is best to follow the normal order; unless there are mitigating factors. Here we have the issue of limited time. Smith was calculating that Trump will lose the appeal and then appeal to the SCotUS. He was trying to circumvent the Trump-team's delay tactic. Makes sense to me in this situation.
Not too hard to see a reason for that. They waited nearly two years to start this “investigation.”
Timed to line up with the 2024 elections. No doubt about it. They have no one to blame but themselves if they have an issue of “limited time.”
I agree,the longer trump can streach it out it benefits him.
That likely will not affect the outcome though.
I saw Smith is asking to skip the appeals court en banc part of trump loses on the 3 member panel part.
I don't think the high court is going to grant that. As I said to another, they are dotting the i's and crossing all t's, that way no one can claim any step was skipped.
Though time can be taken into consideration, I don't think the court will see it with as such urgency that steps of the process need to be by passed.
This is one I don't think the court is going to "punt", but rather make sure all steps are taken as needed to make a final ruling. A ruling that not only has to do with and affects trump, but all presidents from the day of the ruling forward, yes that includes the current holder of the office.
I doubt Smith is thinking about petty and pointless factors such as blame. He is likely thinking as a rational adult and attempting to counter anticipated moves by the Trump legal team.
Yup, I can see why the SCotUS would not take the case. Unfortunately, politics is intertwined in everything nowadays. Further, no matter how these courts decide, there will be public outcries. That would certainly encourage the SCotUS to hold off until they truly are the court of last resort.
You can doubt the political angle of this all you want but IMO that would be incredibly naive.
The most obvious political aspect comes from GOP loyalists who see the Trump cases as ONLY political and refuse to acknowledge that these charges are indeed based on merit. Trump's actions after his loss were historically bad. He is the only sitting PotUS in our history who has attempted to steal a US election through fraud, lying, coercion and incitement. He violated his oath of office in his attempt to circumvent the CotUS and his attempt to undermine the pillar of democracy — the vote of the electorate.
"They're doing this for me"
I bet if there weren't others around, he would have been jerking off his little mushroom
Well Ginny, I mean Clarence, has obviously been bought and paid for and I do not trust any of those lying hypocrites who overturned Roe v Wade
Unfuckingbelievable.
Which again, avoids the main points of comment 10.2.48. Any reasonable specific answer to those points, other than mine, will do.
Why did they wait nearly two years to investigate such “heinous” behavior. Thus in your words, placing themselves in a “issue of limited time” situation.
Why do you presume 'they' were waiting as opposed to gathering evidence? What makes you think that investigations were not taking place prior to the naming of a special counsel? Do you not count the work of the Jan 6th committee, for example, as an investigation?
Speculating as to why Trump was not immediately indicted after he left the presidency is pointless unless guided by credible information. If you have credible information that explains the delay then offer it. If all you are going to do is claim that the delay indicates that the indictment was quickly assembled to harm Trump's candidacy then I will dismiss that as partisan conspiracy theory.
Further, given how any adverse action taken against Trump increases his popularity, pursuing justice for purely political reasons is counterproductive. Maybe we are seeing Trump being brought to justice for his stark wrongdoings.
Do you think the charges against Trump are without merit?
No direct answer to my question. Only deflection and speculation.
And according to you it’s pointless to speculate why it took two years to assign a special council to investigate Trump but not pointless to speculate that he was being investigated before that.
Ridiculous. You are once again trying to have your cake and eat it to. SOSDD.
You deflect from my questions and then accuse me of doing so: projection.
I will spell out my answer to your question: I have insufficient information that allows me to determine if the amount of time to prepare the indictment was unduly long and, if so, why it was.
If you have such information, share it.
Otherwise, you offer nothing but uninformed speculation. Speculation that is not based on probative evidence accomplishes nothing.
That’s no answer. It’s just another deflection.
[deleted]
'being brought to justice' is all most of us want
Immunity doesn't apply when you're trying to overturn an election/commit a traitorous act/incite an insurrection. He's not King. He's not above the law. He wasn't 'president' at the time either.
Yes he was still president until the inauguration. [deleted]
What I meant to say was that I never really considered him to be 'president' in the first place. I meant to amend my comment earlier but don't hang around NT 24/7 and had other things to do.
“Yes he was still president until the inauguration.”
Making his actions to overturn a duly held election, his attempts to coerce election officials, his only so veiled threats to Pence, his 1/6 actions and subsequent inaction, and his continued refusal to accept the facts to this day all relevant and inexcusable
That he has the temerity to run on the irrefutable as a martyr of his own making and still garners excuse is beyond reason.
How about letting the courts do their jobs?
still think he's innocent of every charge and getting off the hook, huh?
Still reading my posts but assigning different meanings to the words you read, eh?
still can't answer direct questions?
It was an incredibly ignorant question which got ALL the answer it richly deserved.
so, that's a no then?
Was there anything in my post that you did understand?
[deleted]
amazing how many ex service members think they're also exempt from defending the constitution, like their hero...
Hmmmm....I took that oath for life
... yeah, but you possess character, integrity, and honor.
thank-you
... and pizza and beer.
and a wicked left hook...
So no charges, trial or verdicts given in this. What exactly are the grounds for this decision?
[deleted]
There is no legal basis for it, so I guess that's the only other thing left.
The Court wrote a 213 page legal basis for it, but I suppose MAGA knows better.
You're running on hurt feelings (still). When were charges filed, a trial held, and a verdict given? There wasn't? Hence, NO. LEGAL. BASIS.
Oh. So someone needs to write a 214 page dissent and then they win.
Trump is the luckiest man alive in who is enemies are. They are doing everything they can right now to make him President. 7 unelected Democratic appointees, decided to simply throw him off the ballot. That's a gift to him. What could more dramatically support his point about democratic conspiracies to his followers than Democrats assaulting the integrity of elections to keep him from winning?
Of course the next step will be Trump friendly states throwing Biden/Harris off the ballot in November. Can't have someone who aided and gave comfort to insurrectionists (paid their bail for instance) on the ballot.
“Of course the next step will be Trump friendly states throwing Biden/Harris off the ballot in November.”
Of course.
Imagine that. The tit for tat.
Does anyone remember when policy mattered? We have somehow lost our way when retribution ‘trumps’ accountability.
The facts Sean, the facts. Do you have any memory of what a fact is? The Colorado court lays out, in great detail , what constitutes an insurrection according to definition, then shows why Trump's conduct fits that description and definition.
You want to just blow that off because you like to rant about the left.
Frankly, its pitiful.
Part of this thread was removed for taunting and no value. Knock it off. Only warning.
That's why lawfare is poison for a republic. Instead of everyone agreeing to abide by a common set of traditions and norms as to what is, and isn't, done, politicians adopt maximalist legal positions to serve their interest in the moment. The law can twisted, particularly the open ended language used in many criminal statutes, to make crimes out actions no one ever intended them to cover.
So yeah, if this succeeds, Republicans will no doubt start doing the same thing where possible. There was an "insurrection" yesterday at the Capitol. Under the new rules, partisan judges can simply exclude anyone who gave "aid" or "comfort" to those protesters, using as broad a definition of those terms, as they see fit. Did Biden's visit to the pedophile who stabbed the police officer in Kenosha give aid and comfort to the rioting insurrectionists? It can sure be argued it did, and now a Republican state can simply remove Biden. And if Republicans don't play "tit for tat" anger builds among the base, until those who promise to do so are in control. That's how we got Trump in the first place. One party played for blood, one party had Mitt Romney.
do you not understand how easy it is to do that for any number of "protests?" Putting aside the easy ones, like the BLM riots, there have been protests at the Supreme Court and Capitol the last few years that can fit under the definition of insurrection. And "aid and comfort" are even more open ended terms. Is writing a letter in support of the BLM protests enough? Arguably.
your constant attempts at whataboutism are weak
which BLM riots attempted to obstruct a joint session of Congress from performing it's constitutional mandate for the peaceful transfer of power?
Since you don't believe in any rule other "what's good for Democrats right this second is what's good for everyone" I can see you how you believe that. You need core principles, or a belief that rules apply to everyone , to even care about the precedent you set. Precedent doesn't really matter to you, because you have no problem arguing the exact opposite position if an hour from now if it would benefit the Democrats. The idea that the law can applied in ways you don't like is simply too foreign a concept for you to even have to bother with worrying about it.
To be honest with you, I have no idea what your complaint is, other than people want Trump out of politics. Which apparently you dont approve of.
The Colorado court concluded there had been an insurrection, and goes into considerable detail as to why that definition fits Jan 6th. They then go into great detail as to how Trump supported that insurrection.
You can disagree with their conclusions, but to say the whole thing is based on partisan hatred or unfairness to Trump is bizarre.
Really? Its that hard to see that the Court using lawfare to deprive Americans of a legitimate election is a problem?
ther than people want Trump out of politics
I'd like Joe Biden out of politics. I don't think Judges should take him off the ballot because I think he's a shady guy. If people want him out, vote him out. That's how its supposed to be done.
ut to say but to say the whole thing is based on partisan hatred or unfairness to Trump is bizarre.
7 Democratic appointed judges on a 4-3 vote remove the other's party's candidate from the ballot based on an extremely novel and disputed theory and you are surprised people think it's unfair? It really amazes me how little Democrats understand how people think and will predictably react to their partisan maneuvering. It's absolutely shocking. It's the "we can nuke the filibuster because we will always control the Senate and will never need to use it in the future" attitude all over again.
Or they are complete bullshit artists. Maybe they secretly wanted make sure he sealed the nomination and did this to push him over the finish line. Because everything they do seems intentionally designed to make him stronger.
Just don't bitch when this tactic gets used against Democrats. It's not that hard to write 214 page decisions finding a lot of those BLM protests to be "insurrections" and that alot of Democrats provided aid and comfort to them.
Here's a pundit at Townhall, who has a good handle on the Republican mood:
The FACTS. You keep ignoring the facts.
There was an insurrection, and Trump supported it.
Anyone with a glancing knowledge of the J6 committee findings knows this.
It is up to the Supreme Court now.
18 USC 2383
Rebellion or insurrection is a federal offense that criminalizes inciting, engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws.
To date, I don’t think any participant in 6 Jan has even been charged with this violation.
If only there was some method to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Some sort of trial or something.
Please provide your definition of MAGA if you can.
I requested this yesterday but have not yet received an answer.
And we most likely will not.
[Deleted]
I don’t think that she is at all, sad that you do.
Even when Aaron Burr was arrested for treason, he was given due process and a legitimate trial. Something many on the hardcore left, in their biased rabid hatred, refuse to allow for Trump.
If Trump is charged with treason, he will be given due process just as he is given due process for his extant 91 charges.
But he has not been charged with treason. His charges fall under the category of seditious conspiracy:
Trump has not been charged with treason, likely because the legal bar for treason is high and Jack Smith focused on clear law and clear evidence. So what is the point in talking about it?
Where is Trump NOT getting legitimate trials and what do you base your determination for what is and what is not legally legitimate?
observe the efforts of the maga amateur legal review in their quest to find that technicality accomplished legal minds in america have overlooked...
Surprisingly, he wasn’t charged with 18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection nor 18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy.
Pretty sure Smith very carefully chose his charges to yield the strongest possible meaningful case.
No doubt he anticipated technical legal maneuvers based on nuances in semantics and the law.
lawyers aren't gamblers. why climb a ladder when there's low hanging fruit.
Exactly, you never hear of a DA stacking charges.
Smith has demonstrated that he knows that the stakes are as high as they get. Charging a former PotUS with multiple felonies is incredibly bold in itself. It has never happened in the history of our nation.
Thus Smith, appropriately, is making sure that the charges he makes are sound in terms of evidence and the law and are easy enough for a jury to fully comprehend.
Smith has chosen to not go after Trump for crimes such as treason but rather for easier charges (as enumerated in his indictment).
Smith issued charges that are well founded rather than reaching for higher charges that have a much higher risk of failure to convict.
But all the armchair lawyers know better than we, obviously, TiG./S
smith also has to prosecute a perfect case to silence the legal nit pickers as they rattle every door and window looking for an out. the job of the defense will be just as difficult. defend the indefensible while keeping the defendant's mouth muted.
jack has a bushel of 3 to 5 year federal charges with trumps words and deeds as proof.
[deleted]
[Members are not the topic]
Exactly.
[Deleted]
it's impossible for him to keep his big fat mouth shut
So you are disagreeing with 11.1.50 ?
I was referring to the former 'president'. How is that off topic and no value? FFS.
[Deleted]
I think it is quite safe to say that trials by kangaroo courts of public opinion by certain segments of the general population certainly are not legally legitimate. That is the point I have been trying to get across. I guess I did not make myself clear enough.
You have but we have a segment of our society that only uses legal and legitimate when it suits a preferred narrative. Otherwise, all bets are off.
The court of public opinion is going to happen in every high profile case. That is just reality and it is to be expected.
Trump is, however, getting due process. He clearly has engaged in wrongdoing, the evidence is substantial, the laws that he is accused of breaking are specifically stated in his indictments and correlated with the evidence.
Rather than being treated unfairly, it is quite likely that Trump will continue to enjoy extraordinary benefit of the doubt due to his status as a former PotUS and current candidate (and likely GOP nominee) for the office.
For the most part I agree with you, but the bottom line is that Trump, like any other citizen, is still entitled to a judge and jury to determine ultimate guilt or innocence under the law. I choose to withhold my opinion on his guilt or innocence until then. If certain individuals wish to damn me for that than so be it.
Do you not think this is happening? Like I said, there is no stopping public opinion (positive or negative) so that just is what it is.
But legally, Trump is certainly enjoying due process. Even better for him, he has millions of supporters helping him with his legal bills through campaign donations (which should be illegal):
Also, there is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinion that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing, just like there is nothing wrong with you not opining on his legal guilt prior to the conclusion of his trial.
However, there is something very wrong with those who deny / ignore Trump's wrongdoings in spite of blatant and overwhelming evidence (and proof in cases) to the contrary.
Trump supporters have lost all sight of simple right and wrong.
IMO, those who deny his wrongdoing have decided that making incredibly stupid, demonstrably false partisan claims and feeble partisan arguments in Trump's defense is more important to them than truth and their own credibility.
( Note: my opinion does not include Ed NavDoc in this group. )
you'd think that someone professing their innocence so loudly would be interested in clearing their name before the next election and try to expedite the legal process.
Trump knows that there is nothing on this earth that can clear his name. He just wants to keep the ball rolling.
Yes, it is quite obvious that his desperate plan is to delay trials until he wins the presidency at which point he will try another historical first and attempt to pardon himself. And if Trump wins the presidency, I would bet that our then demonstrably fucked up system would allow him to do so.
I don't see that happening without bloodshed...
My opinion does.
LOL
It’s common in civil matters (and that’s what this is) for a court to make a finding on a relevant question of fact. It doesn’t require the usual criminal procedures because the accused will not be imprisoned as a result.
’s common in civil matters (and that’s what this is)
Sure. It's no more important than a fender bender. Using that standard to justify removing the leading candidate for the Presidency from the ballot and delegitimizing a Presidential election makes perfect sense. How can people possibly be upset by that? \
“…to justify removing the leading candidate…”
The fact that he is leading is immaterial. The fact that he is facing a multitude of criminal cases is most certainly relevant. The fact that he continues to lead is a testament to how low we have descended…the discourse, the distrust, and the disregard for our system of governance that one individual has wantonly blown up.
Most disturbing, he somehow still is able to manipulate a cadre that embraces the insanity.
Not in the real world. That's not how this will be viewed by anyone open to the possibility of supporting Trump.
You have seven appointed Democrats voting 4 to 3 to remove the candidate who is beating their party's nominee from the ballot. That's what happens in banana republics. If you can't see the problem with those optics, I don't know what to tell you.
“…to remove the candidate who is beating their party's nominee from the ballot…”
So in your ‘banana republic’ world, polling data 11 months out should supersede articles written in our constitution?
Of course not. But you should actually convict the person of the crime listed in the article of Constitution before removing him from the ballot. When an election is interfered with and people are not allowed the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice, the reasoning must be ironclad and not an exercise in partisan legal extremism.
It's actually disturbing how blind people are to the precedent this sets beyond trump. It's like the filibuster all over again. Keep abusing it, don't heed the warnings and then act surprised when the obvious reaction occurs. If this stands, it will create a massive legitimacy crises.
Odd how that one sentence eludes some people.
My God, they are talking about Trump.
No way sanity, reason, and logic can be applied.
I'm surely not smashing myself in the head with a ball peen hammer to get down to that mind set. And I don't think there's enough alcohol.
“If this stands, it will create a massive legitimacy crises.”
As opposed to the manufactured and totally unfounded ‘legitimacy crisis’ that has been at the forefront of discussion since the 2020 election results were legally and constitutionally ratified?
Not only the forefront of discussion, but the main factor in the CO decision, as the reactions to that election form the basis of their case.
Let the courts decide the constitutional merits of the ruling. Until then, plenty of partisan crises to grouse about. peace
that combination of mental adjustments could only benefit diehard trump supporters at this point...
Which was piled upon manufactured legitimacy crisis upon crisis since 2000. I'm sure intentionally creating another crisis will calm everyone down.
Why? When has “you can’t be on the ballot” ever been a punishment in a criminal court? Criminal courts adjudicate matters where the defendant stands to be punished in loss of life, liberty, or property. That’s why he gets due process under the 5th Amendment.
Civil matters, like where you might only lose the privilege of being on a ballot, are handled differently.
The Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment says, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
A private injured party could ask a judge for a writ of Quo Warranto to determine, if Trump wins in 2024 for his eligibility. The individual would first have to prove standing.
Yeah, not bringing myself down to the level of the left.
yeah, go with that...
Where the burden of proof is much lower and feelings take over.
Having the courts decide on who can and can not be on a ballot based on a presidents perceived "treason" would actually create a constitutional crisis. And I don't mean one like the 200 or so constitutional crisis the dems have claimed over the last few years.
What some of the comments on this seed demonstrate is that few "conservatives" have any idea of what the Jan 6th committee found. The Colorado Supreme Court looked at the Jan 6th evidence, and reached their conclusion. Right wingers dont even know what the evidence is.
They also don't understand that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction.
When it comes to their Dear Leader Trump an originalist, strict-constructionist interpretation of the Constitution doesn't count.
“They also don't understand that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction.”
Hence the hue and cry.
Inflating a constitutionally based decision into an unconstitutional argument with no legal standing cuts them off at the legs. The only thing left is to joust away…’tis but a scratch…
From what I read, insurrection is a criminal charge.
Say what you will about how much Trump may or may not have been a part of this, if it's a criminal charge then doesn't there need to be a trial and conviction? The judges in this case decided without any trial that Trump is guilty of insurrection. I don't see how this will be allowed to stand as written.
What does the law say about implementation of Sec 3 for federal offices?
“…if it's a criminal charge then doesn't there need to be a trial and conviction? ”
This is a charge that he violated the tenets written into the Constitution. If we can at least acknowledge the standing of the court to render such a decision, then and only then can the merits of such be debated. Seems we’re still aways from reaching that basic understanding.
Congress reserved that right for itself in Sec 5 of the Amendment.
Seems to me that the Colorado Supreme Court did not bring a charge, they found Trump guilty of insurrection in that they have ruled he is not eligible to be on the ballot. As it was not tried in a court of law Trump did not have due process. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have a hard time seeing this not being overturned by SCOTUS.
Oh it will be. Then our friends will shift their venom back towards SCOTUS. One wonders who they think they are fooling with their partisan nonsense. Certainly not thinking people.
They are only fooling themselves
I wonder if this is overturned, and at least one of the liberal jurists side with the majority, would the little leftist POS protest outside their house, scream insanely and bring weapons and live ammunition with them like they did with the ROE decision?
My guess is this leftist jurist will be ignored for their decision.
They are enforcing and violating constitution all with one decision. And NONE of them are smart enough to catch it.
And unless it is 9-0 or maybe 8-1 we can enjoy the calls to pack the court again
a 6-3 decision has already been prepaid...
My money is on 7-2
To quote one of your hero’s.
Elections have consequences.
What's the over/under line on how quickly Congressional Democrats start to call for packing SCOTUS after the decision is handed down?
The same day the decision is leaked to them. I am sure they already have people looking into why some should recuse themselves and if they can add a couple justices within the next month or so.
... so do insurrections.
Which insurrection is that?
Since no one to date has been found guilty of insurrection.
Not in the last 150 years or so at least.
I encourage trumpster efforts to continue making the legal arguments to keep biden in office, even if he loses the next election...
So no insurrection. Got it. Thx!
Do you think Trump, who attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement is fit to serve as PotUS?
They understand, they just don't care when it comes to the former 'president'
[deleted]
You mean like the republicons stacked the court with the hypocritical lying scum?
sears catalog...
It's only fair, if given the opportunity, to increase the amount of Democrat Supreme Court justices.
So true, one of them, Ginny, I mean, Clarence, is bought and paid for by the alleged conservatives.
Yawn ….
he does...
It looks to me like the Co SC might be trying to " salt the mine". Even they said this is "an uncharted area". Those areas usually mean over reach and result in spankings from the higher court.
Problem I see is they used some things that have not come to pass yet,except in the court of public opinion.
That little overstep of declaring himwho shall not benamed guilty of insurrection, without charges or conviction in the jurisdiction(actual court) it occurred could likely be grounds for overturning the CSC.
It also makes me muse on why such charges have not been brought in the correct jurisdictional court , after all they have had all of almost 3years to make them.
Also this is a Federal crime covered by USC, and if the Co court gets spanked because of a failure of no charges or conviction in court of jurisdiction and a violation of due process, someone should be asking the DOJ exactly what they HAVE been doing all this time other than chasing shadows and snipes.
Sidenote* learned something today, last time the Dem party tried keeping a candidate off the ballot for president was the election of 1860...and he still won....history does tend to repeat.
it sure does. hopefully you don't live down wind of any large open pit coal mines up there.
[deleted]
At least that's what you are HOPING for.
Again, the constitution doesn't say he has to be found guilty or even charged.
Considering I wrote that a week ago things do change a little on research and thought.
Just so there is no misunderstanding I will plainly tell you what I hope and desire.
That the application of sec 3 is followed to the letter, allowing for all due process of law and understanding of same and the constitution be met with no question of doubt.
Now if a ruling is made by SCOTUS, for or against in whole or in part, I will accept the highest courts desicion with no arguments.
Now let's delve into what you said last
"The constitution doesn't say he has to be found guilty or even charged"
I will take it, by constitution you actually mean section 3 of the 14th, do correct me if I am wrong.
Taking it that way, no one needs to be charged with the named offense, insurrection, nor do they have to have a trial to establish innocence or guilt that is the textbook definition of what a bill of attainder is, Art 1 sec 9 of COTUS covers that, to save some time, that forbids bills of attainders.
So there is a conflict within the const, general understanding is one part of the constitution can NOT be in conflict with any other part, if that happens then the offending part is null and void and UN applicable.do you think those that wrote sec 3 did not know that?
I would venture to say they did know and their solution even though it's not mentioned in the section, that other sections of the constitution and it's protections would remove any conflicts and violation s found, I dare say they counted on due process and all it entails would always take place and be upheld without having to say or put it in writing within the section itself.
Now my opinion as of today, IF SCOTUS agrees to take it, I think they will agree sec 3 does apply to POTUS, but for a different reason others do, POTUS has a dual function, commander in chief of the armed forces, sec 3 mentions military positions.
I think they will also broach all that I said above which will answer if sec 3 is self activating, if a trial and verdict is needed, even what level of trial with what burden of proof is needed in order for sec 3 to be able to be used. And will send it back to Colorado and let them do as they may, to make it acceptable along the lines they require to say it falls within the constitution and it's protections.
I have said this in the past, I have never voted for Trump, and nothing that has happened to change my mind to make me vote for him.
My personal opinion of the man is he resides about 12 shit levels lower than a crazy shit house rat.
Your argument on bills of attainder would be without question if Trump was being found guilty of a crime. I think it is reasonable that a court would view this as deciding on a rule of eligibility and not on criminality.
Thus, I believe the Colorado supreme court (et. al.) could determine that Trump is ineligible by finding that his actions do satisfy the conditions of §3 of the 14th. I do not believe there is any requirement that they find Trump legally guilty of insurrection or any crime. They could find that the spirit of this section is to prohibit anyone who has taken an oath of office and violated that oath (in a highly significant manner) to no longer be eligible for office. That, by this, would make Trump ineligible.
The principle is that those who have broken their oaths (significantly) should not be given a second chance to do so again.
While it is best for the SCotUS to rule on this given the importance of the matter, I think the Colorado supreme court was well within its right to issue this ruling for the state of Colorado.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides, although there may be greater virtue in your position. That doesn't mean SCOTUS will agree.
Regardless, there is one thing we can all agree on:
I think we have a real mess unless the SCotUS makes a definitive ruling on Trump's eligibility.
If SCOTUS rules that the states should decide that may not exactly resolve the mess.
Liked that?
Hope you weren't drinking anything when you read it, could have been messy
Liked it and agree 1000%.
Might be just me but I don't think they can really address the eligibility issue without dealing with the criminal issue, they really can't be seperated because one does bring on the other ,especially in sec 3 To me in order for a disqualification of eligibility, the trigger issue must first be adjudicated using the required due process that is both correct and nessisary dealing with trigger issue.
Won't say I am 100% sure, I have after all come to expect the unexpected from the sitting SCOTUS, but I don't think it is far fetched to think they will say that the insurrection part(criminality) would have to be addressed in a suitable manner, they may or may not say what that is, before the eligibility part (disqualification from holding office) is put into effect and applied.
Well unless something he is being tried in court for already has a disqualification clause or penalty once convicted, not much they can rule on without any conviction.
Until then he would legally remain eligible.
I tend to say conviction in the court of public opinion doesn't count, I never said it doesn't have an effect.
I agree, the shit will hit the fan. But the course is at least set. Trump will earn electoral votes in the states he legitimately wins.
Definitive, but ugly.
The court of public opinion certainly does not count, but the determination of eligibility by the Colorado supreme court should count for Colorado unless overruled by the SCotUS.
I do not see where Trump must be found guilty of a crime in order to be deemed to have "engaged in insurrection" (per the 14th). The language does not suggest that a finding of legal guilt for a particular crime is required. If a court finds, based on the evidence and arguments, that Trump "engaged in insurrection" as used in §3, that would be a ruling on eligibility without ruling on criminality.
Ultimately the SCotUS will need to decide what “insurrection” means in this constitutional context and if Trump engaged in it sufficient to trigger the disqualification. I have yet to find a persuasive argument that Trump must first be found legally guilty of a specific crime before they can rule that he "engaged in insurrection" and then, given that is satisfied, rule that he is ineligible per §3.
A conviction of an insurrection crime would be cleaner, no question, but is it necessary?
"The determination of eligibility by Colorado supreme court should count for Colorado "
Based on that statement I would have no problem agreeing( you just know there is a biiiig but) If they had used solely the Colorado Constitution, and laws, if they had done that, the only role SCOTUS would have had would have been one of judicial review to make sure the ruling fit what state laws and it's constitution allow with any appeal.
By using sec 3 of the 14th of COTUS, they expanded the judicial review into interpreting the sec and making a ruling on if it was used as intended the way the federal government would have had to use it.thus effecting the eligibility question not just for a single state but all states.
I find it rather hard to believe that those who wrote sec 3, ever dreamed it would be used as a means to determine eligibility, let alone the application of guaranteed by other sections due process would be disregarded and ignored because they didn't say it had to.
I agree100% it would be much cleaner and clearer.
Nessisary?
Yes it is not only nessisary but required by what the US Legal system is founded on.
Due process,innocent until found guilty,no person is above the law but no person shall be denied the benefit of the law and it's protections.
They interpreted the CotUS and applied it strictly to their own state. I see no problem with a state interpreting the CotUS (e.g. applying the 1st amendment, an an example, in cases of free speech) within their state. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond their state and their ruling can be overruled by the SCotUS.
Why? That is precisely what §3 is talking about: disqualification for office. Lack of eligibility.
As for defining insurrection , they will likely use a dictionary, not that hard. And the definition likely had not changed from the 1860s to now
As for how the us handles it ? Title 18 US Code 2383.
Took me longer to type it than it did to find it.
No I have not read it, I might though.
When a court determines that Trump engaged in insurrection in this case, that is not finding him guilty of a crime. It is finding that Trump satisfied that condition of §3 of the 14th. He will not be fined or sent to jail, there will be no criminal record. There is no stated law that he broke. There is no violation of due process; there is no finding of guilt for a crime.
The consequence is that he does not have the right to hold office. Ineligibility, not criminality.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 does not, as you know, define insurrection. It defines the consequences. For this to be executed, Trump would need to be charged as breaking this law and found guilty of same.
None of the courts have charged him with a crime. The SCotUS too (if they take the case) need not charge Trump with a crime. The Colorado ruling does not trigger 18 U.S. Code § 2383 consequences.
IMHO, I don't think that's going to slide or fly with SCOTUS, even solely on judicial review.
Well I certainly hope they get to hear this case soon because they alone can yield clarity.
Should have quoted me fully there last part about using it to determine eligibility( which you seem to agree with that use) the whole quote included the use of due process and applications of other protections being disregarded and ignored
THAT is what I find hard to believe, that they would ever see it used as you wish or think , but it would be used with disregard to due process and other protections .
I don't play the game of partial quotes I won't do it to others and I do not appreciate it being done to me.
I think the intelligent conversation and learning debate is over for the evening.
I have covered that several times. Trump is not charged with a crime nor does he face criminal consequences. Criminal due process comes into play if Trump is being tried for a crime. These cases are determining eligibility and we are watching due process for eligibility take place. A lower court ruled and now the Colorado supreme court ruled. Next is the SCotUS and that is the due process mechanism working as designed.
I had no intent whatsoever of being misleading. I did not quote your entire sentence because I was focusing on the part that I quoted. That did not change your meaning in any way.
Look, here is your sentence fully quoted:
My comment is exactly the same: "Why? That is precisely what §3 is talking about: disqualification for office. Lack of eligibility."
The balance of your sentence does not answer my question nor does it qualify the question of eligibility. And, as I noted, I have several times now directly dealt with the notion of due process (the red part of your sentence) and did not desire to yet again address the red part.
LOL
I had no idea that tap dancing was so popular in wyoming...