╌>

It Appears Trump Has Won On Ballot Question

  
By:  John Russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  218 comments


It Appears Trump Has Won On Ballot Question
The Court, from the parts I heard of it, will conclude that states do not have authority to exclude potential candidates in federal elections. 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the ballot disqualification question this morning, and the consensus legal pundit opinion appears to be that Trump has prevailed, and some even say it could be a 9-0 decision. 

The Court, from the parts I heard of it, will conclude that states do not have authority to exclude potential candidates in federal elections. 

What I find interesting is that so many constitutional scholars have previously said that the 14th amendment is quite clear, and that Trump should be disqualified. 

I also thought it curious this morning that very few questions by the justices were related to whether or not an insurrection occurred on Jan 6 2021. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Now we have to wonder if this right wing court might not be willing to grant Trump immunity. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
I’m always exceedingly careful with my word choice in public on profound matters of great importance. What I have said is that I am confident that the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado Supreme Court’s decision based upon the objective law, which in this instance is Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Which is to say that I know that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is unassailable in every single respect under the Constitution of the United States.

John Michael Luttig  ( /ˈludɪɡ/   LU-dig ; born June 13, 1954) is an American lawyer and jurist who served as a  U.S. circuit judge  on the  United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  from 1991 to 2006. Luttig resigned his judicial appointment in 2006 to become the  general counsel  of  Boeing , a position he held until 2019.

An influential conservative legal figure, Luttig gained broader prominence after the presidency of  Donald Trump , characterizing him as "a clear and present danger to American democracy," and advocated invoking the  Fourteenth Amendment  to render Trump ineligible to serve a second term as president.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3  Ozzwald    3 weeks ago
The Court, from the parts I heard of it, will conclude that states do not have authority to exclude potential candidates in federal elections.

Except that the authority is expressly given to the states by the Constitution.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @3    3 weeks ago

Watching the proceedings today ( I watched some of it) it was pretty clear that a majority will rule in Trumps favor, and the thing that was brought up most was the idea of states authority to ban him in a national election. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3    3 weeks ago

Justice Elena Kagan was reported to have repeatedly questioned whether one state should be allowed to decide whether a presidential candidate is disqualified. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”  “That seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed deep skepticism of the Colorado voters’ view of the scope of the 14th Amendment, agreeing with Roberts that the post-Civil War amendment was aimed at limiting the power of the states.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    3 weeks ago
Justice Elena Kagan was reported to have repeatedly questioned whether one state should be allowed to decide whether a presidential candidate is disqualified.

Well the Constitution says not only that it can, but it should, and it says it in plain old English too.  Trouble is that only Colorado so far is recognizing the fact that, by the Constitution, Trump cannot run.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

I think that the court will reach a unanimous or near-unanimous decision to reject the Colorado challenge to Trump’s eligibility. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.2    3 weeks ago
I think that the court will reach a unanimous or near-unanimous decision to reject the Colorado challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

Yes they probably will, but in doing so they will be going against the plain language part of the Constitution that addresses it. 

SCOTUS "appears to be" claiming that Trump cannot be banned unless it is unanimous amongst all states.  Their official ruling will clarify if that is the direction they are going.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
but in doing so they will be going against the plain language part of the Constitution that addresses it. 


A state isn’t empowered to access eligibility and enforce the 14th Amendment for a federal position.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
the Constitution says not only that it can, but it should, and it says it in plain old English too.

No, it doesn't.  

As the Colorado dissent citing a ruling from the Chief Justice addressing this in the 1860s:

w as the very language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chief J ustice Chase continued, that
put this proposition beyond doubt:
“Now, the necessity of this is recognized by the amendment itself, in its fifth and final section, which declares
that ‘congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation the provision[s] of this article.
( emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3).  
Chief Justice Chase   noted that Section Five “qualifies [Section Three] to
the same extent as it would if the whole amendment consisted of these two sections.”
And pivoting back to Section Three, he pointed out that, consistent with Section Five,
its final clause “gives to congress absolute control of the whole operation of the amendment."
see U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §3 (“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”)
Chief Justice Chase, therefore, concluded: Taking the third section then, in its completeness with this final clause,
it seems to put beyond reasonable question  the conclusion that the intention of the people of the United States,
in adopting the fourteenth amendment, was to create a disability, to be removed in proper cases by a two-thirds vote, and
to be made operative in other cases by the legislation of Congress in its ordinary course. 
I would expect the progressive justice Samour's dissent in Colorado to be very similar to the Court's opinion. 
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.4    3 weeks ago
A state isn’t empowered to access eligibility and enforce the 14th Amendment for a federal position.

According to the Constitution it is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Show us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Indeed.   The most obvious example was offered by Tacos! 

If Arnold wanted to run as PotUS, the state of Colorado could determine that he is not eligible and keep him off the ballot.

The state would be assessing eligibility per the CotUS.

The state, however, could be overridden by the SCotUS.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

The state would be assessing eligibility per the CotUS.

The state, however, could be overridden by the SCotUS.

Meaning that SCOTUS would be ruling based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. 

In the current case however, that is not (probably) what they're ruling.  If they rule as some people believe, they will rule that candidates that commit or support insurrection can be left off the ballot, but only if it is done unanimously across all 50 states.  Making the 14th amendment section 3 impossible to enact.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    2 weeks ago
Meaning that SCOTUS would be ruling based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. 

As the highest court in the land, that is what they are supposed to do.

If they rule as some people believe, they will rule that candidates that commit or support insurrection can be left off the ballot, but only if it is done unanimously across all 50 states.  Making the 14th amendment section 3 impossible to enact.

That would seem to be adding to the 14th rather than interpreting it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.10    2 weeks ago
As the highest court in the land, that is what they are supposed to do.

You are of course correct.  I should have said each individual Justices interpretation based on personal beliefs and biases, not merits of the case.

That would seem to be adding to the 14th rather than interpreting it.

Correct, and though the official ruling has not come out, that seems to be the direction that most experts feel that they are leaning.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

I think it is more likely that the SCotUS will push the problem onto Congress.   And they will likely do it in such a way  that Trump will be able to assume the office (if he wins) unless Congress acts.

Not sure how they would do that and still be legitimately interpreting rather than legislating, but making this Congress' problem (at a macro level) seems most likely to me.

The SCotUS does NOT want to be the agent that determines Trump's eligibility.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.13    2 weeks ago
I think it is more likely that the SCotUS will push the problem onto Congress.

I don't see how.  Congress, on its own, cannot alter the Constitution.  Again, this is as plain a language in the Constitution as it gets.

Not sure how they would do that and still be legitimately interpreting rather than legislating, but making this Congress' problem (at a macro level) seems most likely to me.

But Congress can not create any legislature that goes against the Constitution, so even if they were to create a law that says 100% of states must agree before the 14th can be acted upon, it would go against what the Constitution says.  Congress also is unable to add to the Constitution.

The SCotUS does NOT want to be the agent that determines Trump's eligibility.

You are correct and it is that exact reasoning that caused the 1st court in Colorado to kick the bucket down the road to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Someone HAS TO make the call and unless SCOTUS is willing to go against the Constitution the need to uphold the Colorado decision.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"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."

Trump to Jan. 6th rioters:  “We love you, you’re very special.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.14    2 weeks ago
I don't see how.  Congress, on its own, cannot alter the Constitution.  Again, this is as plain a language in the Constitution as it gets.

I agree, the plain reading of the 14th § 3 seems (to me) to state that if one concludes that Trump was an officer of the USA (which he obviously was) who had taken an oath to support the CotUS (which he obviously did) and he engaged in insurrection (which he obviously did) then he cannot be sworn in as PotUS.

Section 3

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.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 5 states that Congress has the power to enforce this.   This, I believe, is a potential out for the SCotUS.   They can claim that even if § 3 applies to Trump, that the execution of this eligibility requirement must be done for ALL 50 states and that means at the national level.  They can then note that § 5 explicitly names Congress as the agent of execution.

However, if one goes this route then how do the resolve the contradiction in the last sentence of § 3:

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This implies that § 3 if self-executing but Congress can override it ("remove such disability").

The SCotUS has a tricky problem here trying to avoid being the agent that determines Trump is ineligible or the SCotUS that effectively disables § 3 by some semantic mischief.


The easiest path is to declare that Trump did not engage in insurrection.   Both lower courts deem that he did and his attorneys argued that this was not an insurrection as a second-thought (their primary argument was that Trump was not an officer of the USA).   But since 'insurrection' is not defined in the CotUS or in law, there is plenty of wiggle room here for the court.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.14    2 weeks ago
Congress, on its own, cannot alter the Constitution.  Again, this is as plain a language in the Constitution as it gets

Imagine not understanding what these words mean  "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.. " 

It's truly staggering how ignorant some people can be of our Constitutional History.  The entire point of the 14th  Amendment  was to grant the Federal government control over the states and weaken the states' independence. Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to state governments. The 14th  literally created the concept of national citizenship rights.  To then believe the Amendment then turns around and declares that each state can interpret the 14th amendment any way it chooses and the federal government is powerless to do anything about it is preposterous. Just read the language. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.16    2 weeks ago
It's truly staggering how ignorant some people can be of our Constitutional History. 

Such an arrogant comment.

If this was a slam-dunk we would not have had such a controversy that lead to the point where the SCotUS heard the case.

To then believe the Amendment then turns around and declares that each state can interpret the 14th amendment any way it chooses and the federal government is powerless to do anything about it is preposterous

Where did Ozzwald claim this??

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.17    2 weeks ago
 slam-dunk we would not have had such a controversy that lead to the point where the SCotUS heard the case.

In part because no one is making the argument he is claiming.  Even the staunchest (informed) defenders of the Colorado Court admit Congress has the explicit power to overrule the Colorado Court's finding (it's in the literal text of the Amendment). 

here did Ozzwald claim this??

Did you not read his comment? He literally claimed Congress lacked any power to act and the Court would violate the Constitution if it overruled the Colorado Court. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.18    2 weeks ago
He literally claimed Congress lacked any power to act and the Court would violate the Constitution if it overruled the Colorado Court. 

He noted that nothing in §3 states that Congress must act to execute §3.   He is correct in that literal read.

He did NOT claim that the SCotUS would ipso facto violate the CotUS by overriding the Colorado SC.   Where do you get this nonsense?  

Go by what that man wrote rather than push an obvious strawman.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
Section 5 states that Congress has the power to enforce this.

Good point! 

You feel that SCOTUS may rule that ONLY Congress can enforce that section of the Constitution.  You came at that from a different direction than I did, I will have to do some additional thinking about that...

However the fact remains that it will make the 14th unenforceable with the way Congress is currently functioning (or lack of).

The easiest path is to declare that Trump did not engage in insurrection.

I don't think that is an option.  I don't remember the legal term, but Colorado Supreme Court found that it applied to Trump because it was determined that he DID engage in the insurrection, or at least provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionist.  I don't believe it is within SCOTUS's ability to question that part of the decision unless they will claim that he was not charged and found guilty of the crime.  Which would again go against the language in the 14th.

But since 'insurrection' is not defined in the CotUS or in law, there is plenty of wiggle room here for the court.

But that is not what is being contested, his guilt was determined as you said by the various Colorado courts.  What is being contested is simply Colorado's ability to leave him off the ballot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.20    2 weeks ago
However the fact remains that it will make the 14th unenforceable with the way Congress is currently functioning (or lack of).

I do not see a clear out for the SCotUS other than to declare that Trump did not engage in insurrection.   They can easily do this because it is a judgment call.   They can rule that they do not hold that the circumstances of Trump's behavior constituted engaging in insurrection.   They can compare it to the Civil War and make a credible argument.

The key here is that this is a judgment call on one point.   The 14th will not be violated but they will have the one negative of raising the bar on what would constitute engaging in insurrection.   Given it is not likely that someone can engage in insurrection as much as Trump did, this would logically make §3 impotent.    Does the SCotUS care more about getting out of this difficult position than they do of the law?   We shall see.

But that is not what is being contested, his guilt was determined as you said by the various Colorado courts.

It is an out.   And Trump was not found to be guilty of anything.   He was found to have engaged in insurrection at a level sufficient to satisfy the intent of §3.   The SCotUS can rule that they disagree that he engaged in insurrection and thus has not satisfied the conditions of §3.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.22  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

It is pretty widely believed , by the legal talking heads I have seen, that the Supreme Court is going to rule that individual states do not have the authority to take Trump off the ballot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.22    2 weeks ago

They might do so, but that seems to be a much more complex legal argument.   States have the right to determine their electors as they see fit.   So they would have to make a special circumstance in which states do not have that right.

Following this hypothesis, the SCotUS would say that Colorado does not have the right to determine that Trump violated §3.    But then what do they do?   Do they just leave us hanging and not affirm or deny that Trump violated §3?   Would they actually take this case and then not make a definitive ruling?

Possibly, but that seems to be a slimy dodge that will undoubtedly raise plenty of historical criticism (which they do NOT want).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.22    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    2 weeks ago
I do not see a clear out for the SCotUS other than to declare that Trump did not engage in insurrection.

I don't either, but making that declaration goes against the purview of SCOTUS.

And Trump was not found to be guilty of anything.

Which was not required by the 14th.  But he obviously did give aid or comfort to them, and continues to do so.

The Trump campaign embraces Jan. 6 rioters with money and pardon promises

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.26  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    2 weeks ago
States have the right to determine their electors as they see fit.   So they would have to make a special circumstance in which states do not have that right.

Always possible that SCOTUS will kick this down the road.  Leave it out hanging for the current election, making Colorado (blue state) as the only state without Trump on the ballot, then make their decision after it no longer matters. 

If they rule to remove Colorado's right to control their elections they will be going against the Constitution, if they rule to support Colorado leaving Trump off numerous other states will do that as well.

But I agree with you, the best and only out for SCOTUS, that I see, is to rule that only Congress can make the call making it unanimous for all 50 states.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.25    2 weeks ago
I don't either, but making that declaration goes against the purview of SCOTUS.

I do not see why.   Seems like fair game.   

Which was not required by the 14th. 

Exactly!   It is a judgment call that does not require a trial and a determination of legal guilt.

But he obviously did give aid or comfort to them, and continues to do so.

Personally I find that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection and did indeed give aid and comfort to the insurrectionists.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.26    2 weeks ago
Always possible that SCOTUS will kick this down the road.

Yup.   That would be irresponsible IMO.

But I agree with you, the best and only out for SCOTUS, that I see, is to rule that only Congress can make the call making it unanimous for all 50 states.

Except I see that as legislating from the bench since that notion is not stated in the amendment and because §3 explicitly states that the role of Congress is to override (not approve).   Very shaky grounds IMO.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.27    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.30  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.29    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.29    2 weeks ago
Personally I find that Biden benefited from his family members selling access to him.

You seem quite easy to convince with weak evidence when it applies to Biden but run interference for Trump on every count.

The evidence against Trump is overwhelming.  Much of it we can see directly ourselves.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.31    2 weeks ago
You seem quite easy to convince with weak evidence when it applies to Biden but run interference for Trump on every count.

No interference--that is your imagination.

You seem quite content in ignoring Biden wrongdoing and always revert to the usual "But Trump" nonsense. I get that based on who you chose to vote for.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

I do not see a clear out for the SCotUS other than to declare that Trump did not engage in insurrection. 

there are many, including, most obviously, the court holding the states have no power to usurp a power delegated by the text of the 14th amendment to congress*

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.26    2 weeks ago

If they rule to remove Colorado's right to control their elections they will be going against the Constitution,

Colorado doesn’t have the absolute right to Control their elections. It’s a nonsensical arugment, As I’ve pointed out below, Colorado doesn’t even have the right to set filing fees for its elections. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.34    2 weeks ago
Colorado doesn’t have the absolute right to Control their elections. It’s a nonsensical arugment, As I’ve pointed out below, Colorado doesn’t even have the right to set filing fees for its elections. 

Looks like some think a state can control the OUTCOME of an election!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.35    2 weeks ago

That’s the goal. A true one party state.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.2.37  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.36    2 weeks ago

Let's give this some thought, there are currently 27 republican governors, that means 54 republican senators. why stop at president?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.38  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.36    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.39  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.27    2 weeks ago
I do not see why.   Seems like fair game.

They are not reviewing any case finding Trump guilty, if they say he didn't participate in an insurrection it would not be based on any facts or testimony, it would be their personal opinion.  J6 committee would not be used since they found that he DID participate and was the only official investigation.

It is a judgment call that does not require a trial and a determination of legal guilt.

Yes, but it is supposed to be a judgement called based on the wording of the 14th, not what they can read into it.

Personally I find that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection and did indeed give aid and comfort to the insurrectionists.

And the official, bipartisan, J6 committee investigation agrees with you.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.40  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.28    2 weeks ago
Yup.   That would be irresponsible IMO.

That really doesn't put it beyond the current SCOTUS majority.

Except I see that as legislating from the bench since that notion is not stated in the amendment and because §3 explicitly states that the role of Congress is to override (not approve).   Very shaky grounds IMO.

Yes, very shaky.  However ruling that states can force a woman, against her will, to participate in a medical process would also seem rather shaky.  But there are many people supporting that version of slavery.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.40    2 weeks ago
However ruling that states can force a woman, against her will, to participate in a medical process would also seem rather shaky. 

Please do link the Court case where that happened.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.42  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.17    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @3    3 weeks ago

The Supreme Court may not agree with your assessment 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3    2 weeks ago

They will not.    Take it to the bank.

Then the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin again.

Oh the humanity …..

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3    2 weeks ago

The Supreme Court may not agree with your assessment 

My "assessment" is merely the clear language reading of the 14th Amendment Section 3.  I am sure some on SCOTUS disagree with various parts of the Constitution.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Except he didn't engage in an insurrection nor give them aid or comfort.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.3    2 weeks ago

Just amazing how you downplay what Trump did.   Even when a Colorado district court and its Supreme Court both found that he engaged in insurrection.   And if the SCotUS also affirms that Trump engaged in insurrection I expect you to yet again insist that he did no such thing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

I guess you and they have a different definition of engaged.

en·gage
/ inˈɡāj , enˈɡāj /
verb
  1. 1 .
    occupy , attract, or involve (someone's interest or attention).
    "he plowed on, trying to outline his plans and engage Sutton's attention"
    2 .
    participate or become involved in.
    "organizations engage in a variety of activities"
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.6    2 weeks ago
I guess you and they have a different definition of engaged.

Parsing words can be fun!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

When was the trial in Colorado? I must have missed that,

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
When was the trial in Colorado? I must have missed that

It's Trump, so no trial necessary for leftwingers.

Why let the law get in the way of opinion????

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
When was the trial in Colorado?

12th of Never

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.3.11  George  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.10    2 weeks ago

February 30th.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.2    2 weeks ago
My "assessment" is merely the clear language reading of the 14th Amendment Section 3. 

You suggesting the members of the supreme court can not read read the clear language and interpret the constitution for themselves?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

Apparently you did.   Unless you have some special meaning for the word 'trial'.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.3.14  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
When was the trial in Colorado? I must have missed that

In November.

‘Unprecedented’ Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado comes to a close

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.3    2 weeks ago
Except he didn't engage in an insurrection nor give them aid or comfort.

The Trump campaign embraces Jan. 6 rioters with money and pardon promises

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
You suggesting the members of the supreme court can not read read the clear language and interpret the constitution for themselves?

I am suggesting that there are some in SCOTUS that CAN read but choose to interpret what they read to better benefit themselves and their personal beliefs.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.16    2 weeks ago
I am suggesting that there are some in SCOTUS that CAN read but choose to interpret what they read to better benefit themselves and their personal beliefs.

Like the Colorado Supreme Court?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.15    2 weeks ago

In case you didn't notice, that is after the fact not prior to.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.19    2 weeks ago
In case you didn't notice, that is after the fact not prior to.

So you are saying that is okay for him to give them aid and comfort after the insurrection?  Too bad the Constitution doesn't put a time frame on it.  Not to mention how he told them that he loved them during the actual act.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.20    2 weeks ago

After the fact. So it isn't part of the time leading up to the supposed insurrection. Gonna need a link to prove that loved them during the actual act. Got one?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.21    2 weeks ago
After the fact. So it isn't part of the time leading up to the supposed insurrection.

Please post the part of Amendment 14 section 3 that limits it to pre-insurrection.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.23  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.22    2 weeks ago

No need to read past Section One of the 14th.

Let us know when you can get past the constitutionality of Due Process and equal protection of the law.    Because in this case you haven’t.     Not even close.

There is a reason that section one comes first.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.24  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.23    2 weeks ago
Let us know when you can get past the constitutionality of Due Process and equal protection of the law.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said.  Or are you claiming that being charged with being an accessory after the fact should also be deemed as un-Constitutional?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.25  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.24    2 weeks ago

My claim is crystal clear.    Without the constitutional protections afforded citizens by section one of the 14th.    Section three is meaningless.

Details, details ….

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.22    2 weeks ago
Please post the part of Amendment 14 section 3 that limits it to pre-insurrection.

Please post the part of Amendment 14 section 3 that validates it to post-insurrection

That would have meant that every soldier and supporters thereof would have had to be jailed after the civil war.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.27  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.24    2 weeks ago

Accessory after the fact? Now you are reaching. Saying he would bail them out has nothing to do with being an accessory after the fact. They are in jail FFS

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.26    2 weeks ago
that every soldier and supporters thereof would have had to be jailed after the civil war.

US Grant went out of his way to reconcile with former Confederates. He have had confederate generals make up half the pall bearers at his funeral.

I guess he was an insurrectionist. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.29  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.28    2 weeks ago

Yep, pardoned one of two people actually convicted of Treason after the civil war.    

Robert E Lee.

Oh the humanity …..

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.30  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.26    2 weeks ago
Please post the part of Amendment 14 section 3 that validates it to post-insurrection

Yup, I should have expected an idiotic response.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.31  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.27    2 weeks ago
Accessory after the fact? Now you are reaching. Saying he would bail them out has nothing to do with being an accessory after the fact. They are in jail FFS

Wow.  I used that as an example to Sparty, not in regards to Trump.  Try to keep your comment strings in order.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.30    2 weeks ago

To an idiotic question to begin with? Why wouldn't you?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

One of the dissents in the Colorado case laid out the case pretty clearly, citing an opinion written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court addressing pretty much the same  exact issue, that the 14th Amendment requires an Act of Congress to trigger the barring anyone from office.  Without a conviction under the federal statute for insurrection, it's impossible to satisfy that clause of the 14th Amendment. Not to mention the dispute of over whether the President is even an "officer" that KBJ appears to have found so compelling. 

It was always a  pretty straight forward case, if you want to bar Trump for engaging in insurrection, convict him of engaging in insurrection.  Colorado should  have tried arguing the "spirit of Aloha" overrules the text of the Constitution that apparently works in Hawaii. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago

I didnt hear any of the justices even mention thatTrump has not been convicted of insurrection, but I didnt see the whole thing and it could have been brought up when I wasnt watching. I doubt it though. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago
of the justices even mention thatTrump has not been convicted of insurrection

Kavanaugh favorably referenced  "Griffin's case" which makes that point. He either needs to be convicted or Congress has to pass a bill barring him for engaging in  insurrection. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago
It was always a  pretty straight forward case, if you want to bar Trump for engaging in insurrection, convict him of engaging in insurrection.

And that's the sticking point (and one that so many people are not quite understanding).  He has not been convicted.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago
Without a conviction under the federal statute for insurrection, it's impossible to satisfy that clause of the 14th Amendment.

Yep, as noted several times here on NTers.    The Amendment they are trying to use to ban Trump from the ballot, is the same one that protects him.    A little thing called Due Process which just happens to be in the same Amendment.

That is how ridiculously frivolous their attempts are.

Absolutely ridiculous without Due Process and a conviction.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @4.3    3 weeks ago
The Amendment they are trying to use to ban Trump from the ballot, is the same one that protects him.    A little thing called Due Process which just happens to be in the same Amendment.

What would that due process look like and why is he entitled to it?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law - the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The states - in this case, Colorado (but also Maine, and others) - are not depriving Trump of life, liberty, or property. So why is he entitled to due process?

The state runs the presidential election. It has all sorts of criteria for being on the ballot. There are filing fees and deadlines. The state also requires that a candidate be eligible for the office.  The legislature of the state has empowered the Secretary of State to determine if the candidate fulfills these criteria, not someone else. Can the legislature do this? Yes, according to the Constitution, Article II:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors

Do states have to tie this process to a popular vote? No. Do they have to hold primary elections? No. They select their choice in "such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." They could pull names out of a hat, if they chose to. They could close their eyes and point at names in the phone book.

Unless the states are violating their own laws or constitution, they don't have to consider Donald Trump for president if they don't want to.

But that's just my opinion. I don't wear an ominous black robe at work, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.1    3 weeks ago
What would that due process look like and why is he entitled to it?

Something like, you know, innocent until proven guilty.

The states - in this case, Colorado (but also Maine, and others) - are not depriving Trump of life, liberty, or property. So why is he entitled to due process?

Really?    You must have “resist” koolaide contamination via osmosis.    

The 14th amendment specifically speaks to protections from states where the 5th speaks to protections from the Fed.    Since Trump meets constitutional requirements to run for President, the states can not deprive him of the liberty to do so.   Not until, if and when, he is convicted of something that constitutionally disqualifies him.    Which to date has not happened and SCOTUS will likely majority rule along those lines.

Probably no point to discussing this any further.    I’ve made my point several times here now and it looks like we will still disagree.    I guess SCOTUS will be our tiebreaker.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.2    3 weeks ago
Something like, you know, innocent until proven guilty.

That’s a great standard, and it’s the one we use when we are going to put someone in jail or fine them. But that’s not what’s happening in this case. Colorado isn’t trying to jail Trump. They just don’t want to consider him for president.

Since Trump meets constitutional requirements to run for President

There is no constitutional requirement to run for president. There is a constitutional requirement to be president. The only election for president that matters, constitutionally, is the Electoral College. The Constitution does not mention primary popular elections for party nominees, and we didn’t have them in the first elections. That is a procedure that states have adopted by their own choice. They have the authority to make that choice under Article II.

The Constitution declares that states have the power to appoint electors by whatever means they choose. They can have a popular election to pick the electors, or the governor could simply appoint them.

the states can not deprive him of the liberty to do so

And they aren’t. He is still free to try to be president. But Colorado has decided they don’t want to consider him.

Not until, if and when, he is convicted of something that constitutionally disqualifies him.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that requires conviction in a criminal court.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
4.3.4  GregTx  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.3    3 weeks ago

Your argument is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  GregTx @4.3.4    3 weeks ago

I see you’ve thought about this a lot. Your argument is fascinating.

/s

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @4.3.4    3 weeks ago

What, specifically, is ridiculous and why?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @4.3.4    3 weeks ago

How so?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.5    3 weeks ago

Funny how you never get an answer to such 'arguments', how so, that your argument is ridiculous?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
4.3.9  GregTx  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.5    3 weeks ago

Mmmmkay, 

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that requires conviction in a criminal court.

Without a conviction of some type in regards to insurrection, what leg is there to stand on there?

And they aren’t. He is still free to try to be president. But Colorado has decided they don’t want to consider him.

Colorado decided that collectively?

The Constitution declares that states have the power to appoint electors by whatever means they choose. They can have a popular election to pick the electors, or the governor could simply appoint them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @4.3.9    3 weeks ago

I believe I'll defer to Tacos' obvious knowledge and expertise on the subject matter, thanks.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.10    3 weeks ago

'where did you get your law degree'?

I hate that I can't edit my comments goddamnit

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.12  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.10    3 weeks ago

To be fair, I don’t know if anyone is an expert on this. We are in pretty uncharted waters here. I’m just reading the Constitution. I actually don’t love the idea of states messing around with who is on the ballot, but it seems to me that under the Constitution, the states would have the authority to do this kind of thing.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.11    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.10    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.15  Tacos!  replied to  GregTx @4.3.9    3 weeks ago
Without a conviction of some type in regards to insurrection, what leg is there to stand on there?

Since they aren’t trying to fine him or imprison him, I don’t see that a criminal conviction is necessary, but I do agree it would make the decision (to remove him from the ballot) easier to swallow. Though I maintain states have the power to do this, I think it is a thing that could be abused.

Colorado decided that collectively?

The Legislature has delegated authority to the Secretary of State, who is responsible for running the elections in that state. If he thinks a candidate is not eligible for any office (an extreme example: a cat is running for Senate) shouldn’t he prohibit them from being on the ballot?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

You don’t see the relevance of the Constitutional passage on how a president is elected? Ok, where would you look to determine who has authority in this situation?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.11    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.3    3 weeks ago
They just don’t want to consider him for president.

And thus disenfranchising a large number of the citizenry. It is bullshit pure and simple.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
4.3.18  Gazoo  replied to  GregTx @4.3.9    3 weeks ago

Colorado decided that collectively?”

No, only a few jackasses decided that for the entire state.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.19  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.15    3 weeks ago
If he thinks a candidate is not eligible for any office (an extreme example: a cat is running for Senate) shouldn’t he prohibit them from being on the ballot?

So one person in a state can make such weighty decisions on their own?   Completely disenfranchising the person in question?    Ridiculous.  

But as I said, I guess SCOTUS will be the tie breaker here.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.20  Tacos!  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.17    3 weeks ago
And thus disenfranchising a large number of the citizenry. It is bullshit pure and simple.

For several years, a large number of the citizenry has supported Arnold Schwarzenegger for president. But he was born in Austria, so he’s constitutionally ineligible. He knows this, so he hasn’t tried to run. But if he did, state election officials would be right to exclude him from the ballot. I guess we’re disenfranchising his supporters? It’s not bullshit. It’s government.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.21  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.19    3 weeks ago

No, not just one person. Government officials like the Secretary of State are empowered to make these decisions. Authority is delegated from the voters to the Legislature to bureaucratic offices. That’s how government works. 

Furthermore, there was a hearing in state court (I think it was like 5 days), which was appealed, and then appealed again. 

Along the way, there actually wasn’t any disputing the idea that Trump engaged in insurrection. They also didn’t dispute whether or not the state could remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot. Incredibly, the big bone of contention was whether or not the president is an “officer” of the United States. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.21    3 weeks ago
Incredibly, the big bone of contention was whether or not the president is an “officer” of the United States. 

That was the leading argument.   I too found that incredible.   They led with a technicality that makes no logical sense.   In effect, the framers of § 3 ostensibly were okay with a former PotUS engaging in insurrection and then holding public office.   

Seems to me the stronger argument would be that Trump did not engage in insurrection due to the ambiguity around the phrase "engage in" and the lack of a clear constitutional definition for "insurrection".

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.23  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.21    3 weeks ago

We’ll see …..

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.20    3 weeks ago
But if he did, state election officials would be right to exclude him from the ballot.

Apples and tire iron comparison. He couldn't even register to run. SMH

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.25  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.24    3 weeks ago

Tacos! (quite obvious) point is that the Secretaries of State have the legal authority to NOT allow individuals who are ineligible from appearing on the ballot.

Do you disagree with that point?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.25    3 weeks ago

Yes I do. Here in NC they are not allowing any other Democrat on the ballot in the primary. I know it isn't the same thing but again, Colorado is going on feeeelings about Trump a bit more than anything and that cannot be denied.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.3.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.25    3 weeks ago
of State have the legal authority to NOT allow individuals who are ineligible from appearing on the ballot.

Do you think each state gets to interpret the Constitution on its own? Colorado is basing their ruling on their interpretation of a  Constitutional provision, not whether Trump submitted the required amount of valid signatures required by the State  to appear on the ballot under a generally applicable state law. (which Colorado would, in fact, have the power to enforce)  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.28  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.26    3 weeks ago

Colorado's secretary of state was operating on legal authority provided by the Colorado SC.   The Colorado SC determined that Trump was not eligible.   

An ineligible candidate should not appear on a ballot.   As Tacos! noted, if Arnold tried to run for PotUS it would be entirely proper for the Colorado SoS to disallow him from appearing on the ballot.

Colorado is going on feeeelings about Trump

'Feelings'?   What on Earth are you talking about?   There were two formal trials.   Arguments from both sides were heard and adjudication was made with the underlying justification explained in detail.   That is how our system works.   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.28    3 weeks ago

Oh bullshit. Show me the man and I will show you the crime. He hasn't even been fucking CHARGED FFS TiG

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.30  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.29    3 weeks ago
Oh bullshit. Show me the man and I will show you the crime. He hasn't even been fucking CHARGED FFS TiG

§ 3 of the 14th amendment does not state that one must be found guilty of the crime of insurrection (which is undefined by the way).

The SC of Colorado interpreted the civil law about eligibility.   Since insurrection is not defined, the meaning defaults to normal English.   Thus they need only determine that, in the context of § 3, that Trump had engaged in insurrection.

This is what courts do, they interpret law.   This is not about "feelings", it is a legal process.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.27    3 weeks ago
Do you think each state gets to interpret the Constitution on its own?

Yes, but they can be overridden by the SCotUS.

Colorado is basing their ruling on their interpretation of a  Constitutional provision ...

Correct, and it is within their right to do so within their jurisdiction (the state of Colorado).

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.32  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.30    3 weeks ago
This is what courts do, they interpret law.   This is not about "feelings" it is a legal process.   

Yes, and this is why we have The Supreme court doing it now.  We are lucky we have them so we don't have to count on internet lawyers or experts with an agenda.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.33  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.30    3 weeks ago
§ 3 of the 14th amendment does not state that one must be found guilty of the crime of insurrection (which is undefined by the way).

Point is, for the last time, HE HASN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION at all so how in the hell can they justify this. They FEEL he participated. I understand the "doesn't need to be found guilty" part but FFS they are playing judge, jury, and executioner. It is based solely on their opinion.

I shall not go any further down this rabbit hole with you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.3.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.31    3 weeks ago
t they can be overridden by the SCotUS.

So you believe Tacos is wrong then. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.3.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.30    3 weeks ago
the 14th amendment does not state that one must be found guilty of the crime of insurrection (which is undefined by the way).

It's almost like you are willfully ignoring Section 5 of the Amendment and pretending it doesn't exist. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.36  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.33    3 weeks ago

But Insurrection is exactly what it is/was.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.37  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.33    3 weeks ago

Which the former 'president' incited

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.38  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.3.32    3 weeks ago
Yes, and this is why we have The Supreme court doing it now. 

Correct.   The determination is done by legal authority.   It started with a Colorado district court, then went to the Colorado Supreme Court, and now is being addressed by the SCotUS.

This is not about feelings, this is the execution of jurisprudence.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.37    3 weeks ago

Bullshit and bullshit

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.40  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.38    3 weeks ago
and now is being addressed by the SCotUS.

And they are going to give SCoC a bitch slap.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.41  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.33    3 weeks ago
Point is, for the last time, HE HASN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION at all so how in the hell can they justify this. They FEEL he participated. I understand the "doesn't need to be found guilty" part but FFS they are playing judge, jury, and executioner. It is based solely on their opinion.

I have explained this already.

Nothing in § 3 states that one must be found guilty of some specific legal definition of insurrection.   It simply does not state that.   The SCotUS might make that a stipulation (and I think that would be legislating from the bench), but it is not there in the law.

I understand the "doesn't need to be found guilty" part ...

Do you?

... but FFS they are playing judge, jury, and executioner. It is based solely on their opinion.

What do you think courts do?    They render opinions.   Rendering a legal opinion after hearing arguments, considering evidence, and considering the charges against the law is exactly what is done every single day in our courts.

You seem to trying to argue that the Colorado SC ignored all the facts and just made an emotional decision.    Not only does that defy common sense, it shows that you did not read their detailed explanation:

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.42  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.40    3 weeks ago
And they are going to give SCoC a bitch slap.

They are going to allow Trump to be on the ballot.   How they do that remains to be seen.   

These are legal processes.    The justices, quite likely, are not out to "bitch slap"; they are focused on addressing a complex problem.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.43  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.34    3 weeks ago
So you believe Tacos is wrong then. 

I now believe that you do not understand Tacos! argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.44  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.35    3 weeks ago
It's almost like you are willfully ignoring Section 5 of the Amendment and pretending it doesn't exist. 

Based on what you quoted, you must be under the impression that § 5 stipulates that one must be found guilty of (some) crime of insurrection for it to apply.

Show me (us all) where that is stated in § 5:

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.45  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.22    3 weeks ago
Seems to me the stronger argument would be that Trump did not engage in insurrection due to the ambiguity around the phrase "engage in" and the lack of a clear constitutional definition for "insurrection".

For me, the US Code that covers insurrection is a hot mess on its face. I don’t see how anyone can read it and come away with a clear understanding of the elements of the crime.

Now I haven’t done a deep dive on caselaw, so there’s probably something from English common law that better defines it, and maybe that solves the problem. I just think it would have been more effective to argue the case from that angle, as opposed to this “officer” business.

There is potentially a lot of wiggle room for the SCOTUS on this, though. I think the basic question before the court was “did the [state supreme/lower] court err . . . “ Usually, reviews are very narrowly focused, but in this case, the state courts had to consider so many factors - including, at the lower level, whether or not insurrection happened - that maybe the Supremes could actually address that. Maybe they could say, “you can’t say Trump committed insurrection, because you didn’t even define it.” 

I have no particular reason to believe this is the course they will chart, but I think it would dispose of the case more neatly.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.3.46  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.36    3 weeks ago

It is bizarro MAGA think they can deny what we ALL witnessed!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.47  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.45    3 weeks ago
I just think it would have been more effective to argue the case from that angle, as opposed to this “officer” business.

Same here.   That would seem to be the stronger position.

Maybe they could say, “you can’t say Trump committed insurrection, because you didn’t even define it.” 

Thing is, if the SCotUS only rules that the Colorado SC made a legal mistake, that does not solve the larger problem.   What we need is a definitive statement that applies to all 50 states.   Trump is either eligible or he is not.   

I am confident they will rule (at least) that he is NOT ineligible.   How they do that will be interesting.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.48  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.38    3 weeks ago
This is not about feelings, this is the execution of jurisprudence.

Hold that though when the verdict comes down and the accusations of right wing supreme court (even with a 9-0 or 8-1 decision)and they made the decision on something other than jurisprudence.  Actually the accusations have already begun. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.49  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.47    3 weeks ago

What would Colorado do, I wonder, if Trump won on a write-in vote? Biden just managed that in New Hampshire with much less attention. It’s one thing to say the state can control who is on the ballot, but it’s a different level to ignore the results of the election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.50  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.3.48    3 weeks ago

The courts are not operating on feelings.   These judges are professionals who, if operated on feelings, would have short-lived careers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.51  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.49    3 weeks ago
What would Colorado do, I wonder, if Trump won on a write-in vote?

You mean if the SCotUS does not override them and thus grants them the right to exclude Trump?   I think they would simply state that Trump is not eligible and ignore all votes cast (write-ins).   That would be consistent and logical given their ruling on eligibility.

Biden just managed that in New Hampshire with much less attention. It’s one thing to say the state can control who is on the ballot, but it’s a different level to ignore the results of the election.

True, it creates quite a public problem.   I do not see it as a legal problem, but certainly it would cause many problems as a result of public outcry.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.52  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.40    3 weeks ago

Yep and then SCOTUS will be blamed for enabling the bad orange man.

Groundhog day, every day, here in NTers …..

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.3.53  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @4.3.51    3 weeks ago

I could be wrong here, but when it comes to write ins , that is something that is left to the states and their election laws, and each state is different in how they handle the matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.54  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.3.53    3 weeks ago

It would be consistent if every state had the option to determine how the handle write-ins.   I do not think a state can simply discard a write-in winner without cause, but how they actually handle matters within their jurisdiction should indeed by their call.

So even if Colorado did not put Trump on the ballot, if he won as a write-in they would certainly have the option to change their position and accept him as a presidential candidate.   But even here, the reversal would need to be founded on legal grounds.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.4  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    3 weeks ago
convict him of engaging in insurrection.

Now that his immunity claim has been blown out of the water, that is likely to happen. Even our corrupt SCOTUS won't touch that one. This is a win for trump for sure, but it won't get him very far. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.4    3 weeks ago

it hasn't happened because there is no case.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.4.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @4.4    3 weeks ago
Even our corrupt SCOTUS won't touch that one.

What would a 9-0 or 8-1 do to that argument?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. - US Constitution, Article II.

So if the states don't have the authority to define their process for electing the president (as the Constitution seems to clearly say they do), then who does?

The candidate? Donald Trump wants to be president, therefore the states are obligated to consider him? Based on what?

The party? The founders didn't even like political parties. Where in the Constitution are they given authority to tell states how to vote for president?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago

The Feds. Probably cuz it is a national election for a national office with all states involved

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    3 weeks ago
The Feds.

If you can find that in the Constitution, then we have something new to think about.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

So you believe a state can decide no one named Donald can appear on the ballot? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
So you believe a state can decide no one named Donald can appear on the ballot?

Yes, well done. You’ve figured it out. They have removed Trump from the ballot because his name is Donald.

As a result, also not appearing on the ballot are Donald Glover, former Clippers owner Donald Sterling, Donald Sutherland (Canada’s gift to cinema), the late Donald O’Conner, Donald Duck (leaving a clear path to victory for Daffy), Don Henley, and Ronald McDonald, just for completeness. Outstanding.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Could you miss the point harder if you tried? I’ll dumb it down for you. Does the state have absolute power to control who appears on the ballot?  If states do, why has the court held otherwise numerous times even unanimously ruling  states don’t even have the right to set their preferred filing fees for elections?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
I’ll dumb it down for you.

I concede I am not as well equipped for that task as you.

Does the state have absolute power to control who appears on the ballot?

Nothing I said requires absolute power. All that is required is a reasonable exercise of enumerated power that doesn't conflict with either the state or federal constitutions.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago

I don't think that section you copied says what you think it says.

 It looks to me like you think it says the states can decide their own elections, it doesn't , as it pertains to the presidency, it says the states legislatures can decide how the electors used in the electoral college can be delegated.

And since the presidency is the only race that uses the electoral college and that is the only place electors come into play , it deals strictly with the choosing of the president, no other office or matter of candidacies or eligibilities or disqualifications.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2    3 weeks ago
I don't think that section you copied says what you think it says.

I think it does.

it says the states legislatures can decide how the electors used in the electoral college can be delegated

No, it says the states appoint electors in a way they choose. The primary and general elections are merely part of that process. There is no federal requirement to hold elections or to run them in any particular way. Of course, there are limitations if they choose to have elections. For example, they can’t discriminate against voters based on race. That’s the 15th Amendment. 

And since the presidency is the only race that uses the electoral college and that is the only place electors come into play , it deals strictly with the choosing of the president, no other office or matter of candidacies or eligibilities or disqualifications.

Meaning what, then? The states cannot choose electors “in such manner” as they chose?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tacos! @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

Part of what you copied already stated that the state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, 

It is up to the state legislature to decide how to use those electors, they can delegate them on a winner take all method which all but 2 states use, so who ever wins the popular vote gets the electors. 

That is all that is what is in what you copied, it says and implies nothing else.

Where in what you copied does it say the state legislatures can determine who and who is not eligible or who is disqualified?

What you copied does not have that nor does it allow it .

Now if you are talking about state election laws, those are not US CON guaranteed, if anything they fall under the states constitution . 

When federal elections are involved , federal and US con, and US Code law, qualifications and disqualifications takes precedence and is over any state election law.

That is covered by the supremacy  clause that makes the USCON and USC the supreme law of the land and over any states laws.

In this case Colorado, attempted to use Co state election law to involk a USCON amendment thus involving the federal courts having to determine if the state could do so in such a manner.

So far , it looks like someone's going to be told they can't.

Now here is something to consider, there is only 1 political race that is ran for nationally, that for president, all other federal office seats fall under state races for representation of the individual states within the federal government, so they can use state as well as fed election laws.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.2    3 weeks ago
It is up to the state legislature to decide how to use those electors, they can delegate them on a winner take all method which all but 2 states use, so who ever wins the popular vote gets the electors. 

There is no need to interpret or reword the passage. We can just look at it directly.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors

It doesn’t say anything about how to use them. It doesn’t say anything about a popular vote. It says the state appoints. It also say how they do that is up to the state.

Where in what you copied does it say the state legislatures can determine who and who is not eligible or who is disqualified?

The state of Colorado is not telling the other states what to do. It is not preventing Trump from trying to be president. It is making a decision about a process it is empowered to make, per the Constitution.

When federal elections are involved , federal and US con, and US Code law, qualifications and disqualifications takes precedence and is over any state election law. That is covered by the supremacy  clause that makes the USCON and USC the supreme law of the land and over any states laws.

The Supremacy Clause is not implicated here. The Constitution has already delegated authority on the choosing of electors to the states. The only thing the federal government can do about it is if the state violates some other section of the Constitution in their process - for example, if they decided to hold a popular vote and then discriminated based on race or sex, that would violate the 15th or 19th Amendments. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tacos! @5.2.3    3 weeks ago

Guess what?

SCOTUS is going to straighten it all out for everyone, and some are going to be pissed for being made to look a fool.

Whatever they rule I will accept, period.

So far the direction I figured they would go in has been correct, I will wait for the final ruling.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.4    3 weeks ago

Agree. I thought the process today was fascinating and look forward to see the direction they will take.

But I do think those that are wrong will explain why the court got it wrong than admit they could be wrong 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.4    3 weeks ago

Funny, I can't wait to see who the fools are.  Well, I already know the answer to that one, but it will be nice to see it confirmed.

What choice do you have other than accepting the ruling?  Period.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Right Down the Center @5.2.5    3 weeks ago

I don't care if they admit being wrong or not , or if they try to make excuses, if ruled the way I think it will be, they will know , and that's enough.

I see a certain member posted something to me, I wonder if she will ever figure out she has been on ignore for the past 3or so years and all I see is a big grey hand instead of her post.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.7    3 weeks ago

Of course, you're always 'right' lol

Funny how you're not ignoring me while you're ignoring me

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.9  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.8    3 weeks ago

Who could possibly ignore you Tessylo, you're a peach!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  GregTx @5.2.9    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.8    3 weeks ago

Still nothing on that Biden poll that you referenced?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  GregTx @5.2.9    3 weeks ago

[Deleted.]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.11    3 weeks ago

If you see me smiling, I'm thinking of doing something naughty

If you see me laughing, I've already done it.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5.2.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.7    3 weeks ago

You don't know what you are missing.  Then again you probably do, it is always the same thing.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6  Robert in Ohio    3 weeks ago

I also thought it curious this morning that very few questions by the justices were related to whether or not an insurrection occurred on Jan 6 2021. 

Is that perhaps because that is not what the case under consideration was about, the matter to be decided was whether Colorado had the right to bar Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

I believe that Trump was at the very least tacitly involved in inciting the protestors on Jan 6 and perhaps much more (that charge has not been levied against Trump and certainly not proven legally).

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    3 weeks ago

That is not the open question. If there was an insurrection or not has actually not been determined since there has been no one charged tried or found guilty of that crime...except in the court of expert public opinion.

One question would be if Co, or any state really can say if someone is ineligible to be on the ballot. Especially a national ballot.

The underlying questions would be under what situations would or would not it apply.

The real question/s to be answered by this court IMHO 

1.is sec 3 of the 14th self enacting with no trial or conviction needed.

Looks to me like the court is leaning one would need to be charged and actually convicted. And they will likely tell exactly what court and process would need to be followed, they usually do that in their rulings .

2 does it have to be the feds or the state if one is convicted that enforces the disability.

From what I read, it would be the feds declaring ineligibility, leaving enforcement to the states in the ability to leave said person off the ballot, there would still need to be fed action , before the states react.

I will of course wait and see what SCOTUS says and accept it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1    3 weeks ago
If there was an insurrection or not has actually not been determined since there has been no one charged tried or found guilty of that crime...except in the court of expert public opinion

Were the people who violently entered the Capitol Building there to "protest" ?   Were the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys there to "protest" ?  If they were there to protest they would have stayed outside the locked doors. They were there to try and stop the electoral vote count. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Well John, you have made no secret of your opinion on the matter.

Being your a decade or so older, I am sure you have seen your share of protests , those that were peaceful, turned violent , and even turned into an outright legally defined riot being a young adult of the 60s.

Being I am a decade or so younger , I can say I have seen all those things myself, so I can be sure you have as well.

Where we differ is if or and when a riot , crosses a line and becomes an insurrection,as in this case, I say riot, not insurrection, you say insurrection, we disagree.

That is needed for one to be charged with the federal crime of insurrection, IF the J6 committee recomended people be charged , why were they not? It is a specific federally named crime, has the DOJ dropped the ball with failure to prosecute the crime to get a guilty to a lesser charge/crime easier to prove with some pleas?

I think it's going to be a long election year.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
6.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Exactly, there is a big difference between a riot and an insurrection in terms of deaths, injuries and property destruction. 

Check the two in LA (60s and 90s) and Detroit (40s and 60’s) and compare to 6 Jan.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Exactly, there is a big difference between a riot and an insurrection in terms of deaths, injuries and property destruction. 

There is also a big difference between the reason for the riot vs insurrection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1    3 weeks ago

You have no choice but to accept it.  Period.  End of sentence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

It's not an opinion, it's the truth.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
6.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @6.1.4    3 weeks ago
There is also a big difference between the reason for the riot vs insurrection.

Absolutely, are you rationalizing those Black deaths?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.7    3 weeks ago
Absolutely, are you rationalizing those Black deaths?

Not at all, in fact the exact opposite.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

John

Excellent point - I agree it was leaps and bounds beyond a protest

And many of those involved have been charged, tried and punished

Trump has not been convicted for participation in the Jan 6 event as far as I know

This case is about the 14th Amendment it is not a question of what happened on Jan 6

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Where we differ is if or and when a riot , crosses a line and becomes an insurrection,as in this case, I say riot, not insurrection, you say insurrection, we disagree.

That is needed for one to be charged with the federal crime of insurrection, IF the J6 committee recomended people be charged , why were they not? It is a specific federally named crime, has the DOJ dropped the ball with failure to prosecute the crime to get a guilty to a lesser charge/crime easier to prove with some pleas?

I think it's going to be a long election year.

It could be a riot and an insurrection, what it was not was a protest. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

"Protester" -

"While we're here why not set up a government." 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.12  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

"Protester" -

"storm your own Capitol Buildings and take down every one of these corrupt motherfuckers"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

He obviously didn’t participate In the insurrection, so where is  the proof trump coordinated with/directed the rioters?  

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
6.1.14  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

“It could be a riot and an insurrection, what it was not was a protest.”

and from some of the footage i saw it could have been a guided tour by capitol police officers.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
6.1.15  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

"While we're here why not set up a government."”

OMG, that must’ve been the moment,,,,,,,,,,,,we almost lost our democracyjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    3 weeks ago

The people who "stormed " the Capitol Building INTENDED to storm the Capitol Building, not protest, and they were drawn there by Donald Trump. Do you think that Trump would ask tens of thousands of his followers to come to the Capitol Building to "protest" ?   ROFL.

On Jan 6th Trump knew that  there would be tens of thousands at the Capitol, knew it, and yet that morning he told the crowd "you have to fight". His defenders claim he meant that rhetorically, but much of his mob took it literally. 

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long, Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Trump sent this message to his followers AFTER he was well aware of police being beaten.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    3 weeks ago

Somewhere in some people's heads only...................

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    3 weeks ago

The people who "stormed " the Capitol Building INTENDED to storm the Capitol Building, not protest, and they were drawn there by Donald Tru
 

so what? That’s not evidence of coordination with trump. .  

told the crowd "you have to fight". His defenders claim he meant that rhetorically, but much of his mob took it literall

Exactly, even ignoring the context of his other statements to the crowd  about being peaceful, there’s no crime in Using the word fight.  Politicians tell crowds to fight for their rights all the time. 

for trump to be an insurrectionist he has to have  participated in, coordinated or planned an insurrection. No one, to my knowledge, has provided any evidence of that. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    3 weeks ago
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

This is a secret code for the triggered which means …... go riot as I lead an insurrection ….

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.18    3 weeks ago

He abetted , encouraged, and comforted the insurrectionists. 

abet -   to assist or support (someone) in the achievement of a purpose

You dont seriously believe Trump didnt support the insurrection , do you? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.21  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.19    3 weeks ago
Towards the end of the riot
“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long, Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

In and of itself this message to the "rioters" should disqualify Trump in the minds of every single American. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

I can agree with some of that if not all.

I think it started as a protest and evolved into a violent riot that both made me sad and pissed off, much like many of the protests in 2020 that turned into violent riots.

For me it didn't cross over into insurrection .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    3 weeks ago

There's no doubt about it, he started inciting when he lost, then he had two whole months to incite and continue to incite and on 1/6 lied for hours, continuing to incite, then sent them to the Capitol to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country anymore.

He would have waddled down with them, and told them so, but the SS stopped the wannabe hitler.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.2.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Tessylo @6.2    3 weeks ago

Tessy

Well until he is convicted there is legal doubt

Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

He is guilty.  

There is no fucking doubt WHATSOEVER.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

I expect (and expected) the SCotUS would try to find a way to NOT be the body that removes the likely GOP nominee from the ballot.

The question in my mind is (and was) how they were going to avoid making the decision.

I really never expected that they would actually try to use the argument that the President and Vice-President are not officers of the USA since that strikes me as a weak semantics game.   But listening to the Trump defense and the questions posed by the justices, they might actually go that way.

Seems to me the likely approach will be to go extra-legal and argue ramifications.   That is, not really address the legal issues but rather speak of the consequences of them deciding Trump is not eligible to hold an office.   How they actually articulate this will be quite interesting to see.

Anyway, this is all academic to me.   I would have been surprised if they made a decision to remove Trump from all ballots.   So no surprise thus far.   But what will they actually do now?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @7    3 weeks ago

Now that they have the case they can't punt or kick the can down the road.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @7.1    3 weeks ago

I think they might just do that Kavika.

They could, for example, rule that no state can take Trump off the ballot because he is only excluded from holding the office, not running for it.   

This would work if Trump loses the election.   But if elected, we would have a nightmare situation where the president-elect cannot be sworn in and cannot assume the office.

They could also claim that Congress must decide if Trump meets the requirements of § 3.   How they would actually structure and justify that decision is part of my curiosity.   

The SCotUS will, in some way, NOT decide that Trump must be taken off the ballots.   How they do that, exactly, will be interesting.   I hope that in their defensive maneuver they do not set a shitty precedent.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Whatever they do it will create a lot of waves more like tsunami size waves with good parts of the population.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

We talked about this a few weeks ago, I think they will answer a few questions that need answering and it won't be any punting or can kicking.

First thing I think they will clarify is if sec 3 is self activating or is a conviction required

It looks like it's not self activating from what I heard, read today.

Next question , and this one has me guessing due to questions asked , who or what can convict,  it could end up Congress has to pass a bill to enact sec 3, or they can attempt another impeachment(unlikely) or they may say due process in an appropriate court and jurisdiction following constitutional guarantees of due process ,they could also say it has to be in a federal criminal court due to the seriousness of the charge.

It is looking like the ruling on this is the states can not enact sec 3, at least without federal action , be it Congress or court.

I seriously doubt they will leave it open with he can run but be barred from office , they will likely rule in a way they will not be called back to have to decide that issue.

The end result I think is they will rule in order to enact sec 3, an act of Congress or a court trial on the charge of insurrection in the right court and in the right jurisdiction, has to happen.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
It looks like it's not self activating from what I heard, read today.

This will only be clear with a ruling.  

Next question , and this one has me guessing due to questions asked , who or what can convict ...

This is a civil ruling, not criminal.   ( I quoted only the portion of your answer that established the question of conviction because I am not dealing with the possibilities you have enumerated. )

It is looking like the ruling on this is the states can not enact sec 3, at least without federal action , be it Congress or court.

It would be logical that the determination of §3 applicability be done at the federal level.   That does not seem clearly supported by the text, but it certainly would be logical.   Then, if it is deemed to apply, the states would act as they see fit in accordance with normal practices when a candidate is ineligible.   IMO

I seriously doubt they will leave it open with he can run but be barred from office , they will likely rule in a way they will not be called back to have to decide that issue.

Yes, that would be a mess.

The end result I think is they will rule in order to enact sec 3, an act of Congress or a court trial on the charge of insurrection in the right court and in the right jurisdiction, has to happen.

Then they would be tying a civil law to an adjudicated criminal law.  In a sense, making a civil determination a criminal determination.  That certainly is an out for them.   However, the Trump argument did not lead with "Trump did not engage in insurrection" but rather that this law does not apply to someone who has only been PotUS.   They addressed the insurrection notion (claiming it was just a riot ... feeble) only in response to a question.


This is quite a challenge for the SCotUS as I see it.   They are in a crappy situation and they need to not set a poor precedent, avoid being the agent that excludes the likely nominee, and keep the shitstorm as modest as possible.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

You and many may not agree, but IMHO, I lined out likely the cleanest and logical way that would support the entire constitution and what would need to be met,we have to wait and see.

When it comes to the Co civil trial, I think they may throw that out, my reasoning is insurrection is a criminal charge, not civil and would need to be judged under criminal burden of proof and not the civil preponderance of the evidence.

I think I can be confident that the court will rule sec 3 needs either federal court conviction or congressional action , likely the same 2/3 of both houses to apply it as is needed to remove the disqualification. I know there is nothing saying how it's applied , there is something how to remove, a simple reversal actually, want it applicable you need the same 2/3 vote to do so as needed to remove.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.5    3 weeks ago

I doubt that the SCotUS will put forth a legal definition of insurrection as a crime in the context of  § 3 (which they would need to do) and then stipulate that § 3 requires one to be found guilty of that specifically defined crime for it to apply.   They would instead probably find some way to push this onto Congress.

The framers of the 14th should have been clearer.   They left the notion of insurrection up for interpretation (by default, colloquial meaning applies unless clearly defined elsewhere in the CotUS) and did not bind formal legal guilt of a crime to this civil law.   They also left ambiguity in who this law applies to ... amazing that one can argue that a former PotUS might be an exception (defies basic logic).   Why they did it that way is debatable.

The key, here, it seems is that we need a body such as the SCotUS to make the decision for the entire nation.   That is one of the key points brought up during the hearing.  Either Trump is eligible in all 50 states or is ineligible in all 50 states.   That is the key question.   How that is resolved remains to be seen.

If the SCotUS cannot find a graceful out, they will of course rule that Trump can be on the ballots in all 50 states.   That part is obvious.   What remains is exactly how they justify that and avoid ugly consequences.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
7.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Kavika @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
Whatever they do it will create a lot of waves more like tsunami size waves with good parts of the population.

All the more reason they should just do what they think is correct.  I might be naive but I still have faith that the supreme court is doing what they think is the correct interpretation of the constitution, it is just that they interpret it differently(but maybe not in this case).  Might be why there are 9 of them.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

I don't think the court has to define or redefine, it already is defined in established US code.

As you said it will be the SCOTUS being the body whose job it is to decide for the entire nation how it is to be applied. If they rule as I stated I think they will, then that's it, no wiggle room and that's how it would have to be pursued.

Think of it this way, no brass ring without having to get on the carousel, and actually having to do the heavy lifting work to get it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.8    3 weeks ago
I don't think the court has to define or redefine, it already is defined in established US code.

Unfortunately 18 USC § 2383 does not define insurrection ... just uses the term.   SCotUS could kick the can by referring to this law, but they are not clearing up the meaning of insurrection (which they should).    So, in result, they would be adding in a new qualification "found guilty of violating 18 USC § 2383".   While I suppose they could do that, it seems like they are crossing the line from interpretation to legislation.

If they rule as I stated I think they will, then that's it, no wiggle room and that's how it would have to be pursued.

Yes that would be clean (and arguably how it should have been stated when penned), but (as noted), adds a rather substantial stipulation onto § 3.   Logical, clean, but very aggressive.

Any thoughts on why the Trump attorneys did not make this argument?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.9    3 weeks ago

LOL, my thoughts of lawyers and why they do what they do?

I would rather be asked how to understand women from a male perspective.

And for that my answer is, once one understands why a round pizza is cut into triangles and served in a square box, then and only then will a male understand women.

As long as the pizza is good, who really cares.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7    3 weeks ago

I think that not named officer is fluff,most would agree that being CIC, the president is the highest ranking officer in the chain of command, and I doubt any other of the justices will give that any merit.

It could have also been asked to set parameters and to probe which way the lawyers are thinking of going.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.2    3 weeks ago

I hope so.   I would hate to see semantic games as the resolution.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.1    3 weeks ago

It was Bidens pick that both brought it up and it seemed she questioned why trumps council wouldn't be using it, that threw me for a little loop.it almost looked like she was trying to convince them to use it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.2.2    3 weeks ago

Thing is, the Trump team's leading argument was that § 3 does not apply to a former PotUS because a president is, per them, not an officer of the USA. 

I would have expected them to lead with "this was not an insurrection" argument.   They did not.   They argued that it was a riot, but only in response to a question.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.3    3 weeks ago

Think I read the guy doing the orals for trump came out and said from the get go it was a riot, which surprised many I think.

Another thing I noticed, there isn't the usual bombastic nature of trump representatives being used here, and the rep doing the orals is known for and has used such tactics with this court.

And is known for being "very aggressive in nature".

As we both know we have to wait and see,  I think if both of us were on the court the ruling would be interesting, fair but interesting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.2.4    3 weeks ago
Think I read the guy doing the orals for trump came out and said from the get go it was a riot, which surprised many I think.

That was not their leading argument.   I was surprised that they lead with the weaker (and illogical) "not an officer of the USA".   They seem to be primarily arguing a technicality which would effectively say that the framers were okay with a former PotUS engaging in insurrection and then holding a future political office.   Makes absolutely no sense.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.2.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.5    3 weeks ago

Well I don't buy that "not a named officer" bit for one second, never have, so to me it is a triffle and means nothing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.2.6    3 weeks ago

Same here, it defies basic common sense.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

There seems to be the belief that the States have almost  unlimited power to control elections within their states  and regulate who can and can't appear on their ballot.  It's simply not true.  A few minutes googling reveals the Supreme Court unanimously threw out a Texas state  law that set candidate filing fees too high and that violated  the 14th Amendment.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago
There seems to be the belief that the States have almost  unlimited power to control elections within their states  and regulate who can and can't appear on their ballot.

Who believes they have unlimited power?

Every state is subject to federal override.   In this case the SC of Colorado is subject to override by the SCotUS.

The states do have plenty of leeway to determine how electors are chosen, etc.   But nobody has suggested that they can just make up their own rules for eligibility.

The SC of Colorado engaged in a formal process of adjudication and rendered a legal opinion that applies to their jurisdiction — the state of Colorado.   The SCotUS is poised to override them.   That is exactly how our process works.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    3 weeks ago

very state is subject to federal override

Ah, more of your motte and bailey arguments.

No one is arguing whether the Supreme Court's rulings bind Colorado. That's too banal to even bother discussing. 

The actual issue is whether the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was correct on the merits and that's where it's relevant that the Court has never granted that kind of deference to states over ballot access, even on something so basic as the acceptable amount of filing fees. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
Ah, more of your motte and bailey arguments.

It is a fact.

The actual issue is whether the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was correct on the merits and that's where it's relevant that the Court has never granted that kind of deference to states over ballot access, even on something so basic as the acceptable amount of filing fees. 

Per our system, the Colorado SC is correct —by definition— on the merits until a higher court (i.e. the SCotUS) states that they were incorrect.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    3 weeks ago
It is a fact.

No shit. That's the point. No one, no one, is disputing the Supremacy of the United States Supreme Court. That's such a basic argument it doesn't even need to be said. I assume everyone here is at least smart enough to know that when making their points. 

the Colorado SC is correct —by definition— on the merits until a higher court (i.e. the SCotUS) states that they were incorrect.

Again. No shit. The Colorado Supreme Court can literally rule on anything it wants.  It can rule that slavery is legal in Colorado.  If the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump can't be on the ballot because he's of German descent it would be just as "correct." This is day one stuff. And too obvious to waste time on. 

. The issue is always whether the Court was legally justified in ruling the way it did. That's what people are discussing. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.3    3 weeks ago
No shit.

Then recognize the point.  This point was made by Jason Murray.   The Colorado SC would not be deciding for the nation;  it is the SCotUS who decides for the nation.

Again. No shit.

Then you agree with my point that they have the authority to rule for Colorado.  

The issue is always whether the Court was legally justified in ruling the way it did.

Well we are back to no shit then Sean, because what is correct is a determination and that determination is made by the SCotUS.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Just saw this point by Alito.  

"Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy," said Alito. "And suppose that the president of the United Sates, for diplomatic reasons, thinks that it is in the best interest of the United States to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that country."

"Could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person off of the ballot?" asked Alito.

If Colorado wins, there's nothing stopping a state from doing this. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    3 weeks ago
If Colorado wins, there's nothing stopping a state from doing this. 

Yes, if the SC of Colorado produces a reasonable interpretation of reality against the CotUS or law in general, then they can execute within the state of Colorado.

Our nation started as a federal system (a constitutional federal Republic) where the states were dominant and the federal government was a mechanism to deal with national issues.   Even though this has substantially lessened over the years (federal government has grown uber powerful while states have grown weaker) it is still possible for a rogue state to misuse its authority.

This is true regardless of this case.

 
 

Who is online

Tessylo
Veronica
Thomas
Kavika
Greg Jones
JohnRussell
Ozzwald
Nerm_L
Ed-NavDoc
GregTx


48 visitors