Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[ll74]

Insurrection as it exists in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal crime. It isn't within the purview of the Colorado court to interpret or enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment as section 5 specifically leaves that authority in the hands of Congress. They, the Colorado State Courts, have no right or authority to try, convict, and punish Donald Trump in absentia who has not been indicted, tried, and found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It is actually within their authority. State courts also use the same Constitution.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Insurrection as it exists in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal crime.

Actually it's not a criminal offence. Sucks to be as fucking stupid as you are. I really hope you're just a Russian troll. Otherwise it really pains me to thing there are Americans as fucking dumb as you.

 

[YDB95]

Insurrection as it exists in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal crime. It isn't within the purview of the Colorado court to interpret or enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment as section 5 specifically leaves that authority in the hands of Congress. They, the Colorado State Courts, have no right or authority to try, convict, and punish Donald Trump in absentia who has not been indicted, tried, and found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It has nothing to do with a criminal conviction. And by now you cannot possibly be unaware of that - you're just choosing to ignore it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It has nothing to do with a criminal conviction. And by now you cannot possibly be unaware of that - you're just choosing to ignore it.

wrongway, summed up in 5 words, wilfully blind and helplessly ignorant.

 

[Rick345]

Insurrection as it exists in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal crime. It isn't within the purview of the Colorado court to interpret or enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment as section 5 specifically leaves that authority in the hands of Congress. They, the Colorado State Courts, have no right or authority to try, convict, and punish Donald Trump in absentia who has not been indicted, tried, and found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 5 says Congress can pass whatever law necessary to enforce the 14th.. Not that the government is the only body that can enforce it..

Let’s say I rent an apartment to white folks for $1000/month but charge black folks $1500 for the very same type of apartment in the same location.. I’m in violation of the 14th Section 1.. and can be charged as such. I could be charged by Alabama for the violation of A 14.1. The fact that the laws I am directly charged with are my own state laws those state laws derive their authority from Section 5 of the 14th..

States can and do enforce section one and two, I see no reason they can’t charge people under 3.… The reason so many are giving different opinions about what section 3 is, does and can do is before Trump it has only been enacted only once.. And 99.999 of us never heard of it. An insurrection is an exceedingly rare crime. Trump’s team may argue something similar to what you said when Trump v Colorado comes before the Supreme Court soon.. We’ll have wait and see.

The other theory that Section doesn’t apply to the president because the president is not officer of the United States is interesting but I doubt will hold water because in 1872 Former Vice President of the US John C Breckinridge was asked by President Grant to run for Senator of Kentucky provide he under the terms of section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress would have been needed to allow him to hold office because he served as a General in the Army of the CSA.. If section 3 applies to the VP there no question it applies to the president..

 

[HisArpy]

The other theory that Section doesn’t apply to the president because the president is not officer of the United States is interesting but I doubt will hold water because in 1872 Former Vice President of the US John C Breckinridge was asked by President Grant to run for Senator of Kentucky provide he under the terms of section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress would have been needed to allow him to hold office because he served as a General in the Army of the CSA.. If section 3 applies to the VP there no question it applies to the president..

As VP Breckenridge was exempt because Sec III doesn't apply to the office of President or Vice President. However, trying to hold office as the Senator for Kentucky, Sec III would certainly apply since that's explicitly stated.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about and are flinging bovine fertilizer again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As VP Breckenridge was exempt because Sec III doesn't apply to the office of President or Vice President.

There is no language in section 3 that states either the Office of the President or Vice President is or isn't exempt.

 

[HisArpy]

There is no language in section 3 that states either the Office of the President or Vice President is or isn't exempt.

There's a couple of things you're obviously unaware of.

1. A specific list of offices which cannot be held and which also doesn't name or include other offices, DOES NOT include those other unnamed offices. Ergo, since the office of President and Vice President aren't included in the list of offices which cannot be held, the section doesn't apply to those offices.

And,

2. There's an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts which states that Sec III doesn't include the office of President or Vice President.

Now that you know those things, please STFU.

 

[ll74]

There's a couple of things you're obviously unaware of.

1. A specific list of offices which cannot be held and which also doesn't name or include other offices, DOES NOT include those other unnamed offices. Ergo, since the office of President and Vice President aren't included in the list of offices which cannot be held, the section doesn't apply to those offices.

And,

2. There's an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts which states that Sec III doesn't include the office of President or Vice President.

Now that you know those things, please STFU.

Here's the thing - the language can be interpreted to include both Pres.and VP. That's why it's being debated in court. It's a statute that has never been tested and is now being tested.

Saying that there is only one way for the courts to decide is a dumb take. No actual lawyer would ever argue such stupidity

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There's a couple of things you're obviously unaware of.

1. A specific list of offices which cannot be held and which also doesn't name or include other offices, DOES NOT include those other unnamed offices. Ergo, since the office of President and Vice President aren't included in the list of offices which cannot be held, the section doesn't apply to those offices.

And,

No it states Office. Whats that oath say again?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[2]

2. There's an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts which states that Sec III doesn't include the office of President or Vice President.

Well you know the rules, you say Roberts wrote an opinion, post it.

Now that you know those things, please STFU.

Can you say "stayed", can you say "abeyance"
Now GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[HisArpy]

Here's the thing - the language can be interpreted to include both Pres.and VP. That's why it's being debated in court. It's a statute that has never been tested and is now being tested.

Saying that there is only one way for the courts to decide is a dumb take. No actual lawyer would ever argue such stupidity

Again, a specific list of prohibitions does not, and cannot, include those things not in the specific list of prohibitions.

This is a canon of construction even children understand.

Being told you cannot go "here," "here," "here," and "here" obviously doesn't include you going "there." The same applies to Section III, "this office," "this office," "this office," and "this office" DO NOT include "THAT office."



Your problem in a nutshell comes down to this; you WANT the section to apply. Thus your belief is that it does is strong and you will grasp at anything to support that belief. Even when what you grasp at is nothing but mist & vapor you will still believe.

Because you NEED it to be that way. Because without that, you have nothing and your entire reason for being becomes mist & vapor.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No actual lawyer would ever argue such stupidity

Ergo HisArpy's not a Lawyer, or not much of one, if he did manage to pass a bar exam somewhere.

 

[coati]

The Supreme Court is highly political, so they will likely shoot down the Colorado decision about keeping Trump off the ballot.

And the GOP is a racist cult of personality, so they will likely insist on rejecting those "foreigners" (Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy) and stick with the DeFacto leader of the Aryan Nation as their Presidential candidate.

 

[icanhelp1]

And the GOP is a racist cult of personality, so they will likely insist on rejecting those "foreigners" (Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy) and stick with the DeFacto leader of the Aryan Nation as their Presidential candidate.

So, when your opinion is in conflict with the court the court is political. I get it.

A card carrying racist calling 70+ million people racist.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The Supreme Court is highly political, so they will likely shoot down the Colorado decision about keeping Trump off the ballot.

And the GOP is a racist cult of personality, so they will likely insist on rejecting those "foreigners" (Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy) and stick with the DeFacto leader of the Aryan Nation as their Presidential candidate.

I disagree, I am 50/50 on this.
The leading reason I think they might overturn Colorado is over "does the State" have the right to disqualify Primary Candidates. I don't think States do, that is for the Party to resolve.

That is what I think SCOTUS will come back with, even though there have been other States that way in the past did keep names off the Primary ballot. It those past precedents that give me the other 50% of why SCOTUS may uphold Colorado's ruling, point to a past precedent

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, when your opinion is in conflict with the court the court is political. I get it.

Yes you should get it, you hold one of the most political view points on courts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes you should get it, you hold one of the most political view points on courts.

And what would that be?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And what would that be?

That judges, Justice officials etc all follow some loyalty to whoever appointed or hired them.

Biden is cloning Obama’s DOJ where Holder was Obama’s wingman. There needs to be a way to pull the DOJ out from under the purview of the executive branch, perhaps an independent branch of SCOTUS. Need to move the DOJ out of the political beltway, out of DC.

Just some. Sullivan vs Flynn stands out. Our judicial system is so slanted against Trump it boggles the mind. The DOJ is literally running a protection racket for the Biden crime Family.

The old SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional. The legislative bodies at the state level will give the people of each state a say on how abortion laws will be legislated.

I find it very speculative on your part that a medical facility would deny anyone critical medical attention. Sounds more like hair on fire bullshit.

For teens, yes.. abstinence is best.

Trump has been investigated 10 ways to Sunday. Letitia James was already investigating Trump’s taxes. House ways and means committee won their case with SCOTUS, water under the bridge.

Special counsel for all of Hunter’s overseas business dealings and to look into whether Joe was part of the influence peddling scheme and if Joe is compromised. Joe will be long gone before that ever happens, he’s 80 fucking years olds.

That's why we have SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution. Right Now we have 6 conservative judges 4 of which are originalist, 3 liberal.

Need I go get more examples of you inserting your ideal that politics influences courts and legal officials?

 

[ll74]

I disagree, I am 50/50 on this.
The leading reason I think they might overturn Colorado is over "does the State" have the right to disqualify Primary Candidates. I don't think States do, that is for the Party to resolve.

That is what I think SCOTUS will come back with, even though there have been other States that way in the past did keep names off the Primary ballot. It those past precedents that give me the other 50% of why SCOTUS may uphold Colorado's ruling, point to a past precedent

You and I are in agreement here. I don't think any court, regardless of makeup, would allow 45 to remain off the primary ballot

 

[coati]

I disagree, I am 50/50 on this.
The leading reason I think they might overturn Colorado is over "does the State" have the right to disqualify Primary Candidates. I don't think States do, that is for the Party to resolve.

That is what I think SCOTUS will come back with, even though there have been other States that way in the past did keep names off the Primary ballot. It those past precedents that give me the other 50% of why SCOTUS may uphold Colorado's ruling, point to a past precedent

I think the problem is that Colorado holds the position that once you have been designated by the state as engaging in insurrection, you cannot be listed on the ballot in the general election, also (not just the primary ballot).

As a result, the highly partisan US Supreme Court will likely overrule the Colorado finding.

If you are correct, then I owe you some on-line homage.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think the problem is that Colorado holds the position that once you have been designated by the state as engaging in insurrection, you cannot be listed on the ballot in the general election, also (not just the primary ballot).

As a result, the highly partisan US Supreme Court will likely overrule the Colorado finding.

I'm sure almost half the people in the US will like the decision,the other half, not so much.

If you are correct, then I owe you some on-line homage.

I'm sitting on the fence. About all I am willing to state is SCOTUS will rule.

 

[Bray123]

Massachusetts, Illinois and Louisiana have all launched legal petitions to take Trump off the ballot.

It's a shame they haven't listened to Derpy explaining that no insurrection took place.

 

[HisArpy]

The Supreme Court is highly political, so they will likely shoot down the Colorado decision about keeping Trump off the ballot.

And the GOP is a racist cult of personality, so they will likely insist on rejecting those "foreigners" (Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy) and stick with the DeFacto leader of the Aryan Nation as their Presidential candidate.

I wonder what you'll say if/when any liberal members of the court also sign on to the decision.

And then there's all those prominent D's who are speaking out about and against the Colorado and Maine decisions.

Perhaps they're also part of the Trump "cult" you're so afraid of.

Or perhaps it's more likely that the only Trump hating cult member and rabid partisan here, is you.

 

[Ciceri]

Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment was written to prevent men from dismantling these United States. That's exactly Trump's goal. Never mind who his handlers or enablers are. He can't hold public office again

 

[jaF0]

People are just repeating the same things over and over. No new ground is being covered here.


No one has addressed the one fly in the ointment I posted on one of these threads, and I'm not sure it's even still in effect.

This is the ONLY document I've seen that even mentions trial and conviction being required for Disqualification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1862