14th Amendment Time -- It's long overdue to keep insurrectionists off the ballot

[piezoe]

Colorado.does not have the power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot by making their own interpretation of the Constitution....

Congress took it upon themselves to codify insurrection as a federal crime and thus stepped up. Imagine if we could all define what is and what isnt insurrection for purposes of removing people with no due process.

Your post above is clear. I have no doubt you understand that Colorado does in fact have the power to eliminate Trumps name from their ballots so long as the Colorado Court's decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court. (I think it will be).

This last sentence of your post puzzles me as it seems a sort of non-sequitur unrelated to anything having to do with Trump's appeal of the Colorado decision:

Imagine if we could all define what is and what isnt insurrection for purposes of removing people with no due process.​

I hope you are not suggesting that due process was not followed by both the lower and High Courts of Colorado. Donald Trump was found to be an insurrectionist in a full trial in the Colorado lower court, with copious evidence, witness testimony, cross examination, etc. Trump could have appeared. He chose not to. The record of this trial is available to you via the internet.

Trumps appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be based on the linquine approach to legal argument (Throw a big batch of specious arguments at the Court and see if anything sticks.) I was disappointed to hear, as I listened to the oral arguments, what sounded like 8 of nine pairs of lips eagerly sucking down linguine*. Of all the Courts I can remember since I've been an adult, this one seems to be, by far, the most intellectually challenged.** Of course, I'll withhold final judgement until we get the full, majority opinion. Maybe I have been unfair in my assessment of this particular Court. I hope so.
_______________
* "Linguine" means "little tongues" in Italian.
** So far, reality TV stars seem somewhat better at picking Miss Teen USA candidates than picking U.S. Supreme Court candidates.

 

[vanzandt]

means that Congreff has the sole authority to enforce Section 3.

Ahhh... that seems open to debate.

The very fact that the authors of the amendment took the time to enumerate Congreff, .

They were writing the rules for Congress, it follows that correct "legal" grammar would include that word when spelling things out. I fail to see how you can derive any exclusivity from this sentence. It's typical legaleze.

For example: "The governor shall have the power to enforce all laws in the state."
--->That doesn't mean the DA's, detectives, and cops on the beat can't enforce said laws too.

Now if it read: "The governor shall have the sole power to enforce all laws in the state." ---- You might have a valid point. But that's not the way it was written.

 

[vanzandt]

Ahhh... that seems open to debate.


They were writing the rules for Congress, it follows that correct "legal" grammar would include that word when spelling things out. I fail to see how you can derive any exclusivity from this sentence. It's typical legaleze.

For example: "The governor shall have the power to enforce all laws in the state."
--->That doesn't mean the DA's, detectives, and cops on the beat can't enforce said laws too.

Now if it read: "The governor shall have the sole power to enforce all laws in the state." ---- You might have a valid point. But that's not the way it was written.

I'll allow for your retort before I issue an official "case closed" on this one.
~VZ Esquire... (wannabe)Attorney at Law.

 

[Ricter]

There will always be folks like you attempting to bastardize The Constitution. We must always fight against this Big League.

Apparently there's always going to be cranks like you.

 

[gwb-trading]

'I Remember Hitler,' Says 91-Year-Old Republican Behind Trump Eligibility Case
"I remember my cousin was with Eisenhower when they opened up the concentration camps... I mean, I understand protecting democracy."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/colorado-14th-amendment

The 91-year-old Colorado Republican who challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the state's primary ballot referenced the existential threat to democracy and invoked Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler when explaining why she got involved in the case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments on Thursday.

"You have to remember, as old as I am, I was born in the Great Depression," Norma Anderson, who previously led the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives, told NPR. "I lived through World War II. I remember Hitler."

"I remember my cousin was with [then-U.S. Gen. Dwight] Eisenhower when they opened up the concentration camps," Anderson continued. "I mean, I understand protecting democracy."

Recalling when she watched on her home television as Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, she added, "They're trying to overthrow the government is what I was thinking."

Backed by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Anderson in September joined five other GOP and Indepedent Colorado voters in filing a lawsuit to keep Trump off the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution "as an officer of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection" from holding any civil or military office, unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress votes to allow them to do so.

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified the Republican presidential front-runner from the state's primary ballot in December, agreeing with the voters that Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated in the Capitol attack during the certification of the election results amounted to engaging in insurrection.

(More at above url)

 

[smallfil]

The very fact that the authors of the amendment took the time to enumerate Congreff, but didn't take the time to say, "or anyone else", means that Congreff has the sole authority to enforce Section 3.

If it was intended for every American, it would have stated so.

 

[smallfil]

Ahhh... that seems open to debate.


They were writing the rules for Congress, it follows that correct "legal" grammar would include that word when spelling things out. I fail to see how you can derive any exclusivity from this sentence. It's typical legaleze.

For example: "The governor shall have the power to enforce all laws in the state."
--->That doesn't mean the DA's, detectives, and cops on the beat can't enforce said laws too.

Now if it read: "The governor shall have the sole power to enforce all laws in the state." ---- You might have a valid point. But that's not the way it was written.

One of the questions of Judge Kavanaugh is first the definition of what an Insurrection is? Next, who determines who is guilty of Insurrection? That is a US Supreme Court judge asking it. The reason for disputes of the law is lawyers can always put their spin and interpretation of the law even if there is no factual basis of it. That is why we need the US Supreme Court. They are the last word on what actually is the law as written. Not what people want it to be, to suit their petty political views.

 

[vanzandt]

One of the questions of Judge Kavanaugh is first the definition of what an Insurrection is? Next, who determines who is guilty of Insurrection? That is a US Supreme Court judge asking it. The reason for disputes of the law is lawyers can always put their spin and interpretation of the law even if there is no factual basis of it. That is why we need the US Supreme Court. They are the last word on what actually is the law as written. Not what people want it to be, to suit their petty political views.

Yeah.... but in the same breath, that's why they hear "arguments". I only read what was post here. I'm sure it's 100X more involved.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Your post above is clear. I have no doubt you understand that Colorado does in fact have the power to eliminate Trumps name from their ballots so long as the Colorado Court's decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court. (I think it will be).

This last sentence of your post puzzles me as it seems a sort of non-sequitur unrelated to anything having to do with Trump's appeal of the Colorado decision:

Imagine if we could all define what is and what isnt insurrection for purposes of removing people with no due process.​

I hope you are not suggesting that due process was not followed by both the lower and High Courts of Colorado. Donald Trump was found to be an insurrectionist in a full trial in the Colorado lower court, with copious evidence, witness testimony, cross examination, etc. Trump could have appeared. He chose not to. The record of this trial is available to you via the internet.

Trumps appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be based on the linquine approach to legal argument (Throw a big batch of specious arguments at the Court and see if anything sticks.) I was disappointed to hear, as I listened to the oral arguments, what sounded like 8 of nine pairs of lips eagerly sucking down linguine*. Of all the Courts I can remember since I've been an adult, this one seems to be, by far, the most intellectually challenged.** Of course, I'll withhold final judgement until we get the full, majority opinion. Maybe I have been unfair in my assessment of this particular Court. I hope so.
_______________
* "Linguine" means "little tongues" in Italian.
** So far, reality TV stars seem somewhat better at picking Miss Teen USA candidates than picking U.S. Supreme Court candidates.

The judge presiding over the case that you are relying on stated with respect to the legislative history and intent of Section 3 on whether it applied to the president stated:

“The record demonstrates an appreciable amount of tension between the competing interpretations, and a lack of definitive guidance in the text or historical sources,” Wallace wrote.

Thus she, a Democrat, rightly decided that Section 3 cannot be applied to trump unless clarified by Congress or ruled on by the Supreme Court. There is no legal precedent, no clear legislative history, no clear federal conviction to point to....thus it is a litle fuzzy by legal standards.

The ruling was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court who determined that a State could make the determination alone whether Section 3 applied to the president and whether they can solve an issue that puts State v. Federal law and creates multiple situations in numerous states with a case of first impression, which normally falls to the SC on appeal.

So you desire to put the result first and back into the law is overlooking a couple hundred years of SC precedent. Colorado could remove a candidate who does not meet the age requirement and has full control over officials within the state government. But making a unilateral determination that voters in the state cannot vote for a candidate for the federal office of president (decided by justices along party lines), further clouded by a lack of conviction or clear factual determination, is an issue for Congress or the Supreme Court. This is why a simlar challenge to MTG failed in her reelection.

Insurrection is a federal offense according to Congress. If trump committed insurrection sufficient enough to deny him his rights then the question is why was he never charged formally by the Department of Justice along with all the other people they arrested? it has been 3 years already. The reason is because a civil penalty of insurrection has a lower bar to clear than a criminal conviction for insurrection which also explains why all the Jan 6 guys were mostly convicted of lesser charges.

Lets look at it this one...everyone arrested for participating in Jan 6th:

• Around 11 individuals have been arrested on charges related to assaulting a member of the media or destroying their equipment on January 6th.
  
  
• Around 909 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, with 103 defendants charged for entering a restricted area with a deadly or dangerous weapon.
  
  
• About 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, while approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
  
  
• Over 309 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding or attempting to do so.
  
  
• Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, including conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, conspiracy to injure an officer, or some combination of the three.

What you are telling me is that everyone in attacked the Capitol were charged or convicted of numerous charges, none of which were treason or insurrection but you want to charge trump with insurrection? So if I allegedly direct 10 people to storm your house and kill you and they are caught and charged with tresspasing and assault, you then want to charge me with attempted murder even though you cannot prove it in the people that actually entered your house?

Do you see the criminal difficulties of a state court determining trump committed the offense of insurrection, codified by congress as a criminal statute, but none of the actual participants in the insurrection were actually charged with insurrection? If trump alone is charged with insurrection that affects his federal rights to run for president, then a federal court needs to make that determination, not a hodge podge of state courts.

Moreover, why couldnt texas and florida remove biden for insurection, treason as a result of his giving money to Iran who can be deemed an enemy of the U.S. via its support of terrorist actions against the interests of the U.S.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The judge presiding over the case that you are relying on stated with respect to the legislative history and intent of Section 3 on whether it applied to the president stated:

“The record demonstrates an appreciable amount of tension between the competing interpretations, and a lack of definitive guidance in the text or historical sources,” Wallace wrote.

Thus she, a Democrat, rightly decided that Section 3 cannot be applied to trump unless clarified by Congress or ruled on by the Supreme Court. There is no legal precedent, no clear legislative history, no clear federal conviction to point to....thus it is a litle fuzzy by legal standards.

The ruling was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court who determined that a State could make the determination alone whether Section 3 applied to the president and whether they can solve an issue that puts State v. Federal law and creates multiple situations in numerous states with a case of first impression, which normally falls to the SC on appeal.

So you desire to put the result first and back into the law is overlooking a couple hundred years of SC precedent. Colorado could remove a candidate who does not meet the age requirement and has full control over officials within the state government. But making a unilateral determination that voters in the state cannot vote for a candidate for the federal office of president (decided by justices along party lines), further clouded by a lack of conviction or clear factual determination, is an issue for Congress or the Supreme Court. This is why a simlar challenge to MTG failed in her reelection.

Insurrection is a federal offense according to Congress. If trump committed insurrection sufficient enough to deny him his rights then the question is why was he never charged formally by the Department of Justice along with all the other people they arrested? it has been 3 years already. The reason is because a civil penalty of insurrection has a lower bar to clear than a criminal conviction for insurrection which also explains why all the Jan 6 guys were mostly convicted of lesser charges.

Lets look at it this one...everyone arrested for participating in Jan 6th:

• Around 11 individuals have been arrested on charges related to assaulting a member of the media or destroying their equipment on January 6th.
  
  
• Around 909 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, with 103 defendants charged for entering a restricted area with a deadly or dangerous weapon.
  
  
• About 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, while approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
  
  
• Over 309 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding or attempting to do so.
  
  
• Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, including conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, conspiracy to injure an officer, or some combination of the three.

What you are telling me is that everyone in attacked the Capitol were charged or convicted of numerous charges, none of which were treason or insurrection but you want to charge trump with insurrection? So if I allegedly direct 10 people to storm your house and kill you and they are caught and charged with tresspasing and assault, you then want to charge me with attempted murder even though you cannot prove it in the people that actually entered your house?

Do you see the criminal difficulties of a state court determining trump committed the offense of insurrection, codified by congress as a criminal statute, but none of the actual participants in the insurrection were actually charged with insurrection? If trump alone is charged with insurrection that affects his federal rights to run for president, then a federal court needs to make that determination, not a hodge podge of state courts.

Moreover, why couldnt texas and florida remove biden for insurection, treason as a result of his giving money to Iran who can be deemed an enemy of the U.S. via its support of terrorist actions against the interests of the U.S.

EXCELLENT POSTING