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

[Buy1Sell2]

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.

Governors have nothing to do with it.

 

[piezoe]

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 couldn't 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.

I see you're also applying the linguine approach to legal argument. This sometimes works!
The diversion into Biden, Iran and Treason is an unrelated matter, but in the hands of a skilled lawyer and a weak judge it could be worth a try. It does risk trying the judges patience however. I'm certain it would try mine were I on the bench.

I am relying on the Colorado Supreme Courts detailed ruling and the trial record of the lower Court.

The lower court found Trump not to be an officer under Section 3. This was, to no one's surprise, overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. Both Courts found Trump to be an insurrectionist.

Rather than look for ways to disregard the plain meaning of a text, and infer something other than what's written, as one must do when the plain reading is against them, I am happy to stick with what's written in sections 3 and 5.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I am happy to stick with what's written in sections 3 and 5.

Great to hear as Sec 5 says that Congreff has the sole authority to enforce Sec 3.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I see you're also applying the linguine approach to legal argument. This sometimes works!
The diversion into Biden, Iran and Treason is an unrelated matter, but in the hands of a skilled lawyer and a weak judge it could be worth a try. It does risk trying the judges patience however. I'm certain it would try mine were I on the bench.

I am relying on the Colorado Supreme Courts detailed ruling and the trial record of the lower Court.

The lower court found Trump not to be an officer under Section 3. This was, to no one's surprise, overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. Both Courts found Trump to be an insurrectionist.

Rather than look for ways to disregard the plain meaning of a text, and infer something other than what's written, as one must do when the plain reading is against them, I am happy to stick with what's written in sections 3 and 5.

Right..courts never make mistake and have their decisions overturned... tell me again about your constitutional law book that has zero overturned cases...

Biden and Iran is not a diversionary argument it is a legal argument. A SC has to consider the effect of their ruling when cases of first impression come across their bench. It happens all the time despite how it would try your patience. A court has to consider whether their ruling would in effect chill the Constitutional rights of others and future cases that would be created. Thankfulky your are not a Justice as you indicate you have no patience for legal arguments in an important case.

Did you also rely on lower court rulings that didnt align with your political beliefs? Just curious...

A valid opinion is welk respected but dont try and establish your view of the facts as facts on a case of first impression that both the Colorado District Court and Colorado supreme court ssid would need to be decided by the Supreme Court since it is a novel issue of constitutional interpretation.


If the SC upholds the Colorado decision then i believe the proper venue has decided for the country and not one State. Congress does not have sole juriadiction on this issue but they have codified insurrection and thus have acted and are a better representation of the peoole than Colorado.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Great to hear as Sec 5 says that Congreff has the sole authority to enforce Sec 3.

"Section Five does not empower Congress to regulate private conduct, but only the actions of state and local governments. Second, Section Five does not provide Congress with the power to create new rights or expand existing rights, but rather only with the authority to prevent or remedy violations of rights already recognized by the courts."

5 does not grant sole exclusive authority to Congress. Such an interpretation would indicate the Amendment has no teeth unless Congress enacts a law....Section 5 gives Congress power to ensure enforcement when 14th is not being applied correctly or if Congress oversteps its mandate. The 14th Amendment is already the law.

The issue is whether Colorado is correctly applying this to a presidential election and on what grounds with respect to a codified federal offense.



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

Courts have regularly enforced provisions of the 14th Amendment but with issues of first impression State courts have had to defer to SC for constitution interpretation.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

I can see the danger of Texas passing a bill saying that Biden crossing the road on Sunday is insurrection and their supreme court upholding that ruling to be honest.

Look how they're usurping federal law by reinterpreting immigration as an invasion in violation of a supreme court decision at this point.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Right..courts never make mistake and have their decisions overturned... tell me again about your constitutional law book that has zero overturned cases...

Biden and Iran is not a diversionary argument it is a legal argument. A SC has to consider the effect of their ruling when cases of first impression come across their bench. It happens all the time despite how it would try your patience. A court has to consider whether their ruling would in effect chill the Constitutional rights of others and future cases that would be created. Thankfulky your are not a Justice as you indicate you have no patience for legal arguments in an important case.

Did you also rely on lower court rulings that didnt align with your political beliefs? Just curious...

A valid opinion is welk respected but dont try and establish your view of the facts as facts on a case of first impression that both the Colorado District Court and Colorado supreme court ssid would need to be decided by the Supreme Court since it is a novel issue of constitutional interpretation.


If the SC upholds the Colorado decision then i believe the proper venue has decided for the country and not one State. Congress does not have sole juriadiction on this issue but they have codified insurrection and thus have acted and are a better representation of the peoole than Colorado.

There is no Sec 3 law allowing a state, or anyone else, to remove Trump from ballots unless Congreff enacts one.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I will also point out, that Section 3 bars people from holding office. It says nothing about being on the ballot.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I could see Couy Griffin's disqualification being removed as he was only convicted of trespassing and not insurrection or rebellion.

 

[smallfil]

I could see Couy Griffin's disqualification being removed as he was only convicted of trespassing and not insurrection or rebellion.

They should pardon the January 6 demonstrators who are mainly average joes charged multiple times for misdemeanors to make it felonies to give them long prison sentences. When they do not even charge BLM and Antifa thugs for all their violent crimes which are actually felonies and members of Congress guilty of massive corruption? This two tiered justice system cannot exist indefinitely.