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

Buy1Sell2 said:
Minnesota Supreme Court tosses case that tried to get Trump off ballot

EH HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
OH HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
More...

Colorado also, stopped this shenanigan when a liberal judge threw out the case. Democrats know they have to cheat to beat President Donald Trump. In any honest election, they will lose guaranteed! Judges everywhere need to do their jobs and throw out all these bogus lawsuits designed to disqualify President Donald Trump. The US as a country is being turned into a laughing stock of the world.
 
Last edited:
As I mentioned many times previously it is unlikely that these 14th Amendment cases will cause Trump to get removed from the ballot.

However the ruling by the judge in Colorado is very interesting and convoluted in my opinion. The judge ruled that Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection" but he is not an "officer" and therefore should not be removed from the ballot.

Isn't the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces considered an "officer"?

The ruling is twisted IMO -- it would be better to simply declare that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection -- or go the other (unlikely) route and state Donald Trump did engage in insurrection and must be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. This verdict by the judge seems to be splitting hairs and is likely to be appealing in my opinion.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Considering that the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, was effectively disqualified as an "officer" and was not able to run for political office in the United States should set the standard of who was included based on taking a "presidential oath".

Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/poli...allot-14th-amendment-insurrection?cid=ios_app

A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”

Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

(Much more at above url)
 
gwb-trading said:
As I mentioned many times previously it is unlikely that these 14th Amendment cases will cause Trump to get removed from the ballot.

However the ruling by the judge in Colorado is very interesting and convoluted in my opinion. The judge ruled that Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection" but he is not an "officer" and therefore should not be removed from the ballot.

Isn't the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces considered an "officer"?

The ruling is twisted IMO -- it would be better to simply declare that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection -- or go the other (unlikely) route and state Donald Trump did engage in insurrection and must be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. This verdict by the judge seems to be splitting hairs and is likely to be appealing in my opinion.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Considering that the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, was effectively disqualified as an "officer" and was not able to run for political office in the United States should set the standard of who was included based on taking a "presidential oath".

Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/poli...allot-14th-amendment-insurrection?cid=ios_app

A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”

Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

(Much more at above url)
More...

Trump to appeal ruling saying he engaged in insurrection.

Both sides appeal ruling that Trump can stay on Colorado ballot despite insurrection finding
https://www.yahoo.com/news/both-sides-appeal-ruling-trump-161318290.html

Both a liberal group that sought to disqualify Donald Trump and the former president himself on Monday night appealed a Colorado judge's ruling that Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021 but can stay on the state's ballot.

The appeals were filed with the Colorado Supreme Court. The ruling by District Court Judge Sarah Wallace on Friday — which said Trump is not covered by the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office — was the latest in a series of defeats for the effort to end Trump's candidacy with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

A group in Michigan has filed an appeal with that state's Supreme Court.

The constitutional provision has only been used a handful of times since the years after the Civil War. It was created to prevent former Confederates from returning to government positions.

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filing on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, argued that Wallace was wrong in ruling that it's not clear the provision was intended to apply to presidents.

The section prevents those who took an oath to support the Constitution from serving in Congress, the Electoral College “or as an officer of the United States." It does not specifically mention the presidency.

Based on common sense alone, the appeal states, “there would be no reason to allow Presidents who lead an insurrection to serve again while preventing low-level government workers who act as foot soldiers from doing so. And it would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land.”

Trump, meanwhile, appealed Wallace's finding that he did engage in insurrection and questioned whether a state court judge like her, rather than Congress, should settle the issue.

The case will be heard by the seven justices on the state court, all of whom were appointed by Democrats.

Colorado officials have urged a final decision by Jan. 5, 2024, when they must finalize their primary ballot. The next step after Colorado's high court would be the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section 3.

Trump has slammed the lawsuits as “election interference” by Democratic “dark money” groups.
 
gwb-trading said:
As I mentioned many times previously it is unlikely that these 14th Amendment cases will cause Trump to get removed from the ballot.

However the ruling by the judge in Colorado is very interesting and convoluted in my opinion. The judge ruled that Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection" but he is not an "officer" and therefore should not be removed from the ballot.

Isn't the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces considered an "officer"?

The ruling is twisted IMO -- it would be better to simply declare that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection -- or go the other (unlikely) route and state Donald Trump did engage in insurrection and must be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. This verdict by the judge seems to be splitting hairs and is likely to be appealing in my opinion.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Considering that the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, was effectively disqualified as an "officer" and was not able to run for political office in the United States should set the standard of who was included based on taking a "presidential oath".

Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection?cid=ios_app

A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”

Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

(Much more at above url)
More...

citation needed
 
He has the "best lawyers".

'I got nothing': Trump lawyer slammed for saying insurrection must last more than 3 hours
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment/

Donald Trump’s attorney Wednesday tried to argue the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol didn’t constitute an insurrection because it was only three hours long, then quickly admitted his definition was made up, new courtroom footage shows.

Scott Gessler presented arguments to the Colorado Supreme Court considering the appeal of 14th Amendment challenge seeking to block Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot based on its “insurrectionist ban,” CNN reports.

An awkward exchange captured by PBS News Hour shows Gessler struggling to convince the panel that last month’s ruling from a lower court, which found Trump had engaged in insurrection (but that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidents), was wrong.

“It has to be for a substantial duration,” Gessler said. “Not three hours.”

The Justices retorted that Gessler’s limits did not appear in the definition of insurrection — Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the subject includes the Jan. 6 attack — and demanded to know his source.

“Where is all that coming from?” a Supreme Court justice asked. “You’ve added a whole lot of conditions there.”

To this, Gessler replied, "We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day."

This comment, shared on social media, spurred both outrage and laughter from followers of the contentious legal battle.

"So basically, 'Yeah I got nothing, but he definitely didn't do it,'" summarized Bill DeMayo.

Quipped X user Amy: "Trump’s Law Firm: Dewey Cheatem & Howe."

Gessler’s further argument that the Jan. 6 rioters were not armed at the level “necessary to overcome” police drew rebuke from Justice William Hood, CNN reports.

“There were a lot of makeshift weapons that did a lot of damage,” Hood reportedly said, noting more than 100 officers were hurt.

One Justice did admit the definition of insurrection was up for debate and would play an important role in their ruling as the 14th Amendment doesn’t define it.

Gessler compared the definition of insurrection to a common quip about pornography: “I don’t know a definition of it, but I know it when I see it.”

Watch the video below or click the link.

(Article has video of stupid lawyers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top