"When they do not even charge BLM and Antifa thugs for all their violent crimes ..."
Wrong, blah blah, hundreds were charged and jailed. Put down the Fox/Breitbart pipe.
14th Amendment Time -- It's long overdue to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Wrong, blah blah, hundreds were charged and jailed. Put down the Fox/Breitbart pipe.
??? Examples please. I ask, because I agree that this term of art probably can be correctly applied to the question of whether the 14th Amendment can be used to disqualify candidates from a Political Party's primary ballot, However in other respects , I am not convinced the expression "issues of first impression" correctly applies. Trump would not be the first person to be disqualified under the 14 Amendment. There is quite a history there, but not recent. In the past, The disqualification clause was, in an indeterminable number of cases self-executing.
You seem unaware that the U.S. House of Representatives spent months, and possibly millions, on a detailed investigation of Jan 6th. Their product was a comprehensive report upon which both the Department of Justice and the lower Colorado court heavily relied. Any suggestion that Donald Trump has not been determined to have engaged in insurrection by any formal process is spurious. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I questioned, in my own mind, from the outset Colorado's authority to dictate to political parties which candidates can be on their primary ballots. (That same issue, at least not precisely, does not arise in the case of the State provided Ballots for a National election.) There are nuances here. Regardless, no reasonable person could fault the Colorado S.C. for reasoning that if Trump has disqualified himself then it does not make sense that his name would be on the Republican primary ballot; yet I question the authority of the Colorado S.C. to dictate to a political party what names can be on their Party ballots.
The S.C. can read just as you and I can. I think they prefer to punt but will have a difficult time figuring the best way to do it. My best guess is that they may focus on the Colorado Republican Party primary ballot issue and rule rather narrowly. It's possible, for example, the S.C. could rule that Colorado may not keep Trump off the Party's Primary Ballot, leaving the question of his qualification for the National ballot in the Fall for the future.
We can read. The Court can read. It will be just as difficult for the S.C., as it is for any well informed American citizen, to conclude that Trump is qualified, under the Constitution, to run for the Office of President. He took an oath AND he's a proven insurrectionist whose goal was to overturn the results of a National election and illegally seize the Office of President; thus thwarting the transfer of power as required by our Constitution. It's a straight forward issue for all but Donald Trump and for lawyers who make little money when an issue is easily settled. Lawyers therefore, out of necessity, must surely hone their ability to read selectively and especially to misread, sometimes to the point of embarrassment*, whenever a case threatens to be too easily resolved.
____________________
* Have noticed over my long life that both Lawyers and politicians seem to be among those with the thickest skin
Last edited:
I have no doubt that uppermost in the minds of our esteemed S.C. justices is the avoidance of anything in their eventual, ruling opinion that might trample on the right of future insurrectionists to avoid prosecution under the 14th Amendment.
Last edited:
First impression means a novel issue before the Court. The clause has never been used for a presidential candidate and also the issue is that you can have 50 states making contrasting determinations to remove candidates based on their belief that something was insurrection. Congressional findings along party lines does not surprise me. This could create situations where some states remove candidates and others do not.... thus it raises to the level of the Supreme Court as a case of first impression and to resolve a dispute between the states.
Well said.
A couple of things that I have pointed out prior but need to be said again---
1. Section 3 does not apply to the Office of The President, otherwise the authors would have included that language.
2. Trump was acquitted in The Senate and Jack Smith did not indict Trump for insurrection. By the way, none of the participants in the Jan 6 riot were charged with insurrection.
1. Section 3 does not apply to the Office of The President, otherwise the authors would have included that language.
2. Trump was acquitted in The Senate and Jack Smith did not indict Trump for insurrection. By the way, none of the participants in the Jan 6 riot were charged with insurrection.
Well, the answer to all questions depends on "belief", doesn't it? However the word "belief" is too broad to be used here, because belief can be based on myth, lies, disinformation, "alternate facts", truth, fact, nonsense, or a structured process intended to get to to the truth. Yes, the Colorado decision was based on belief; belief formed of one of the most extensive investigations in our nations history followed by a structured court trial. If the issue of Trump's qualification were to be left to each State. Isn't it reasonable to assume that Colorado's procedure is representative of what could be expected to transpire in other States? It would be more efficient of course if the U.S.S.C. would decide this issue for the entire nation. However this Supreme Court appears be incapable of doing this. My evidence is that the Court has still not responded to the question of the president's immunity from prosecution for crimes he committed while in office despite the question having already been answered by Nixon v Fitzgerold, a separate comprehensive D.C. Circuit Court opinion, and by two hundred years plus of "All Men are Created Equally [before the law]". If you asked me whether the Sun comes up in the East, even were I a lawyer, I should not take more than 24 hours to answer.
Sometimes our Courts are confronted with very difficult questions. The question of Trump's imagined immunity is not one of those times. And the question of Trump's qualification to run for Federal Office was made hardly any more difficult by the comprehensive investigation into events leading up to the Jan 6th assault and of the assault itself, which millions witnessed on live television. This is not something capable of being swept under the rug. That being said, I do understand that lawyers have to make a living, and that may require that the simple be made less so.
Last edited:
The fact that Democratic judges in COlorado found trump to be guilty of insurrection and not eligible to be on the ballot and Texas would never consider this issue and keep him on the ballot and could use the same trump precedent and get Biden removed from the ballot disproves everything you just said...
As for trumps immunity case, the SC is backed up for months with cases and trumps immunity claims fail under any legal challenge and the SC has no duty to address them in a timely matter and push aside all other cases. U.S. District court already decided this issue... as did the SC as you mentioned.
On what grounds? Texas, and all other States must follow the Constitution. Any such move by Texas, would be subject to appeal to Federal Courts, as we have just seen in the case of Colorado. You should be fine with that if you believe in a nation of laws that should be followed. In a democracy, my own belief and yours are subject to the courts' interpretations of applicable laws. Unless no one cares and no one challenges, we can not get away with simply acting on our beliefs if it results in law breaking. But people do care, and they will challenge.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that judges appointed by Democrat or Republican politicians will decide issues based on the politics of who appointed them. This is a profoundly undemocratic view. The record overall of our courts' justices does not support your view. You are left with only anecdote. But for every anecdote you can supply, I can supply ten instances that refute your suggestion that politics will trump the plain reading of the law. In general, it won't. In fact, we have just seen how Trump's supporters' appeals to multiple district courts were summarily dismissed as groundless in ~fifty cases where justices appointed by both Democrats and Republicans ruled the same when confronted with virtually identical sets of facts.
Naturally Judges will be influenced, and therefore biased, by their personal philosophies of government, and this will be reflected to in how they personally vote in elections and how they rule on certain issues that reflect valid differences of opinion. This is not the same as making different rulings on clear cut issues supported by unambiguous facts.
Let's watch and see what happens in the Supreme Court. I will happily predict that our S.C. will not hand down clear, unambiguous rulings such as Trump did not engaged in an insurrection, or that he did not take an oath to "support" the Constitution (though the oath he took did not use the word "Support"), nor will they clearly rule that the President is not an "Officer" under the meaning of Section 3. Instead they'll find a way to decide Trump's Appeal of the Colorado decision that does not require the rejection of fact. And let's keep in mind that Republican appointed Judges dominate the Court; yet, in this case, they will not hand down a ruling that would fly in the face of the same common sense that applies to both educated Republicans and Democrats.
Be heartened however, as my record of predicting correctly is no better than 50% at best.
Last edited:
On what grounds? Seriously.... a good lawyer can link money sent to Iran being funneled to terrorist organizations that eventually attacked U.S. interests. Remember you dont have to prove it in a criminal court, just as much evidence you can put together. If the money was frozen but Biden released all their assets I think a good money trail can be developed. Does not matter if you believe it is true or not, Texas Court simply has to uphold the law that a president accused of being involved in insurrection can be removed from the ballot if the court finds so as a trier of fact.
Again.... how come Texas or Florida didnt make a motion to remove trump but Colorado did.....how come in Maine they removed him based on a political person's decision alone? if you think politics do not affect judges decisions in cases 100% about politics then I cannot help you.
The SC will find trump has no criminal immunity in one case and in the other will find that since Congress codified insurrection as a federal offense then Section 5 gives the authority to determine how to enforece Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and find that Colorado has no authority to remove a president from a ballot based on non conviction of insurrection yet has authority to remove a state official who WAS charged with offenses related to Jan 6th.