Obviously you don't either if you doubt that SCOTUS will nix this faster than most here nix anything you have to say in your efforts to look intelligent.
Did I ask for judges to be jailed like your fellow Putin lover?
Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Did I ask for judges to be jailed like your fellow Putin lover?
Are you talking about people who fought for the South in the Civil War and were clesrly involved in the actual insurrection to defeat the federal government? That is not the same thing as this case which is the FIRST time it was used for the presidency...
also OJ civil v. criminal has nothing to do with this, trump was neither found guilty in a criminal court nor liable in a civil court.
We all hate trump..doesnt mean we can let a state supreme court abuse its power in a federal matter. If people dont want trump to be president than dont vote for him. If people wanted a liberal SC, they should hve voted for Hillary just for the Sc justices.... they didnt.
I will wait patiently while you all react to texas and Florida removing Biden from the ballot because his son engaged in deals with China..no criminal conviction needed...not even a civil one..amirite?
SC will say it wasnt an insurrection but a riot and trump played no part in it so case overturned. I can get a first year law student to win this case...
Voters in Colorado who want to vote for that piece of shit have a federal case against the Colorado SC
They are anti-Trumpers , They do not want Trump to win....They will help Democrats to make their goal
Yes. Clearly they can as far as Federal Law impacts who is qualified to appear on ballots within the State, because Federal Law also applies to the States.
The specific issue here is what are the qualifications that must be met by someone wanting to run for President of the United States. One such necessary qualifications is given in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I reproduced Section 3 below. If you read just the underlined words you will be reading the specific part of the Section that the court has said disqualifies Trump as a candidate.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Notice there is no wording such as "having been charged with or having been convicted of..." . It is only necessary to have engaged in insurrection to become disqualified.
The State courts are free to decide whether a potential candidate, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. In Colorado, two courts agreed that there was no question regarding whether Trump had engaged in an insurrection, he clearly had. Rather the question of whether the President is an Officer of the United States was decided differently by the two courts.
And, of course, the Decision of the Colorado Supreme Court can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is precisely what's happening. It's no more complicated than that. It's a simple matter of whether Trump is qualified to Run. Of course we all know that very simple, straight forward issues can get very complicated once lawyers are involved. As an example of this common phenomenon, the Colorado Supreme Court consumed two-hundred pages to, in effect, answer the simple question: "Is Donald John Trump disqualified under the 14th Amendment to run for President of the United States."
If the U.S. Supreme Court concurs with the Colorado Court then Trump will be disqualified in all States, as the same law applies to all of them.
Last edited:
The 14th Amendment does not make insurrection against the united States a crime. There is other law that does that. The 14th Amendment has to do with disqualifying people who broke their oath of office in a particular way from henceforth serving as an Officer of the United States. It applies regardless of whether insurrection is a crime.
Last edited:
I think anti-Trumpers are over joyed, why wouldn't they be? From what expert legal minds are saying, it appears there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado Court's decision. I haven't read that decision yet, have you? Many legal minds are saying it is masterful in its thoroughness and logic. They say it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to reverse. We shall see soon enough. I heard their decision is likely to be handed down in February.
Colorado SC has stayed this until 1/4
1/5 is the deadline to fix the ballets
I read that they expect a 8-1 or 9-0 decision from the US SC to strike down
Whats missing is a legislative law to define Insurrection
The court cant make its own definition
Yes. I too noticed "engaged" could be very broadly interpreted. Could be interpreted as including planning, recruiting, inciting, funding, and all manner of associated activities. It would be very easy to conclude Trump "engaged" in an insurrection just based on his message to his supporters before they marched to the Capital. Recall Trump told them to fight like hell, otherwise they wouldn't have a country anymore. Of course the Jan 6th committee produced thousands of pages of additional evidence of Trumps involvement. All which would be available to the Courts, plus all of what Smith has dug up. Can't wait to read the Colorado decision. I would think it a piece of cake to convince any court or Jury that Trump engaged in an insurrection. We'll just have to wait and see.