Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

[JTsyo]

I just imagined a new scenario. SC says Trump can't be kept off the ballot unless he is convicted. Trump wins the election and is President. The Jan 6 case wraps up and he is found guilty and is now in violation of A14S3 according to the SC. Does he just claim Executive Privilege and try to stay in office? Would the GOP impeach him if they still hold the House or Senate?

 

[eelw]

I just imagined a new scenario. SC says Trump can't be kept off the ballot unless he is convicted. Trump wins the election and is President. The Jan 6 case wraps up and he is found guilty and is now in violation of A14S3 according to the SC. Does he just claim Executive Privilege and try to stay in office? Would the GOP impeach him if they still hold the House or Senate?

As mentioned by the naysayers to this ruling, Jack Smith never charged him with insurrection. But yes if found guilty for any of these trials, he’s going to squash them Jan 20, 2025 12:01PM. Well assuming Biden doesn’t use his new presidential immunity powers 🤪

 

[NWRMidnight]

I beg to differ. State election law is critical here. This case has been filed in multiple states and dismissed in some because some state Supreme Courts courts have determined that state election law does not apply to primaries (see for example Minnesota). Colorado is the first state where this argument has "made it through". I expect the Supreme Court to spend a lot of their time focusing on Colorado election law for this case.

If the SCOTUS rules against trump based on the 14th section 3 of the constitution and not state or federal voting laws, Than it would be a blanket ruling across the nation and all states, as the US constitution superseeds state voting laws, and state constitutions. Which means he would be inelligable to be on any ballot across the nation. Congress would be the only ones able to remove that innelilgablity. Which is exactly what the constitution says is should be now. If our government (federal and state) where following the constiitution as written, Trump wouldn't be on any ballot, due to his participation in insurrection, per the constitution. Our court system has been running opposite of how it's supposed to for decades now. It was never intended for poeple to have to file court cases for for any part of our constituion to be enacted prior to being enforced and followed by our government. Our government(s) (state/federal), are supposed to be following and enforcing the US constitution from the the start. Not after a court order. Court cases are supposed to be filed when the government violates the constitution, not to get them to enact portions of it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I just imagined a new scenario. SC says Trump can't be kept off the ballot unless he is convicted. Trump wins the election and is President. The Jan 6 case wraps up and he is found guilty and is now in violation of A14S3 according to the SC. Does he just claim Executive Privilege and try to stay in office? Would the GOP impeach him if they still hold the House or Senate?

That case would never wrap up in that scenario, he'd just pardon himself of all charges in a press release or shitter announcement or something, day 1.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I just read an article that says if SCOTUS rules for plaintiff "he'll be disqualified in some states and not others" so you're probably correct. Though it's all academic unless or until that happens.

How would it only be some states? The 14th section 3 of the us constitution superseeds all state constitutions and voting laws.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh come on, greenie still believes Jan 6 rioters were unarmed. He’s just being disingenuous in his defense of the orange monkey.

I can’t read Greenman’s mind but I can infer that we are all fundamentally the same. Having been exposed to and raised in both liberal and conservative manners of thinking and having experienced a transformative resolution of the conflict thereby generated within between them, I see the conflicts between them as opposite sides of the same coin. This means that I see good and bad in each face of the coin and perfection in their integration.

For this reason I see arrogance in any preference for either that condemn either side completely, or favors only one side.

For example as a liberal you see the danger of respect for authority and that should include the dangers of being brainwashed by parents so how do you handle honoring your father and mother. I broke my parents hearts but somehow I managed the courage to do so because of how they raised me. I am deeply grateful to them for that. Everything they taught me is sacred I threw in the trash except for the appreciation of what was really intended which becomes clear when their hold on you is broken.

So I am sticking to my belief that what motivates Greenman is the love of the good. I just think he sees too much of why it is good and too little of the good he misses that is on the other coin face. The good has depth and nuance.

 

[Moonbeam]

How would it only be some states? The 14th section 3 of the us constitution superseeds all state constitutions and voting laws.

It would only apply to Colorado, I believe, because the question before the court is whether the State Supreme Court decision properly interpreted the state’s laws not the US constitution. The Constitution allows states to make their own rules so the question is, is the ruling to keep Trump off the ballot permitted by Colorado law.

First we will see a federal appellate court agree they did and then the Supreme Court will agree. How could it be otherwise. The Constitution is clear as is Trump’s acts of insurrection. Keep him from running and send him to jail.

 

[woolfe9998]

How would it only be some states? The 14th section 3 of the us constitution superseeds all state constitutions and voting laws.

It shouldn't be only some states if SCOTUS rules that the US Constitution bars Trump's candidacy. But I'm being told that in some states there are procedural bars to even bringing an action to remove him from the ballot.

 

[ivwshane]

It shouldn't be only some states if SCOTUS rules that the US Constitution bars Trump's candidacy. But I'm being told that in some states there are procedural bars to even bringing an action to remove him from the ballot.

Then they’d be in violation of the constitution…if the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then they’d be in violation of the constitution…if the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

Again, I do not know, but the Supreme Court, in its desire to deliver unpopular right wing decisions while attempting to create an illusion of balance, tends, it seems to me, to confine itself to a bare minimum of scope in the opinions it delivers. If so and they will do so here, I would think they would only rule in Colorado in particular, whether the CO SC applied CO election eligibity rules according to CO law.

They would avoid ruling on whether Trump can or can’t run nation wide. But I don’t know much and may easily be wrong.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It shouldn't be only some states if SCOTUS rules that the US Constitution bars Trump's candidacy. But I'm being told that in some states there are procedural bars to even bringing an action to remove him from the ballot.

I mean, they can put him on the primary and general election ballot I suppose, but it'll be no different than voting for Mickey Mouse once it gets its way to the GE pollers. Just toss 'em in the trash.

 

[Greenman]

No crime has been charged. It is merely a fact that he is an insurrectioist and therefore constitutionally not qualified to run.

So insurrection is a crime that doesn't need a charge or a conviction as long as "everyone knows"?

 

[fskimospy]

So insurrection is a crime that doesn't need a charge or a conviction as long as "everyone knows"?

Do you think Robert E. Lee could have become president in 1868?

 

[HomerJS]

Could they do that? Sure, they can do whatever they want but it would indicate just how partisan they are and how their ideological beliefs are also bs. The only people who would come to the conclusion you came up with are people who are ignorant of history and who have poor reading comprehension.

This is why the court needs to be expanded. More times than not conservative translation of the Constitution are, “ it means what we say it means”

 

[brycejones]

So insurrection is a crime that doesn't need a charge or a conviction as long as "everyone knows"?

You really need to stop hanging out with your Q buddies.

 

[Moonbeam]

So insurrection is a crime that doesn't need a charge or a conviction as long as "everyone knows"?

That would not be what I intended to say. Whether you are charged with the crime of insurrection or not is determined by the criminal justice system. Whether you can run as a Presidential candidate in Colorado is done by a state official who assesses the candidates qualifications. Trump was charged with not meeting those qualifications and found not to qualify. He can’t be tried for not qualifying because it is not a crime not to meet the requirements to run.

You are still making the mistake of believing a person has to be guilty of something to be kept off the ballot. In Colorado, so far, the legal ruling is that Trump is an insurrectionist by definition, not by criminal conviction and that finding, as factual, disqualifies him.

If the shoe fits, wear it. He is an insurrectionist and the state laws in Colorado make it possible to disqualify him as a candidate for that reason, plain and simple just like not 35, can’t be on the ballot.

 

[ivwshane]

Well said moonbeam. To add further; if a crime is committed but there isn’t a charge let alone a guilty verdict does that mean no crime was actually committed? Obviously it doesn’t.

 

[Greenman]

That would not be what I intended to say. Whether you are charged with the crime of insurrection or not is determined by the criminal justice system. Whether you can run as a Presidential candidate in Colorado is done by a state official who assesses the candidates qualifications. Trump was charged with not meeting those qualifications and found not to qualify. He can’t be tried for not qualifying because it is not a crime not to meet the requirements to run.

You are still making the mistake of believing a person has to be guilty of something to be kept off the ballot. In Colorado, so far, the legal ruling is that Trump is an insurrectionist by definition, not by criminal conviction and that finding, as factual, disqualifies him.

If the shoe fits, wear it. He is an insurrectionist and the state laws in Colorado make it possible to disqualify him as a candidate for that reason, plain and simple just like not 35, can’t be on the ballot.

Very clear and sensible explanation, thank you.
It's still the presumption of a crime having been committed, a presumption of guilt. At least I assume insurrection is a crime. I'll be very interested to see what the SC has to say.
Is running for president a privilege or a right? Can it be deigned without due process? If he's found to be ineligible in one state doesn't that indicate that he's ineligible in every state? It's a constitutional rule, it has apply across all fifty states. What happens if he wins the election but has this ruling hanging over him? Can one state say he can't hold the office and the others have to follow that decision? I don't see how that can be pared down into a state by state decision.

 

[brycejones]

Very clear and sensible explanation, thank you.
It's still the presumption of a crime having been committed, a presumption of guilt. At least I assume insurrection is a crime. I'll be very interested to see what the SC has to say.
Is running for president a privilege or a right? Can it be deigned without due process? If he's found to be ineligible in one state doesn't that indicate that he's ineligible in every state? It's a constitutional rule, it has apply across all fifty states. What happens if he wins the election but has this ruling hanging over him? Can one state say he can't hold the office and the others have to follow that decision? I don't see how that can be pared down into a state by state decision.

Is not a trial in a court due process? You keep pretending the court in Colorado just randomly made a decision.

 

[Zorba]

Very clear and sensible explanation, thank you.
It's still the presumption of a crime having been committed, a presumption of guilt. At least I assume insurrection is a crime. I'll be very interested to see what the SC has to say.
Is running for president a privilege or a right? Can it be deigned without due process? If he's found to be ineligible in one state doesn't that indicate that he's ineligible in every state? It's a constitutional rule, it has apply across all fifty states. What happens if he wins the election but has this ruling hanging over him? Can one state say he can't hold the office and the others have to follow that decision? I don't see how that can be pared down into a state by state decision.

There was a trail, where it was found he met what that judge considered insurrection for the purpose of the constitution. Really just like any other civil bench trail.

What is going to be very interesting is you know state GOPs are going to be stupid enough to put Jan 6th rioters on their slate of electors. Who should then be disqualified by the 14th.

 

[HomerJS]

Very clear and sensible explanation, thank you.
It's still the presumption of a crime having been committed, a presumption of guilt. At least I assume insurrection is a crime. I'll be very interested to see what the SC has to say.
Is running for president a privilege or a right? Can it be deigned without due process? If he's found to be ineligible in one state doesn't that indicate that he's ineligible in every state? It's a constitutional rule, it has apply across all fifty states. What happens if he wins the election but has this ruling hanging over him? Can one state say he can't hold the office and the others have to follow that decision? I don't see how that can be pared down into a state by state decision.

Trump was given due process there was a 5 day hearing in Colorado to determine this final decision made by judges

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you think Robert E. Lee could have become president in 1868?

Do you think the Civil War and a Riot in DC is valid comparison?

Not even remotely IMO.

 

[Thump553]

Do you think the Civil War with a Riot in DC is valid comparison?

Not even remotely IMO.

A riot? You've overstated your assignment-for the GQP Jan 6th was a bunch of tourists.

The stated purpose of Jan 6th, as called for by Trump and his fellow speakers was for the crowd to occupy the Capitol and prevent official ratification of the Electoral College results.

 

[outriding]

Do you think the Civil War and a Riot in DC is valid comparison?

Not even remotely IMO.

Do you think Jan 6 was just a riot?

Not even remotely IMO

 

[HomerJS]

Do you think the Civil War and a Riot in DC is valid comparison?

Not even remotely IMO.

Still insisting Jan 6 was a simple riot?

Thats why you are just a fountain of misinformation. You do better work then the FSB.

For those of you not yet hip to @pcgeek11 lies he attempts to label Jan 6 as a simple riot that allows him to equate it to any violence that occurred at BLM rallies which them give him the argument that “ they all do it Democrats are just as violent”.