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

[ivwshane]

I am not sure if he is missing your point or not, but how can someone be engaged in insurrection, and not be guilty of insurrection?

I thought I gave a pretty good analogy to explain it but I guess not.

How about this one: during a basketball game a player commits a fouls and the refs assess a foul to the offending player. During that same game a different player commits a foul but it isn’t called on them. Instant replay shows a foul was committed but the refs missed it. Whether or not a foul had incurred is not in dispute. The player then commits another, more serious foul. The refs, who have at this point recognized their previous error and in recognition of the current more serious foul issue a flagrant 1 to the player. No additional foul was given but the previous actions impacted the current situation. The player still only has one foul and one tech.

Telling people the player has two fouls and a tech is incorrect no matter what the evidence shows.

Hopefully this clears it up.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What am I missing?

Like @NWRMidnight asked, "How can you be engaged in an insurrection and not commit or participate in an insurrection?

You can engage in an act without being found guilty of that act in a court of law. Constitutional/political rigor is lower than a courtroom's, see: impeachment.

 

[Greenman]

In related news...stochastic terrorism strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html

That's an odd chain of events.

 

[Pens1566]

In related news...stochastic terrorism strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html

I love that article ...

The incident was not believed to be “associated with previous threats to the Colorado Supreme Court Justices,” the Colorado State Patrol said.

The break-in comes two weeks after the court ruled 4-3 to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, finding he was ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

Yeah, I'm sure there is absolutely zero connection between the two events.
/s

 

[fskimospy]

Think of it like civil vs criminal trial.

A "finding" says you engaged in insurrection, but does not mete out any sort of punishment (e.g. civil action for DQ from election). Being found guilty (convicted) of insurrection would actually put you in prison.

Yeah - the basketball analogy is strained. The easiest distinction is this.

Similarly, Trump was found to have sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll but was not criminally convicted of this. That does not change the fact that trump was found to have engaged in both sexual assault and insurrection.

 

[fskimospy]

I love that article ...



Yeah, I'm sure there is absolutely zero connection between the two events.
/s

I think they mean there were other threats related to their decision but this one was a new guy.

 

[HomerJS]

Yeah - the basketball analogy is strained. The easiest distinction is this.

Similarly, Trump was found to have sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll but was not criminally convicted of this. That does not change the fact that trump was found to have engaged in both sexual assault and insurrection.

Like the age disqualifier in the Constitution. Being 34 is not illegal it just disqualifies you from getting on the ballot. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[fskimospy]

Like the age disqualifier in the Constitution. Being 34 is not illegal it just disqualifies you from getting on the ballot. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes, and if someone's age was in dispute I imagine we would see a proceeding similar to the insurrection one where both sides could present evidence and then a determination could be made.

I agree this is not complicated but I think a lot of the 'controversy' comes from absolutely awful news reporting combined with bad faith legal analysis from right wing people and/or those looking for attention. It's the same thing as the whole 'it doesn't apply to the president' thing. No serious person believes that, just a bunch of grifters and liars who ignore the clear statements of the people who wrote the amendment and also common sense. Do they really think the people who wrote the 14th were like 'due to his treason Jefferson Davis cannot be an elector for president or a member of Congress but the presidency? Sure, why not.'

 

[NWRMidnight]

I thought I gave a pretty good analogy to explain it but I guess not.

How about this one: during a basketball game a player commits a fouls and the refs assess a foul to the offending player. During that same game a different player commits a foul but it isn’t called on them. Instant replay shows a foul was committed but the refs missed it. Whether or not a foul had incurred is not in dispute. The player then commits another, more serious foul. The refs, who have at this point recognized their previous error and in recognition of the current more serious foul issue a flagrant 1 to the player. No additional foul was given but the previous actions impacted the current situation. The player still only has one foul and one tech.

Telling people the player has two fouls and a tech is incorrect no matter what the evidence shows.

Hopefully this clears it up.

Just because the foul aren't counted by the ref, doesn't mean he didn't commit them. However, your basketball example is flawed. For it to be eqivalent to what happend with Trump, the referee would have had to say that the player engaged in a foul, which means he committed a foul, and it's counted. The same is true for Trump, he can't be found to have engaged in insurrection and not be guilty of insurrection. It was just a polite way of saying that Trump is guilty of insurrection by the judge.

 

[eelw]

Big deal found guilty in court of law or not. His base will twist themselves into pretzels defending him why he should be eligible in 2028

 

[Brainonska511]

Yes, and if someone's age was in dispute I imagine we would see a proceeding similar to the insurrection one where both sides could present evidence and then a determination could be made.

I agree this is not complicated but I think a lot of the 'controversy' comes from absolutely awful news reporting combined with bad faith legal analysis from right wing people and/or those looking for attention. It's the same thing as the whole 'it doesn't apply to the president' thing. No serious person believes that, just a bunch of grifters and liars who ignore the clear statements of the people who wrote the amendment and also common sense. Do they really think the people who wrote the 14th were like 'due to his treason Jefferson Davis cannot be an elector for president or a member of Congress but the presidency? Sure, why not.'

I'm surprised no one has brought up residency challenges in local elections as an analogy to the process Colorado used. A few years ago, I saw a local candidate face an eligibility challenge due to a recent move. Both sides presented evidence at a hearing run by the board of elections, and a decision was issued (in that case, the candidate could stay on the ballot). No jury trial required.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Like the age disqualifier in the Constitution. Being 34 is not illegal it just disqualifies you from getting on the ballot. Why is that so hard to understand?

I think the issue some are having is that saying someone was part of an insurrection is an accusation, something of which we as a culture have an understanding we have the ability to defend ourselves against. Even if they feel/know that Trump did in fact participate in it, it's still an accusation without the burden of an actual trial finding the defendant guilty. Being 34 is self-evident by a birth certificate, unless you wish to start down the fraudulent BC path. Being a part of an insurrection isn't.

Like, was pence part of an insurrection? He had a role in the events, did he participate materially, intentionally or not, in seditious acts? Could it be argued that Trump couldn't have initiated an insurrection without pence? Can that information be discovered without convicting Trump first?

Not that easy...

 

[Zorba]

I think the issue some are having is that saying someone was part of an insurrection is an accusation, something of which we as a culture have an understanding we have the ability to defend ourselves against. Even if they feel/know that Trump did in fact participate in it, it's still an accusation without the burden of an actual trial finding the defendant guilty. Being 34 is self-evident by a birth certificate, unless you wish to start down the fraudulent BC path. Being a part of an insurrection isn't.

Like, was pence part of an insurrection? He had a role in the events, did he participate materially, intentionally or not, in seditious acts? Could it be argued that Trump couldn't have initiated an insurrection without pence? Can that information be discovered without convicting Trump first?

Not that easy...

Pence was part of it. He didn't pull his weight, but he did fuck all to stop it. He's as quilty as shoeless Joe Jackson was.

Natural born May not always be straight forward either or residency requirements being met.

 

[fskimospy]

Pence was part of it. He didn't pull his weight, but he did fuck all to stop it. He's as quilty as shoeless Joe Jackson was.

Natural born May not always be straight forward either or residency requirements being met.

Fuck all except explicitly deny Trump the requisite action so that he could succeed, which seems like a pretty big deal to me!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Pence was part of it. He didn't pull his weight, but he did fuck all to stop it. He's as quilty as shoeless Joe Jackson was.

Natural born May not always be straight forward either or residency requirements being met.

Right, so that's the rub, who's the authority on whether someone participated 'enough' to warrant triggering the 14th? Collective agreement of obviousness 'yeah that looks like porn to me too'? Actual trial by judge/jury? Was within 5sq miles of or had a phone call with anyone two steps removed from the insurrection within a day?

I'd be fine with calling it for pence based on his inaction, would the SC? Would a state SC?

 

[Paratus]

Right, so that's the rub, who's the authority on whether someone participated 'enough' to warrant triggering the 14th? Collective agreement of obviousness 'yeah that looks like porn to me too'? Actual trial by judge/jury? Was within 5sq miles of or had a phone call with anyone two steps removed from the insurrection within a day?

I'd be fine with calling it for pence based on his inaction, would the SC? Would a state SC?

For Colorado? The Colorado courts where they had a hearing, both sides presented evidence and a finding of fact was issued that Trump participated in an insurrection so isn’t eligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot.

 

[fskimospy]

I am genuinely confused as to the issue here. We have courts for exactly this purpose and they made a decision and that decision was affirmed by the state's highest court. What more do you want?

Maybe I've missed it but has anyone been able to square the idea that a criminal conviction is necessary with the idea that clearly Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were considered ineligible for the presidency at the time it was written?

 

[Zorba]

Fuck all except explicitly deny Trump the requisite action so that he could succeed, which seems like a pretty big deal to me!

Because he didn't want to personally get his hands dirty. He did nothing to notify anyone of the plans or stop other parts of the process. I agree his not participating was a very big deal, but other than that he had knowledge of the conspiracy and didn't try to stop it.

 

[Zorba]

Right, so that's the rub, who's the authority on whether someone participated 'enough' to warrant triggering the 14th? Collective agreement of obviousness 'yeah that looks like porn to me too'? Actual trial by judge/jury? Was within 5sq miles of or had a phone call with anyone two steps removed from the insurrection within a day?

I'd be fine with calling it for pence based on his inaction, would the SC? Would a state SC?

That's for the courts to decide.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

For Colorado? The Colorado courts where they had a hearing, both sides presented evidence and a finding of fact was issued that Trump participated in an insurrection so isn’t eligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot.

Excellent, now is that burden of proof constitutionally required for every state? Can the NY election commission just remove him if they all decide to? The Constitution doesn't require a conviction anywhere, so who decides if the court isn't required?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Viewed from another angle, what's to stop the WV voting commission from deciding that Biden participated in an insurrection and remove him from the state ballot, if no conviction is required, and who steps in if it's decided they shouldn't be allowed to do it?

 

[Paratus]

Excellent, now is that burden of proof constitutionally required for every state? Can the NY election commission just remove him if they all decide to? The Constitution doesn't require a conviction anywhere, so who decides if the court isn't required?

Since the 14th should be self-executing whoever in each state certified the ballots could prevent Trump from being listed on the ballot.

If Trump has an issue with that he can file a court case in each state to determine his eligibility. Which is what I believe happened in Colorado.

In states where he’s not removed parties with legal standing could petition the court to have the state follow the 14th and remove him from the ballot. Where again Trump could participate in the process if he had an issue with potentially being removed for participating in the insurrection.

 

[fskimospy]

Viewed from another angle, what's to stop the WV voting commission from deciding that Biden participated in an insurrection and remove him from the state ballot, if no conviction is required, and who steps in if it's decided they shouldn't be allowed to do it?

First, you haven't addressed that under your interpretation Jefferson Davis would have been eligible for the presidency in 1868. Does that sound likely to you?

Second, I also don't get the West Virginia line of reasoning either. Is it that you're concerned if blue states correctly read the Constitution and bar Trump from the ballot that the political party that stole multiple SCOTUS seats, tried to weaponize the government against their political opponents, created slates of fake electors, and then attempted an insurrection is going to stop abiding by electoral norms? lol.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

First, you haven't addressed that under your interpretation Jefferson Davis would have been eligible for the presidency in 1868. Does that sound likely to you?

Second, I also don't get the West Virginia line of reasoning either. Is it that you're concerned if blue states correctly read the Constitution and bar Trump from the ballot that the political party that stole multiple SCOTUS seats, tried to weaponize the government against their political opponents, created slates of fake electors, and then attempted an insurrection is going to stop abiding by electoral norms? lol.

I'm saying without burden of proof, there's nothing stopping the execution of the 14th by whatever commission wishes to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm saying without burden of proof, there's nothing stopping the execution of the 14th by whatever commission wishes to do so.

But there is burden of proof, any such disqualification can be challenged in the courts as shown in CO.

What, in your mind, would have been necessary to disqualify Jefferson Davis from being able to hold the presidency in 1868?