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

[ivwshane]

Then why not remove term limits for the executive? How is that different?

The presidency holds way more power than any one representative or sc Justice. Not only that but the whole point of term limits, the electoral college, the 14th amendment is to ensure a strongman doesn’t come to power. It’s the anti king mentality our country was founded on.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The presidency holds way more power than any one representative or sc Justice. Not only that but the whole point of term limits, the electoral college, the 14th amendment is to ensure a strongman doesn’t come to power. It’s the anti king mentality our country was founded on.

Funny, we've seen individual members of congress hold hostage the entire country's legislative branch, and yet everyone still blames the president. Near as I can tell they're in a far less precarious position than the president, and far more open to compromise over a 40-year career. Instead of kings we chose a den of thieves led by the grey fox, explain to me how it's better?

 

[ivwshane]

Funny, we've seen individual members of congress hold hostage the entire country's legislative branch, and yet everyone still blames the president. Near as I can tell they're in a far less precarious position than the president, and far more open to compromise over a 40-year career. Instead of kings we chose a den of thieves led by the grey fox, explain to me how it's better?

Just because one system is flawed doesn’t mean we should allow another system to be flawed.

I’ve already posted several times what the fix is for our democracy and all of it just requires a willing majority.

 

[Charmonium]

Let's try to remember a couple of things here.

1. No one is entitled to be president. It is a privilege and honor which at the very least requires that you work for benefit of the republic and not your own paltry interests.

2. This SCOTUS has proclaimed to all the will listen that they are "originalists." Their argument against abortion was that it's found nowhere in the constitution.

Fine. Well, this is. And it was specifically designed to prevent people who have essentially shit on their oath from every having the chance to do it again.

 

[woolfe9998]

LOL I just realized how stupid the lower court's ruling was here. They found that Trump engaged in insurrection, but said that 14As3 doesn't apply to the POTUS because it says:

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

Now, see, that is the oath they take in Congress, "to support and defend," but the POTUS oath is "protect and defend." Hence, they could never have intended it to apply to a POTUS. WTF talk about finding a way out of making a controversial ruling...

 

[soulcougher73]

LOL I just realized how stupid the lower court's ruling was here. They found that Trump engaged in insurrection, but said that 14As3 doesn't apply to the POTUS because it says:



Now, see, that is the oath they take in Congress, "to support and defend," but the POTUS oath is "protect and defend." Hence, they could never have intended it to apply to a POTUS. WTF talk about finding a way out of making a controversial ruling...

I for one always protect and defend things that i don’t support….

 

[Vic]

These MAGA extremists are violent AF

Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot

The latest round of threats fits a familiar pattern: Trump faces a legal setback, and officials face threats.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Viper1j]

Ehm. Has he been found guilty of insurrection yet? Then how....

"Found to have engaged" means a finding by a trial court, not a conviction.

Trump was "found to have engaged in insurrection". That's all it takes.

 

[Viper1j]

Meh, I removed it. I didn’t think anyone on here would actually donate - well, maybe a couple of people…

The differences are SO clear.

 

[Charmonium]

The universal consensus of talking heads says that SCOTUS overturns the CO ruling. But think about this.

The court has its lowest approval rating in decades if not ever. A big part of that is the fact they no one sees them as independent arbiters any longer, but rather political power tools.

I don't think the justices really appreciate that perception. So what better way to demonstrate your independence than by shanking the Donald in the back?

Sure, they can find some way to weasel out of this on "procedural" grounds but if they really want to make a statement that they are their own masters, cutting the legs out from under Trump is a surefire way to do that.

edit - plus they still owe us for Bush v. Gore. Karma is a harsh mistress.

 

[cytg111]

Who has the corrupt judges? Think how easy it would be for Trump to direct someone like Cannon to designate the next democratic frontrunner as such… It just sounds like a weakness in the system rather than a strength..

 

[pete6032]

"Found to have engaged" means a finding by a trial court, not a conviction.

Trump was "found to have engaged in insurrection". That's all it takes.

You have to wonder what thay lower court judge was thinking. Were they paid off?

 

[Fenixgoon]

You have to wonder what thay lower court judge was thinking. Were they paid off?

Doesn't even have to be that. They could just be a MAGAt.

 

[eelw]

Who has the corrupt judges? Think how easy it would be for Trump to direct someone like Cannon to designate the next democratic frontrunner as such… It just sounds like a weakness in the system rather than a strength..

Texas has threatened to remove Biden. Haven’t heard any other state yet. But lol let cannon make a single peep about this. That would be the smoking gun to get her removed.

 

[dullard]

I haven't been following closely enough. So sorry if this is a repeat question. But what is the current over/under for how much a Trump lawyer pays Clarence Thomas for his vote on this 14th amendment ruling?

 

[cytg111]

I think if Putin could he would.

 

[dullard]

edit - plus they still owe us for Bush v. Gore. Karma is a harsh mistress.

I don't think you understand the supreme court logic. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided to overturn a state supreme court ruling because the state ruling would help a democrat. In this 14th Amendment case, to be consistent with the past ruling, the Supreme Court will overturn a state ruling because leaving the state decision alone would help a democrat. That is the only way to be consistent--harming democrats at all costs.

 

[eelw]

I haven't been following closely enough. So sorry if this is a repeat question. But what is the current over/under for how much a Trump lawyer pays Clarence Thomas for his vote on this 14th amendment ruling?

Nothing. He's been drinking the Kool aid decades ago. He won't need any convincing.

 

[Brovane]

"Found to have engaged" means a finding by a trial court, not a conviction.

Trump was "found to have engaged in insurrection". That's all it takes.

Which Federal court found that Trump engaged in insurrection?

 

[fskimospy]

Which Federal court found that Trump engaged in insurrection?

Why would that be relevant to Colorado's administration of their elections? Are you saying Colorado must outsource its sovereignty?

 

[Brovane]

Why would that be relevant to Colorado's administration of their elections? Are you saying Colorado must outsource its sovereignty?

I am saying Insurrection is a Federal crime not a state crime. Can a state level court make a "finding of fact" for a Federal crime?

 

[iRONic]

I don't think the justices really appreciate that perception. So what better way to demonstrate your independence than by shanking the Donald in the back?

Shitlol

You've obviously mistaken them for a body who’s majority gives a shit about what their public perception is!!

 

[fskimospy]

I am saying Insurrection is a Federal crime not a state crime. Can a state level court make a "finding of fact" for a Federal crime?

The 14th amendment doesn't reference any crime or the necessity of a criminal finding.

Much like with impeachment - there's no requirement for some criminal finding.

 

[Brovane]

The 14th amendment doesn't reference any crime or the necessity of a criminal finding.

Much like with impeachment - there's no requirement for some criminal finding.

So a Florida state court can make a finding that Biden has engaged in insurrection because of his failure to control the border and remove him from the ballot in Florida?

 

[fskimospy]

So a Florida state court can make a finding that Biden has engaged in insurrection because of his failure to control the border and remove him from the ballot in Florida?

Yes. Although that being said their factual finding would be open to review due to it being a clear error of fact, which is not true of the Colorado ruling.

Similarly, states are allowed to independently decide if someone is 35 or not without a federal finding.

To be clear I think SCOTUS is going to Calvinball its way to finding something different but that’s politics, not the facially obvious statement of the constitution.