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

[pete6032]

Seems pretty rock solid to me. What about it do you think is shaky?

Did you read the NYT article?

• Novel application of a law that has never been tried before in this context.
• SC justices may not be inclined to remove a candidate from the ballot.
• Lots of disagreement over whether the insurrection clause applies to a president.
• This type of case has been dismissed in other states.

And here is my one editorial point:

• Conservative supreme court that goes out of its way to do the Republican party any and all favors.

 

[zinfamous]

asking for a friend, but does any of this pertain to an individual state's and that state's political party right to control their own primary elections?

This is about the state primary, and not the general election. Does anything in the 14th, particularly, allow for the Feds to supersede on a state's party control over their candidates in a closed primary?

I know they've overruled on district maps all over the place, but is this not a different sort of specific clause? Maybe it isn't...

 

[fskimospy]

Did you read the NYT article?

Yes.

• Novel application of a law that has never been tried before in this context.

Not a novel application at all, it's entirely straightforward. 1) The Constitution bars officials who engage in insurrection from office. 2) Trump engaged in an insurrection. 1 -> 2.

Although it is true it's never been applied to a presidential candidate/former president before. This is of course because no other one engaged in an insurrection! Similarly, the Espionage Act had never been applied to a former president before...because no others violated the Espionage Act.

• SC justices may not be inclined to remove a candidate from the ballot.

This is a political argument, not a legal one.

• Lots of disagreement over whether the insurrection clause applies to a president.

This disagreement is facially ridiculous. The idea that the people who wrote the 14th amendment thought any federal official engaging in insurrection should be barred from office except for the most powerful one is laughable.

Can anyone explain with a straight face why the framers of the 14th amendment would write it to say say 'insurrection is barred unless you're the president, in that case insurrect all you want.'?

• This type of case has been dismissed in other states.

That doesn't make the case weak.

And here is my one editorial point:

• Conservative supreme court that goes out of its way to do the Republican party any and all favors.

This I agree with - but corruption in the federal judiciary doesn't make the case weak, it makes the judiciary corrupt.

 

[pete6032]

asking for a friend, but does any of this pertain to an individual state's and that state's political party right to control their own primary elections?

This is about the state primary, and not the general election. Does anything in the 14th, particularly, allow for the Feds to supersede on a state's party control over their candidates in a closed primary?

I know they've overruled on district maps all over the place, but is this not a different sort of specific clause? Maybe it isn't...

A similar lawsuit was dismissed in Minnesota after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that placing him on the ballot for a primary was an internal party matter and not the same as a general election for president.

Minnesota court dismisses bid to block Trump on primary ballot; leaves door open for general election challenge

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against a petition seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot, but did not outright reject a subsequent challenge regarding the general election.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[fskimospy]

asking for a friend, but does any of this pertain to an individual state's and that state's political party right to control their own primary elections?

This is about the state primary, and not the general election. Does anything in the 14th, particularly, allow for the Feds to supersede on a state's party control over their candidates in a closed primary?

I know they've overruled on district maps all over the place, but is this not a different sort of specific clause? Maybe it isn't...

It does if you expect SCOTUS conservatives to be logically consistent. The opinion quotes no less than Neil Gorsuch on the issue:

a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process… permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.

 

[pete6032]

Yes.

Not a novel application at all, it's entirely straightforward. 1) The Constitution bars officials who engage in insurrection from office. 2) Trump engaged in an insurrection. 1 -> 2.

Although it is true it's never been applied to a presidential candidate/former president before. This is of course because no other one engaged in an insurrection! Similarly, the Espionage Act had never been applied to a former president before...because no others violated the Espionage Act.

This is a political argument, not a legal one.

This disagreement is facially ridiculous. The idea that the people who wrote the 14th amendment thought any federal official engaging in insurrection should be barred from office except for the most powerful one is laughable.

Can anyone explain with a straight face why the framers of the 14th amendment would write it to say say 'insurrection is barred unless you're the president, in that case insurrect all you want.'?

That doesn't make the case weak.

This I agree with - but corruption in the federal judiciary doesn't make the case weak, it makes the judiciary corrupt.

Well OK, I guess since you are such a legal expert and this is all so straight forward, you should file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court so they understand.

 

[Pens1566]

A similar lawsuit was dismissed in Minnesota after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that placing him on the ballot for a primary was an internal party matter and not the same as a general election for president.

Minnesota court dismisses bid to block Trump on primary ballot; leaves door open for general election challenge

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against a petition seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot, but did not outright reject a subsequent challenge regarding the general election.

www.cbsnews.com

Which is a different matter entirely from what Col SC decided and what will be heard in SCOTUS.

 

[pete6032]

Which is a different matter entirely from what Col SC decided and what will be heard in SCOTUS.

Correct.

 

[kage69]

It's hard to imagine how the 14th Sec 3 could apply to Trump more perfectly, he is exactly the kind of crook it was made for.

He colludes and conspires with foreign powers to subvert elections. He then conducts an insurrection complete with multiple fake elector plots and a storming of the capitol expressly to stop the election we know he knew he lost. You simply cannot find a better example of an oath of office being completely shit on with extreme prejudice. He's already defiled the Constitution, and now he wants to swear on it so he can then do his best to destroy it once in office? Like, holy shit. The mental gymnastics and complete lack of morals/patriotism required to support this traitor are just mind boggling.

And while the cowardice and greed of the repugs has always alarmed me, gives me plenty to worry about here, I'm hoping some of that entrenched self interest will kick in at the appropriate time. Once it's clear 'the boat can take no more water.' They've got to make a call, and this is going to be their chance to accept the lifeline that Colorado and the Constitution have afforded them; use it to be rid of this bastard, ensure the safety of country and the diplomacy and economy that hold it up. I'm sure the GQP can find another non traitor/felon/mentally ill sex predator to serve as their choice for elected follower. SCOTUS needs to simply follow the Constitution and their oaths of office like Colorado, then the structural failure of the EC in preventing harmful demagogues from winning is mitigated (for now). I hope they don't fuck it up with more calvinball, but yeah, the odds aren't comforting, are they? The traitor packed the court with three illegitimate and unfit activist judges who engaged in perjury. Yuck.

Repugs really are a cancer on this country. The existential threat to our institutions and freedom they pose is probably the most malignant risk we've ever faced, imo. I hope they can summon the courage to prove me wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Well OK, I guess since you are such a legal expert and this is all so straight forward, you should file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court so they understand.

No need - there will be lots of them making the exact same, straightforward points.

1) 14th amendment says no insurrectionists.
2) Trump engaged in insurrection.
3) It is not the case that the 14th amendment intended to allow the president alone to engage in insurrection to his heart's content.

Case closed.

As mentioned I think it's quite likely that SCOTUS will Calvinball their way to a decision putting him back on the ballot but that's not a legal argument, it's a political one.

 

[IronWing]

It does if you expect SCOTUS conservatives to be logically consistent. The opinion quotes no less than Neil Gorsuch on the issue:

I lost the thread here. Is the Colorado case about a party primary or a general election ballot? If about a primary, I think the courts should butt out. If a party wants to select an ineligible candidate, let them have at it. The 14th should be applied when the party tries to place their ineligible candidate on the general election ballot.

 

[Pens1566]

I lost the thread here. Is the Colorado case about a party primary or a general election ballot? If about a primary, I think the courts should butt out. If a party wants to select an ineligible candidate, let them have at it. The 14th should be applied when the party tries to place their ineligible candidate on the general election ballot.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that argument/defense was presented in the CO case at all.

I also think the 1-5 deadline is only for the primary as well. So it's not really an earth shattering (beyond the academic side) change one way or the other as the GOP could always just declare him the winner with a rule change. The real test will be if he is the nominee, will his name be allowed on the general election ballot. Which is on a different timeline than the one currently being discussed.

 

[pete6032]

I lost the thread here. Is the Colorado case about a party primary or a general election ballot? If about a primary, I think the courts should butt out. If a party wants to select an ineligible candidate, let them have at it. The 14th should be applied when the party tries to place their ineligible candidate on the general election ballot.

Primary election, but the ruling has obvious implications for the general election.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.

Also, the CO Supreme Court found that:

the Election Code allows Colorado’s courts, through challenges brought under sections 1-4-1204(4) and 1-1-113, to assess the constitutional qualifications of a candidate—and to order the Secretary to exclude from the ballot candidates who are not qualified. These provisions advance Colorado’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” by allowing the Secretary to “exclude from the ballot [presidential] candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” Hassan, 495 F. App’x at 948. Moreover, these provisions neither infringe on a political party’s associational rights nor compromise the validity of a court’s rulings on complex factual and legal issues. Rather, they provide a robust vehicle through which to protect the purity of Colorado’s elections.

If you read the court's opinion you will see the CO Supreme Court notes that Colorado's election law is more robust than in other states.

We note that Colorado’s Election Code differs from other states’ election laws. Michigan’s election law, for example, does not include the term “qualified candidate,” does not establish a role for Michigan courts in assessing the qualifications of a presidential primary candidate, and strictly limits the Michigan Secretary of State’s responsibilities in the context of presidential primary elections.

 

[eelw]

Let’s pretend SCOTUS punts and says election is a state issue. Imagine the dominos falling in other states. Sure it would be mostly blue states that do the same. But it prevents the flipping of close states and impossible for orange monkey to get 270.

 

[ivwshane]

This is what I'm thinking too. How many people were charged with insurrection after the Civil War?

Pretty close to none because the President(s) pardoned all confederate soldiers. Which means conviction isn’t a requirement to pardon and the 14th doesn’t specify and person convicted of treason/sedition only that they participated in it.

 

[Stokely]

I have no confidence that any of the many trials will keep Trump from running and likely winning again.

I just think it's amazing that someone who actively tried to overturn an election and seize power--no matter how sloppy or hamfisted the attempt was--is even in the conversation to do so again. Or be free for that matter. The documents case alone would have any of us rotting in a cell.

He's a fucking traitor. We already knew it from the Russian involvement but he proved it with his Jan 6 actions and words, and continues to do so to this day by standing up for the rats who went into the Capitol.

He's as guilty as the day is long and everyone knows it, no matter what legalese gets him out of it (he's rich and powerful after all). And if he's elected again, anyone involved in these trials better get the hell out of the US because he's going to do his best to set up Dark Knight rises style trials to string up all his enemies.

 

[ivwshane]

Just so we are all clear, this is the text of the 14th section 3:

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.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let’s pretend SCOTUS punts and says election is a state issue. Imagine the dominos falling in other states. Sure it would be mostly blue states that do the same. But it prevents the flipping of close states and impossible for orange monkey to get 270.

It also creates a crisis where the RNC needs either a) no candidate in blue states or b) an alternat candidate, both of which aren't great.

 

[kage69]

Let’s pretend SCOTUS punts and says election is a state issue. Imagine the dominos falling in other states. Sure it would be mostly blue states that do the same. But it prevents the flipping of close states and impossible for orange monkey to get 270.

The exact thing I've been pining for, like a Norwegian Blue for his fjords...

 

[eelw]

I have no confidence that any of the many trials will keep Trump from running and likely winning again.

I just think it's amazing that someone who actively tried to overturn an election and seize power--no matter how sloppy or hamfisted the attempt was--is even in the conversation to do so again. Or be free for that matter. The documents case alone would have any of us rotting in a cell.

He's a fucking traitor. We already knew it from the Russian involvement but he proved it with his Jan 6 actions and words, and continues to do so to this day by standing up for the rats who went into the Capitol.

He's as guilty as the day is long and everyone knows it, no matter what legalese gets him out of it (he's rich and powerful after all). And if he's elected again, anyone involved in these trials better get the hell out of the US because he's going to do his best to set up Dark Knight rises style trials to string up all his enemies.

Sad thing is, MAGAtards eat up his BS that all these things are political attacks because Biden is afraid of losing to him.

 

[Zorba]

They'll believe what RW Media tells them to.

They will switch to a different RW media source until they find one that tells them what they want to hear.

Did you read the NYT article?

• Novel application of a law that has never been tried before in this context.
• SC justices may not be inclined to remove a candidate from the ballot.
• Lots of disagreement over whether the insurrection clause applies to a president.
• This type of case has been dismissed in other states.

And here is my one editorial point:

• Conservative supreme court that goes out of its way to do the Republican party any and all favors.

Claiming the 14th doesn't apply to the president is just stupid. I'm sure they only cared about Jeff Davis going to Congress or becoming a bureaucrat, but who cares if he becomes president. Doesn't even pass the sniff test

 

[ch33zw1z]

They will switch to a different RW media source until they find one that tells them what they want to hear.

Got me there, you’re right on the money.

 

[Zorba]

Well OK, I guess since you are such a legal expert and this is all so straight forward, you should file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court so they understand.

This "debate" is right wing noise, just like the "debate" about fossil fuels causing global warming, or the "debate" about smoking causing cancer. Not saying the USSC may not use that argument but that is because they don't care about following the constitution.

 

[JTsyo]

asking for a friend, but does any of this pertain to an individual state's and that state's political party right to control their own primary elections?

This is about the state primary, and not the general election. Does anything in the 14th, particularly, allow for the Feds to supersede on a state's party control over their candidates in a closed primary?

I know they've overruled on district maps all over the place, but is this not a different sort of specific clause? Maybe it isn't...

Colorado GOP states that they would convert to a caucus if the decision stands. In that case they pick the their nominee instead of having an election for it. But he would still be off the ballot for the general election.

If Trump ballot decision stands, Colorado GOP says it will move from primary to caucus system​

 

[Fenixgoon]

This was discussed in the trial in the lower court. They had Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University law professor refute the arguement:

One pair of experts cited by Trump’s attorneys, Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman, argued in a 2021 paper that Section 3’s reference to “officers of the United States” does not include the president. Magliocca rejected that argument, pointing to contemporary statements from Reconstruction-era politicians — including Ohio Sen. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment’s better-known Equal Protection Clause — referring to the president as the “executive officer of the United States” or an “official of the United States.”

If the president isn't an officer of the United states, then WTF are they? (Uhh, and it is called the office of the presidency...)