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

[HomerJS]

I have yet to have anyone tell us why enforcing a14s3 needs a full blown jury trial? Somehow SCOTUS decided Bush V Gire without a jury trial.

If someone 34 years old tried to get on the ballot would we really need a jury to disqualify that person?

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you think Jan 6 was just a riot?

Not even remotely IMO

That is what I said isn't it?

But I'll play along. So we'll call it an insurrection like you want. It was not even remotely comparable to the Civil War.

 

[pcgeek11]

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”.

BLM "Rallies"?

You misspelled Riot.

I have freely stated that anyone that entered the Capital Building that day should be prosecuted fully IAW the law.

 

[DigDog]

Given the Calvinball rulings we've been seeing? Absolutely they could overrule it.

before today, i did not believe the word Calvinball could be used in a sentence with meaning.

 

[ivwshane]

That is what I said isn't it?

But I'll play along. So we'll call it an insurrection like you want. It was not even remotely comparable to the Civil War.

Sure if you are looking at the scope of the two incidents but that’s not what we are comparing. We are talking about two people who aided in an insurrection and how the 14th would apply to them. Is this really that difficult of a concept to understand for you?

 

[outriding]

That is what I said isn't it?

But I'll play along. So we'll call it an insurrection like you want. It was not even remotely comparable to the Civil War.

Then what was the civil war if it was not an insurrection?

By the definition of an insurrection is what happened during the civil war “a violent uprising against the government….”

Even president Lincoln described the civil war as an insurrection

 

[pcgeek11]

Sure if you are looking at the scope of the two incidents but that’s not what we are comparing two people who aided in an insurrection and how the 14th would apply to them. Is this really that difficult of a concept to understand for you?

No you are comparing one person that actively took up arms against the United States Government with someone that did not take up arms against the United States Government.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I know you will bring up his other quote:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

Fighting like hell doesn't equate to taking over by armed conflict and insurrection.

 

[IronWing]

No you are comparing one person that actively took up arms against the United States Government with someone that did not take up arms against the United States Government.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I know you will bring up his other quote:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

Fighting like hell doesn't equate to taking over by armed conflict and insurrection.

Except that in this case, it did. Trump told his thugs to fight like hell and sent them off to the capitol.

 

[pcgeek11]

Then what was the civil war if it was not an insurrection?

By the definition of an insurrection is what happened during the civil war “a violent uprising against the government….”

Even president Lincoln described the civil war as an insurrection

I didn't say that the civil war was not an insurrection. It absolutely was.

Jan 6th was not an insurrection IMO, it was a riot.

 

[pcgeek11]

Except that in this case, it did. Trump told his thugs to fight like hell and sent them off to the capitol.

He told them:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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.

That is the most rational fucking post you've ever made on this forum. Thank you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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.

If someone who very clearly appeared to be 16 was attempting to run for president, didn't even deny that they weren't 35, would you argue that really, we need to go through due process. Find a birth certificate, verify authenticity, find the person who notorized it and get their confirmation (after a thorough character analysis of course), find who delivered the child and get an eye witness report (same character analysis), etc... Or would you just accept that what you see is a candidate who doesn't meet requirements?

That's how obvious Trump is to everyone else.

 

[brycejones]

BLM "Rallies"?

You misspelled Riot.

You misspelled police riots

 

[Tsinni Dave]

He told them:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

You really want to vote for that sack of crap again, don't you?

 

[fskimospy]

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

Not even remotely IMO.

Yes, for this purpose it is. If the 14th amendment requires a conviction then Robert E. Lee was eligible to be president in 1868.

So was he?

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say that the civil war was not an insurrection. It absolutely was.

Jan 6th was not an insurrection IMO, it was a riot.

If you read the decision 1/6 was not the only element of the insurrection. It was the totality of events from the assault on the Capitol to the creation of fraudulent slates of electors, to attempts to have Pence violate his oath of office.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure if you are looking at the scope of the two incidents but that’s not what we are comparing two people who aided in an insurrection and how the 14th would apply to them. Is this really that difficult of a concept to understand for you?

It took me a few seconds of contemplation to realize what you just said. The first thing that came to mind was that a red mouse and a red elephant aren’t very comparable less you are talking about color. Here we are talking insurrection as mutually disqualifying.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you read the decision 1/6 was not the only element of the insurrection. It was the totality of events from the assault on the Capitol to the creation of fraudulent slates of electors, to attempts to have Pence violate his oath of office.

Here I was thinking that if Trump had told his cult to raid Fort Knox because Biden had stolen his gold toilet and stashed it there, any doing so and still surviving would be facing prison for attempted theft. It is not a legal defense even for a soldier to hide behind the excuse he or she was just following orders.

These kind of logics, seem to me, flow automatically from the concept of rule of law. In such a society people past a certain age are obliged to know and to follow the law, not what some mass psychosis tells them it should be.

 

[HomerJS]

BLM "Rallies"?

You misspelled Riot.

I have freely stated that anyone that entered the Capital Building that day should be prosecuted fully IAW the law.

I know from where I speak. I attended many in Philadelphia.

 

[HomerJS]

He told them:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

He also told them to fight like hell.

 

[HomerJS]

That is what I said isn't it?

But I'll play along. So we'll call it an insurrection like you want. It was not even remotely comparable to the Civil War.

You are so smart. Who knew in order for it to be an insurrection it had to happen just like the Civil War

Judges in Colorado already stipulated Jan 6 was an insurrection not just a riot.

 

[fskimospy]

You are so smart. Who knew in order for it to be an insurrection it had to happen just like the Civil War

Judges in Colorado already stipulated Jan 6 was an insurrection not just a riot.

Trump was attempting to replace the lawfully elected government of the United States with himself. If that’s not an insurrection what is?

 

[VRAMdemon]

From what I understand ... When the lower court in Colorado found Trump to be eligible, what it found was that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection (a finding of fact), but that the Presidency is not an “office under the United States” so the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply (finding of law).

On the appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court said that why yes, the Presidency is an office under the United States. They didn’t really address the finding of fact, which, as I'm not sure .... I understand is usually left up to the original courts who heard the arguments from the witnesses themselves, judged who was credible?

So now SCOTUS is considering it. The legal analyses that I’ve seen pretty much all say that whether Colorado’s ruling stands or falls depends on whether the “office” term applies here, and not on whether Trump’s action constitute insurrection? (considering all the evidence, it is obvious that was his intention)

 

[ivwshane]

No you are comparing one person that actively took up arms against the United States Government with someone that did not take up arms against the United States Government.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I know you will bring up his other quote:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

Fighting like hell doesn't equate to taking over by armed conflict and insurrection.

That was a good try but you are missing a whole lot of others that happened even before 1/6, including calling Republican governors to not certify an election or to change the results. You are also ignoring the fake elector scheme along with the attempt to get the VP to advocate his duties. Taken in its totality, it’s obvious to all but the most partisan and with that information the Court came to the conclusion that trump disqualified himself. No trial is needed because no charges are needed to apply the 14th.

 

[ivwshane]

From what I understand ... When the lower court in Colorado found Trump to be eligible, what it found was that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection (a finding of fact), but that the Presidency is not an “office under the United States” so the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply (finding of law).

On the appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court said that why yes, the Presidency is an office under the United States. They didn’t really address the finding of fact, which, as I'm not sure .... I understand is usually left up to the original courts who heard the arguments from the witnesses themselves, judged who was credible?

So now SCOTUS is considering it. The legal analyses that I’ve seen pretty much all say that whether Colorado’s ruling stands or falls depends on whether the “office” term applies here, and not on whether Trump’s action constitute insurrection? (considering all the evidence, it is obvious that was his intention)

Which if they determine that a president is immune from being disqualified because they participated in an insurrection, would be a completely ridiculous assertion.