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

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
I'm saying without burden of proof, there's nothing stopping the execution of the 14th by whatever commission wishes to do so.

The Colorado court used a clear and convincing evidence standard. Which is somewhere in between preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. You're mistaken that no burden of proof was put on the petitioners in that case. It was in fact a higher standard than in a civil case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69
Nov 29, 2006
15,880
4,435
136
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 think the questions come from the idea (to some), that what Trump and the GOP did, doesn't count as insurrection. Where as with Jefferson Davis i don't think anyone would say he didn't participate in one, including himself. I mean we were in a 4 year war and secession from the US etc.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,880
4,435
136
The Colorado court used a clear and convincing evidence standard. Which is somewhere in between preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. You're mistaken that no burden of proof was put on the petitioners in that case. It was in fact a higher standard than in a civil case.
But would this same clear and convincing evidence standard hold true if it was a Mississippi court for example? Or are we now into partisan politics territory?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
I think the questions come from the idea (to some), that what Trump and the GOP did, doesn't count as insurrection. Where as with Jefferson Davis i don't think anyone would say he didn't participate in one, including himself. I mean we were in a 4 year war and secession from the US etc.
So we operate on a 'we eyeball it' standard? Also, I suspect a lot of them would not have agreed considering they attempted on numerous occasions to return to offices and were barred by the 14th amendment.

There has to be a neutral standard that applies before you know ANY of the circumstances of a particular situation. If the standard is the Jefferson Davis 'eyeball' standard then Trump is easily disqualified as that's no standard at all. If it requires a criminal conviction then Davis was free to seek the presidency. So, what is it?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
But would this same clear and convincing evidence standard hold true if it was a Mississippi court for example? Or are we now into partisan politics territory?
Yes, different courts can come to different determinations given the same set of facts. Courts are also frequently partisan, especially these days.

It sounds like the answer people are going for but are unwilling to say is that section 3 is meaningless and should never be applied. (or that it should only be applied to Confederates despite the express rejection of that idea by those who wrote it)
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
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?
I mean I think he should have been defacto disqualified, same as trump, but you don't have to convince me, you have to convince brain dead trump supporters that their representation isn't being stolen.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
But would this same clear and convincing evidence standard hold true if it was a Mississippi court for example? Or are we now into partisan politics territory?

The evidentiary standard was drawn from Colorado law. So it would depend on what laws there are for challenging candidates on their books.

None of this matters unless the SCOTUS signs off on all of it. And they could do so with the proviso that certain evidentiary standards are met.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
The Colorado court used a clear and convincing evidence standard. Which is somewhere in between preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. You're mistaken that no burden of proof was put on the petitioners in that case. It was in fact a higher standard than in a civil case.
I'm saying it's not required (as repeated by others in this thread), not that CO didn't do their due diligence.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
I'm saying it's not required (as repeated by others in this thread), not that CO didn't do their due diligence.

What is not required? A criminal conviction? Sure, because the Constitution doesn't say so. But I guaranty you that in the unlikely event SCOTUS doesn't overturn this, they will make clear that some evidentiary standard is required. Removing someone from a ballot can only be done in court, and you can't come to court without having the burden of proof, and without having to present evidence.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
I mean I think he should have been defacto disqualified, same as trump, but you don't have to convince me, you have to convince brain dead trump supporters that their representation isn't being stolen.
I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Trump supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.

So no, fuck them. They can believe the election was stolen by the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. If Trump merits disqualification (he does) then disqualify him. If they threaten or harm officials who do their jobs, imprison them. If they try another insurrection, call out the army.
 

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Trump supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.

So no, fuck them. They can believe the election was stolen by the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. If Trump merits disqualification (he does) then disqualify him. If they threaten or harm officials who do their jobs, imprison them. If they try another insurrection, call out the army.
And if they still want Trump on any ballot, convince 2/3 of the House and Senate to vote to make him eligible again.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
What is not required? A criminal conviction? Sure, because the Constitution doesn't say so. But I guaranty you that in the unlikely event SCOTUS doesn't overturn this, they will make clear that some evidentiary standard is required. Removing someone from a ballot can only be done in court, and you can't come to court without having the burden of proof, and without having to present evidence.
Why does it require a court? If someone's known to be 34 and submits to be on the primary ballot, does it hit the court as well? If not, why not?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Trump supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.

So no, fuck them. They can believe the election was stolen by the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. If Trump merits disqualification (he does) then disqualify him. If they threaten or harm officials who do their jobs, imprison them. If they try another insurrection, call out the army.
Well, alright, turn that sentence around.

I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Biden supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.

So no, fuck them. They can believe the election was stolen by the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. If Biden merits disqualification (he does) then disqualify him. If they threaten or harm officials who do their jobs, imprison them. If they try another insurrection, call out the army.

What happens if Trump legitimately wins the next election and claims that every attempt to remove him in 2028 is an insurrection, and uses the same grounds to keep anyone else off the ballot? There's issues with claims that don't require burdens of proof (even if provided in some cases).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
Well, alright, turn that sentence around.



What happens if Trump legitimately wins the next election and claims that every attempt to remove him in 2028 is an insurrection, and uses the same grounds to keep anyone else off the ballot? There's issues with claims that don't require burdens of proof (even if provided in some cases).
There is a system in place as you’ve already been told about multiple times. It was adjudicated in the courts. If your argument is we can’t trust the courts well then that will be true for any other system you devise as well. As far as your scenarios go - that’s what they’ve already tried to do once and you’re only proving my point further. You keep people who try to overthrow the government off the ballot because if you don’t and they gain power they won’t give it up because they already showed the system means nothing to them.

I have some bad news for you, the law and the system are important but in the end they won’t save you. There is no need and frankly should be no interest in convincing Trump supporters of anything because they have no interest in it themselves. The system is for the rest of the country.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,039
136
I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Trump supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.

Seems to be a general issue, that "irrationality" is a powerful weapon.

Seems to be true in personal relations as much as it is in politics. When you have to deal with people who are quick to blow up in irrational rages, you end up tiptoeing around them and never challenging them. Particularly if they just have a much higher tolerance for rancorous interactions than you do. Being irrational is quite a good strategy for gaining advantages.

It also seems important in international relations, indeed MAD was implicitly based on it.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
I think the questions come from the idea (to some), that what Trump and the GOP did, doesn't count as insurrection. Where as with Jefferson Davis i don't think anyone would say he didn't participate in one, including himself. I mean we were in a 4 year war and secession from the US etc.
The south still thinks it was the war of Northern Aggression, per @woolfe9998 Texas still has a statue at their Capitol that says as much.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
Seems to be a general issue, that "irrationality" is a powerful weapon.

Seems to be true in personal relations as much as it is in politics. When you have to deal with people who are quick to blow up in irrational rages, you end up tiptoeing around them and never challenging them. Particularly if they just have a much higher tolerance for rancorous interactions than you do. Being irrational is quite a good strategy for gaining advantages.

It also seems important in international relations, indeed MAD was implicitly based on it.
It is! Conservatives have been using it in the US for years. For example the debt ceiling - the publicly stated position of Republicans is that they are willing to cause a worldwide economic calamity to cut social spending in the US. That’s not something you negotiate with, it’s something you ignore by using the 14th amendment.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
There is a system in place as you’ve already been told about multiple times. It was adjudicated in the courts. If your argument is we can’t trust the courts well then that will be true for any other system you devise as well. As far as your scenarios go - that’s what they’ve already tried to do once and you’re only proving my point further. You keep people who try to overthrow the government off the ballot because if you don’t and they gain power they won’t give it up because they already showed the system means nothing to them.

I have some bad news for you, the law and the system are important but in the end they won’t save you. There is no need and frankly should be no interest in convincing Trump supporters of anything because they have no interest in it themselves. The system is for the rest of the country.
I'm not questioning the courts, forget the word court right now. It's been started several times that the 14th does not require a conviction, so what does it require? Who is the authority on whether a president has committed insurrection? Does it require a singular authority or essentially peer pressure from the masses? Is the final authority the voting commission that decides who's on the ballot, barring a higher authority telling them otherwise? Does the SC have the authority to reverse the decision of the voting commission on who's permitted to be on the ballot?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
I'm not questioning the courts, forget the word court right now. It's been started several times that the 14th does not require a conviction, so what does it require? Who is the authority on whether a president has committed insurrection? Does it require a singular authority or essentially peer pressure from the masses? Is the final authority the voting commission that decides who's on the ballot, barring a higher authority telling them otherwise? Does the SC have the authority to reverse the decision of the voting commission on who's permitted to be on the ballot?
It requires a finding that someone engaged in insurrection.

You may not realize it but you’re asking an identical question to what is required to determine if someone is 35 or not. If it’s uncontested then that’s it. If it is contested then it is adjudicated in the courts like anything else and like what happened in CO.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
The qualifications for president are:
1) 35 years old
2) natural born citizen
3) has not engaged in insurrection.

None of these qualifications are more or less important than any other and they should be treated identically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Stokely

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,281
3,085
136
Anyone who looks at the evidence made public--which is probably just the tip of the iceberg--and doesn't conclude that Trump tried to steal the last election is either a moron or a liar.

He might skate on the trials because he's rich and people are scared to go after him or because "you can't punish a former President!"; or more likely he and GOP friendlies will delay things to the point where he'll get elected and then handwave it all away. But he's fucking guilty in the court of reality. Same with the documents case, which his pet judge is going to try to bury.

The country is already screwed that such an obvious fraud, rapist and criminal is even sniffing another term. And getting more support than ever from POC, which is like roaches voting for Raid, but hey enjoy the next four years of trying to blend in with the whities. Maybe the next tax "reform" will trickle something down on you.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,230
6,428
136
The qualifications for president are:
1) 35 years old
2) natural born citizen
3) has not engaged in insurrection.

None of these qualifications are more or less important than any other and they should be treated identically.
Except two of those are demonstrable facts and one (in this case) is an opinion. I know you're convinced of Trumps guilt beyond any doubt, I'm not.
Has the SC decided to rule on this before the 1/4 deadline?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
Except two of those are demonstrable facts and one (in this case) is an opinion. I know you're convinced of Trumps guilt beyond any doubt, I'm not.
Has the SC decided to rule on this before the 1/4 deadline?
No, one of those is a fact that may or may not be demonstrable. (Birth records are lost sometimes), and the second two are very much opinions.

For example John McCain was not born inside the US, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Does that make him a natural born citizen? I think so because I think that means citizen at birth but it would not be crazy to think it meant born within the borders of the US.

As far as Trump engaging in insurrection we already discussed this. Trump’s attempt to stay in power was a coup attempt by the definition of the word so unless you’re arguing a coup is not an insurrection we both agree.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,849
30,619
136
Except two of those are demonstrable facts and one (in this case) is an opinion. I know you're convinced of Trumps guilt beyond any doubt, I'm not.
Has the SC decided to rule on this before the 1/4 deadline?

What should Colorado have done differently? There was a process in which Trump was represented and findings of fact were made that preclude him from holding office under the 14th amendment. What process do you find acceptable?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,634
146
It requires a finding that someone engaged in insurrection.

You may not realize it but you’re asking an identical question to what is required to determine if someone is 35 or not. If it’s uncontested then that’s it. If it is contested then it is adjudicated in the courts like anything else and like what happened in CO.
But who makes the claim that has to be contested to begin with? Who in the primary election system makes the initial claim 'soandso can't be on the ballot'? Can it be you or me?