Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

[hog88]

What hysteria?

I don't actually think it's the end of our democracy. I'm referencing something that's been said many times in this thread and I don't remember you laughing at the hysteria of their posts.

Your post was full of it.

 

[hog88]

Unless I've read the CO ruling wrong, if it stands the ruling only applies to the CO primary and not the general election. If that is the case, then all the CO Republican party has to do (unless there is a state law preventing it) is cancel the primary and go to a caucus system to award delegates.

 

[RockyTop85]

Unless I've read the CO ruling wrong, if it stands the ruling only applies to the CO primary and not the general election. If that is the case, then all the CO Republican party has to do (unless there is a state law preventing it) is cancel the primary and go to a caucus system to award delegates.

Governments shouldn’t be involved in the primary process for private political parties. Not sure when that started. But if they booted him off this ballot, it seems like a good indicator of what they would do in the general.

 

[hog88]

Governments shouldn’t be involved in the primary process for private political parties. Not sure when that started. But if they booted him off this ballot, it seems like a good indicator of what they would do in the general.

Probably so but IMUEO I think this is a test fire.

 

[RockyTop85]

Probably so but IMUEO I think this is a test fire.

It needed to go in front of the Supreme Court. There needs to be a uniform definition and process for doing this. This gets it there.

Not saying that’s why Colorado Supreme Court did it, but people are freaking out about the score at the end of the third quarter. There are too many funky aspects to this to think it doesn’t get overturned.

 

[whodeycin85]

Insurrection for what's happening at the southern border and corrupt family business....

People crying that this CO ruling was "the end of democracy as we knew it" must've known the Republicans would retaliate by taking it to an absurd level where their gripes have nothing to do with the concept of insurrection. At least, it's debatable with Trump.

Look what these judges made us do. They destroyed our democracy. - Republicans

If Biden wins, it won't be because Trump wasn't on the ballot in CO but if Trump wins because Biden isn't on Georgia's ballot...because of the southern border?...who is stealing elections again?

So wait your in favor of one set of rules for the DNC but the GOP isnt allowed the same rules???

 

[DynaLo]

They stayed their own decision pending a SCOTUS appeal, that once filed, puts the decision on an indefinite stay pending a ruling from SCOTUS, so CO knows their ruling is worth less than the paper costs to print it out.

It’s political theater to provide red meat talking points by a judiciary that is overstepping their lane 6 ways from Sunday.

 

[rekinhavoc]

Insurrection for what's happening at the southern border and corrupt family business....

People crying that this CO ruling was "the end of democracy as we knew it" must've known the Republicans would retaliate by taking it to an absurd level where their gripes have nothing to do with the concept of insurrection. At least, it's debatable with Trump.

Look what these judges made us do. They destroyed our democracy. - Republicans

If Biden wins, it won't be because Trump wasn't on the ballot in CO but if Trump wins because Biden isn't on Georgia's ballot...because of the southern border?...who is stealing elections again?

Don't use our tactics against us! - Democrats

It is all absurd.

 

[rekinhavoc]

Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Remove Trump From Ballot in Another State

A federal judge ruled that the plaintiff's lawsuit lacked standing.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Supreme Court Declines to issue expedited ruling on Trump immunity case​

The Supreme Court has declined to issue an expedited ruling Friday on whether former President Trump has immunity from prosecution related to the 2020 election interference case.

Supreme Court declines to issue expedited ruling on Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court has declined to fast-track a case regarding whether former President Trump has absolute immunity from alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

www.foxnews.com

 

[RockyTop85]

I. I saw several comments saying, basically, that the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to do this. That is blatant, willful ignorance, given the prominent role of courts and constitutional interpretation in recent events.

Constitutional provisions are enforced by suing the state official whose actions violate the provision. That’s as old as judicial review itself.
Colorado law creates standing and a cause of action for these plaintiffs. That probably isn’t even reviewable by SCOTUS.
Courts interpret the meaning of constitutional provisions and apply them to state action.
The 14th amendment disqualifies those that engage in insurrection, among other things, from holding office. It’s perfectly valid for courts to interpret what the amendment means and block government action that is inconsistent with it.

II. I saw a lot of comments saying that their stay of the decision is an admission of something.

Wrong again.

It makes sense to stay the decision because:
1. There is no guidance in American law for applying the amendment and it has created a lot of confusion and disagreement among courts that have been asked to apply it.
2. There needs to be a uniform definition of engaging in insurrection that applies to all states.
3. There needs to be a uniform process executing the amendment that respects the interest of citizens and the candidate facing disqualification.
4. In light of 1-3, SCOTUS is certain to take it up.

Practically speaking, this process and this definition aren’t going to be the ones adopted by SCOTUS. They may find some incrementalist solution that gets them out of making a landmark ruling that dictates the proper procedure (e.g. states can’t govern private political party primaries), but the incremental solution would still overrule the decision.

III. Also saw a lot of comments saying he got “no due process.”

Trump was given notice, the case was heard in front of a neutral trier of fact, and I assume, since it was characterized as a trial, that his side was allowed to present evidence and make. That fits the meaning of due process as it was defined even before the colonies were established.

You can argue about whether the process was adequate to the outcome (and so saying he clearly received adequate due process because there was a trial is also an overstatement) but what happened comported with procedural due process.

Conclusion.
As I see it, the text of the constitution supports outcome, but individual state courts trying to free style procedures and their own individual definitions for phrases used in the amendment is a recipe for disaster. The procedure for stripping people of the ability to vote for a candidate and the candidates ability to get on the ballot should be rigorous.

Tl;dr. If you’re listening to or reading people saying this was overreach, that he got no due process, or that he clearly got due process, you should probably stop listening to them and listen to somebody else.

 

[whodeycin85]

I. I saw several comments saying, basically, that the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to do this. That is blatant, willful ignorance, given the prominent role of courts and constitutional interpretation in recent events.

Constitutional provisions are enforced by suing the state official whose actions violate the provision. That’s as old as judicial review itself.
Colorado law creates standing and a cause of action for these plaintiffs. That probably isn’t even reviewable by SCOTUS.
Courts interpret the meaning of constitutional provisions and apply them to state action.
The 14th amendment disqualifies those that engage in insurrection, among other things, from holding office. It’s perfectly valid for courts to interpret what the amendment means and block government action that is inconsistent with it.

II. I saw a lot of comments saying that their stay of the decision is an admission of something.

Wrong again.

It makes sense to stay the decision because:
1. There is no guidance in American law for applying the amendment and it has created a lot of confusion and disagreement among courts that have been asked to apply it.
2. There needs to be a uniform definition of engaging in insurrection that applies to all states.
3. There needs to be a uniform process executing the amendment that respects the interest of citizens and the candidate facing disqualification.
4. In light of 1-3, SCOTUS is certain to take it up.

Practically speaking, this process and this definition aren’t going to be the ones adopted by SCOTUS. They may find some incrementalist solution that gets them out of making a landmark ruling that dictates the proper procedure (e.g. states can’t govern private political party primaries), but the incremental solution would still overrule the decision.

III. Also saw a lot of comments saying he got “no due process.”

Trump was given notice, the case was heard in front of a neutral trier of fact, and I assume, since it was characterized as a trial, that his side was allowed to present evidence and make. That fits the meaning of due process as it was defined even before the colonies were established.

You can argue about whether the process was adequate to the outcome (and so saying he clearly received adequate due process because there was a trial is also an overstatement) but what happened comported with procedural due process.

Conclusion.
As I see it, the text of the constitution supports outcome, but individual state courts trying to free style procedures and their own individual definitions for phrases used in the amendment is a recipe for disaster. The procedure for stripping people of the ability to vote for a candidate and the candidates ability to get on the ballot should be rigorous.

Tl;dr. If you’re listening to or reading people saying this was overreach, that he got no due process, or that he clearly got due process, you should probably stop listening to them and listen to somebody else.

What about section 5 of the amendment? Wouldn't this mean that Congress is the enforcement arm of the clause.

Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—

 

[volfanhill]

I. I saw several comments saying, basically, that the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to do this. That is blatant, willful ignorance, given the prominent role of courts and constitutional interpretation in recent events.

Constitutional provisions are enforced by suing the state official whose actions violate the provision. That’s as old as judicial review itself.
Colorado law creates standing and a cause of action for these plaintiffs. That probably isn’t even reviewable by SCOTUS.
Courts interpret the meaning of constitutional provisions and apply them to state action.
The 14th amendment disqualifies those that engage in insurrection, among other things, from holding office. It’s perfectly valid for courts to interpret what the amendment means and block government action that is inconsistent with it.

II. I saw a lot of comments saying that their stay of the decision is an admission of something.

Wrong again.

It makes sense to stay the decision because:
1. There is no guidance in American law for applying the amendment and it has created a lot of confusion and disagreement among courts that have been asked to apply it.
2. There needs to be a uniform definition of engaging in insurrection that applies to all states.
3. There needs to be a uniform process executing the amendment that respects the interest of citizens and the candidate facing disqualification.
4. In light of 1-3, SCOTUS is certain to take it up.

Practically speaking, this process and this definition aren’t going to be the ones adopted by SCOTUS. They may find some incrementalist solution that gets them out of making a landmark ruling that dictates the proper procedure (e.g. states can’t govern private political party primaries), but the incremental solution would still overrule the decision.

III. Also saw a lot of comments saying he got “no due process.”

Trump was given notice, the case was heard in front of a neutral trier of fact, and I assume, since it was characterized as a trial, that his side was allowed to present evidence and make. That fits the meaning of due process as it was defined even before the colonies were established.

You can argue about whether the process was adequate to the outcome (and so saying he clearly received adequate due process because there was a trial is also an overstatement) but what happened comported with procedural due process.

Conclusion.
As I see it, the text of the constitution supports outcome, but individual state courts trying to free style procedures and their own individual definitions for phrases used in the amendment is a recipe for disaster. The procedure for stripping people of the ability to vote for a candidate and the candidates ability to get on the ballot should be rigorous.

Tl;dr. If you’re listening to or reading people saying this was overreach, that he got no due process, or that he clearly got due process, you should probably stop listening to them and listen to somebody else.

 

[lawgator1]

What about section 5 of the amendment? Wouldn't this mean that Congress is the enforcement arm of the clause.

Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—

I don't think so. Congress, after adoption of the 14th Amendment (along with the 13th) passed 42 USC s. 1983, which allows people who's rights are violated to sure the government official and agency responsible.

That they did that doesn't mean that the states can't act to protect constitutional rights, too. And the irony is worth noting : the GOP proudly proclaims its adherence to state rights.... until a given state does something the GOP doesn't like.

 

[whodeycin85]

I don't think so. Congress, after adoption of the 14th Amendment (along with the 13th) passed 42 USC s. 1983, which allows people who's rights are violated to sure the government official and agency responsible.

That they did that doesn't mean that the states can't act to protect constitutional rights, too. And the irony is worth noting : the GOP proudly proclaims its adherence to state rights.... until a given state does something the GOP doesn't like.

It'll be curious how the SCOTUS will rule...huge implications...I'm very curious if the will comment on j6 as an insurrection without any actual insurrection charges against most involved in j6.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[DynaLo]

I. I saw several comments saying, basically, that the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to do this. That is blatant, willful ignorance, given the prominent role of courts and constitutional interpretation in recent events.

Constitutional provisions are enforced by suing the state official whose actions violate the provision. That’s as old as judicial review itself.
Colorado law creates standing and a cause of action for these plaintiffs. That probably isn’t even reviewable by SCOTUS.
Courts interpret the meaning of constitutional provisions and apply them to state action.
The 14th amendment disqualifies those that engage in insurrection, among other things, from holding office. It’s perfectly valid for courts to interpret what the amendment means and block government action that is inconsistent with it.

II. I saw a lot of comments saying that their stay of the decision is an admission of something.

Wrong again.

It makes sense to stay the decision because:
1. There is no guidance in American law for applying the amendment and it has created a lot of confusion and disagreement among courts that have been asked to apply it.
2. There needs to be a uniform definition of engaging in insurrection that applies to all states.
3. There needs to be a uniform process executing the amendment that respects the interest of citizens and the candidate facing disqualification.
4. In light of 1-3, SCOTUS is certain to take it up.

Practically speaking, this process and this definition aren’t going to be the ones adopted by SCOTUS. They may find some incrementalist solution that gets them out of making a landmark ruling that dictates the proper procedure (e.g. states can’t govern private political party primaries), but the incremental solution would still overrule the decision.

III. Also saw a lot of comments saying he got “no due process.”

Trump was given notice, the case was heard in front of a neutral trier of fact, and I assume, since it was characterized as a trial, that his side was allowed to present evidence and make. That fits the meaning of due process as it was defined even before the colonies were established.

You can argue about whether the process was adequate to the outcome (and so saying he clearly received adequate due process because there was a trial is also an overstatement) but what happened comported with procedural due process.

Conclusion.
As I see it, the text of the constitution supports outcome, but individual state courts trying to free style procedures and their own individual definitions for phrases used in the amendment is a recipe for disaster. The procedure for stripping people of the ability to vote for a candidate and the candidates ability to get on the ballot should be rigorous.

Tl;dr. If you’re listening to or reading people saying this was overreach, that he got no due process, or that he clearly got due process, you should probably stop listening to them and listen to somebody else.

Care to explain how a Colorado court ruled on section 3 while completely ignoring section 5 of that very same Article 14?

Due to explicitly designating Congress as the sole enforcement power of Article 14 in section 5, did the Colorado court not step outside their lane by attempting to enforce what they, as clearly stated, don’t have the authority to enforce?

I appreciate any response you may give but all in all and no offense to you, I think I’ll pay much closer attention to the takes on this issue put forth by Dershowitz, Turley and Barnes, the Constitutional lawyer type guys.

 

[whodeycin85]

Texas and Flordia looking to remove Biden from ballot

 

[hog88]

I. I saw several comments saying, basically, that the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to do this. That is blatant, willful ignorance, given the prominent role of courts and constitutional interpretation in recent events.

Constitutional provisions are enforced by suing the state official whose actions violate the provision. That’s as old as judicial review itself.
Colorado law creates standing and a cause of action for these plaintiffs. That probably isn’t even reviewable by SCOTUS.
Courts interpret the meaning of constitutional provisions and apply them to state action.
The 14th amendment disqualifies those that engage in insurrection, among other things, from holding office. It’s perfectly valid for courts to interpret what the amendment means and block government action that is inconsistent with it.

II. I saw a lot of comments saying that their stay of the decision is an admission of something.

Wrong again.

It makes sense to stay the decision because:
1. There is no guidance in American law for applying the amendment and it has created a lot of confusion and disagreement among courts that have been asked to apply it.
2. There needs to be a uniform definition of engaging in insurrection that applies to all states.
3. There needs to be a uniform process executing the amendment that respects the interest of citizens and the candidate facing disqualification.
4. In light of 1-3, SCOTUS is certain to take it up.

Practically speaking, this process and this definition aren’t going to be the ones adopted by SCOTUS. They may find some incrementalist solution that gets them out of making a landmark ruling that dictates the proper procedure (e.g. states can’t govern private political party primaries), but the incremental solution would still overrule the decision.

III. Also saw a lot of comments saying he got “no due process.”

Trump was given notice, the case was heard in front of a neutral trier of fact, and I assume, since it was characterized as a trial, that his side was allowed to present evidence and make. That fits the meaning of due process as it was defined even before the colonies were established.

You can argue about whether the process was adequate to the outcome (and so saying he clearly received adequate due process because there was a trial is also an overstatement) but what happened comported with procedural due process.

Conclusion.
As I see it, the text of the constitution supports outcome, but individual state courts trying to free style procedures and their own individual definitions for phrases used in the amendment is a recipe for disaster. The procedure for stripping people of the ability to vote for a candidate and the candidates ability to get on the ballot should be rigorous.

Tl;dr. If you’re listening to or reading people saying this was overreach, that he got no due process, or that he clearly got due process, you should probably stop listening to them and listen to somebody else.

Thanks, pretty good analysis

 

[hog88]

I don't think so. Congress, after adoption of the 14th Amendment (along with the 13th) passed 42 USC s. 1983, which allows people who's rights are violated to sure the government official and agency responsible.

That they did that doesn't mean that the states can't act to protect constitutional rights, too. And the irony is worth noting : the GOP proudly proclaims its adherence to state rights.... until a given state does something the GOP doesn't like.

I have to agree with you on this.

 

[hog88]

Care to explain how a Colorado court ruled on section 3 while completely ignoring section 5 of that very same Article 14?

Due to explicitly designating Congress as the sole enforcement power of Article 14 in section 5, did the Colorado court not step outside their lane by attempting to enforce what they, as clearly stated, don’t have the authority to enforce?

I appreciate any response you may give but all in all and no offense to you, I think I’ll pay much closer attention to the takes on this issue put forth by Dershowitz, Turley and Barnes, the Constitutional lawyer type guys.

This lawsuit was just about removing him from the primary ballot which is really none of the states business but whatever. This particular ruling doesn’t apply to the general election and if the CO Republicans want they can just cancel the primary and caucus. IMO this is a trial ballon and hopefully SCOTUS simply says “it’s a state primary and it’s none of our business”.

 

[hUTch2002]

It's more than a feeling. The headlines aren't wrong about what hes done and what hes on trial for. It's that alternative conservative media has so thoroughly indoctrinated and isolated the right from reality that it cant be perceived by people on the right as anything more than partisan justice.

Does it bother anyone at all that trump is promising to end our democracy and establish himself as dictator?

That indoctrination is a 2-way street. About every liberal I know still thinks Trump called Neo-cons “very fine people” and never even question it. I agree it happens with the conservatives/Fox too.

 

[hUTch2002]

I understand that, but those electors are convening for a national election. You raised an interesting point and I admit I'm not entirely satisfied by my response. I'll have to cogitate on this and see if I can come up with a better one.

Careful. I hear that causes hairy palms.

 

[evillawyer]

Careful. I hear that causes hairy palms.

But that's only when cogitating to the Moms for Liberty lady.

 

[hUTch2002]

But that's only when cogitating to the Moms for Liberty lady.

She’s pretty hairy too, just not her palms.