Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#501
#501
Trump is obviously playing the delay game. But it could backfire on the GOP if they get to the June convention with all of these cases still in limbo because if he is convicted after the convention but before the election they are running a convicted felon.
 
#502
#502
whodeycin85 said:
Texas and Flordia looking to remove Biden from ballot
Click to expand...
Funny. Once again, what goes around comes around. I really think this is a smart play by the republicans. This tit for tat will force the supreme court to step in and basically say: "Enough!" Trump can't be taken of the ballot in any state, and neither can Biden.
 
#503
#503
lawgator1 said:
Trump is obviously playing the delay game. But it could backfire on the GOP if they get to the June convention with all of these cases still in limbo because if he is convicted after the convention but before the election they are running a convicted felon.
Click to expand...

yeah that is a conundrum.
 
#504
#504
hog88 said:
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”.
Click to expand...
The dissenting opinions are pretty interesting with one of them essentially stating that Article 14 belongs solely to Congress and that the ruling steps off into the deep end where it has no business being for numerous reasons.🤷‍♀️
That dissent, by a judge with 30 years on the bench, is a master class in how to super politely call your colleagues idiots without saying those actual words.
I’d bet that Judge Thomas will definitely appreciate the eloquence of it.
 
#505
#505
whodeycin85 said:
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—
Click to expand...
There are arguments both ways. It’s not clear cut that it should come out one way or the other.

First start with what the Supreme Court has said about the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883).
Click to expand...

That’s from the Colorado decision quoting SCOTUS. There is a rebuttal of the section 5 argument from pages 50 to 60. I think it speaks for itself. It also points out that the above language is dicta, (a TV lawyer would never do that). That is why they discuss the issue at such length. One of the dissents discusses it and finds the section 5 argument persuasive.

In the slaughterhouse cases, the court looked at Section 5 itself and said,
In the light of the history of these amendments, and the pervading purpose of them, which we have already discussed, it is not difficult to give a meaning to this clause. The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden. If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation.
Click to expand...

So, there, the Supreme Court did not interpret Section 5 as a prerequisite to the other sections going into effect. That’s also not consistent with how we view other constitutional amendments. Courts enforce them, not congress. To me, it looks like the court was saying that the section means that congress can take action to remedy noncompliance with the amendment. Sounds like a grant of congressional power, like taxation or regulation interstate commerce.

That also makes sense when you think about what that interpretation would undo: I mean, is it even debatable whether section 5 prevents application of section 1, in the absence of congressional action?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
Section 1 is what incorporates the bill of rights (including the 2nd amendment) to the states and requires due process. Is there a law that enforces that? If there’s no congressional law enforcing section 1, then is Trump even entitled to due process in a state court? Does that mean the Supreme Court got it wrong in McDonald and we should gut most of Heller and Bruen over this?

There’s nothing explicit or obvious that makes it clearly apply to some sections of the amendment but not others.

I think those are all really compelling arguments, that I maybe haven’t articulated in the best way.

But I kind of hope that “congress must pass a law” is one of the procedures that comes out of this. One distinction between section 3 and the others is that it operates to deprive people of being on the ballot and it deprives other people of choice, so running that through the representative process seems prudent and fair to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Septic and whodeycin85
#506
#506
RockyTop85 said:
There are arguments both ways. It’s not clear cut that it should come out one way or the other.

First start with what the Supreme Court has said about the 14th Amendment.



That’s from the Colorado decision quoting SCOTUS. There is a rebuttal of the section 5 argument from pages 50 to 60. I think it speaks for itself. It also points out that the above language is dicta, (a TV lawyer would never do that). That is why they discuss the issue at such length. One of the dissents discusses it and finds the section 5 argument persuasive.

In the slaughterhouse cases, the court looked at Section 5 itself and said,


So, there, the Supreme Court did not interpret Section 5 as a prerequisite to the other sections going into effect. That’s also not consistent with how we view other constitutional amendments. Courts enforce them, not congress. To me, it looks like the court was saying that the section means that congress can take action to remedy noncompliance with the amendment. Sounds like a grant of congressional power, like taxation or regulation interstate commerce.

That also makes sense when you think about what that interpretation would undo: I mean, is it even debatable whether section 5 prevents application of section 1, in the absence of congressional action?


Section 1 is what incorporates the bill of rights (including the 2nd amendment) to the states and requires due process. Is there a law that enforces that? If there’s no congressional law enforcing section 1, then is Trump even entitled to due process in a state court? Does that mean the Supreme Court got it wrong in McDonald and we should gut most of Heller and Bruen over this?

There’s nothing explicit or obvious that makes it clearly apply to some sections of the amendment but not others.

I think those are all really compelling arguments, that I maybe haven’t articulated in the best way.

But I kind of hope that “congress must pass a law” is one of the procedures that comes out of this. One distinction between section 3 and the others is that it operates to deprive people of being on the ballot and it deprives other people of choice, so running that through the representative process seems prudent and fair to me.
Click to expand...


42 usc 1983 is the mechanism for enforcement of a claim of a violation of a constitutional right.
 
#510
#510
lawgator1 said:
42 usc 1983 is the mechanism for enforcement of a claim of a violation of a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to bring a case under 1983 for state action to be enjoined as unconstitutional. See e.g. criminal law, broadly. Pretty sure 303 creative and other pre-enforcement declaratory judgment cases also aren’t brought pursuant to that statute.

Ergo, 1983 is not the sole mechanism that enables the operation of Section 1. It is a vehicle for redress of a violation of constitutional rights.

The idea that congress, the government, has to act before constitutional rights become enforceable is antithetical to the purpose of the constitution as a limit on the scope of government power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#513
#513
volfanhill said:
We shall wait to see what the USSC says. Many courts have disagreed with Colorado
Click to expand...
There was no TRIAL in Colorado.......there was no due process.....just 4 corrupt judges who hate Trump broke the law.

www.newsweek.com

Colorado Supreme Court justices defend Trump: "There was no fair trial"

In a blistering dissent, Justice Carlos Samour expressed shock at the court's handling of the case.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

"Justice Carlos Samour took particular issue with how the proceedings unfolded. He argued that Trump hasn't been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an insurrection, so he hasn't had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant.

"There was no fair trial either," Samour wrote, pointing to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers. "I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."

"Samour also took issue with the district court's handling of the case. He disagreed with the district court not allowing experts to be deposed and the decision to limit expert testimony. He likened the case to fitting a square peg into a round hole, which the district court allowed, writing that it was a "procedural Frankenstein."

"In my view, what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands," Samour wrote."

Donald Russo
@donaldrusso994

"Trump clearly beats Colorado on the fact that he was never charged with, or convicted of, insurrection. But even more importantly, Trump was acquitted of insurrection in a Senate trial February 13, 2021. You'd better read all about the doctrine of res judicata or else you won't be able to understand what SCOTUS is about to do. HINT: let's use the famous @AlanDersh shoe on the other foot test: you know damn well that if Trump had been CONVICTED on 2/13/21 instead of acquitted, he definitely would have been charged with insurrection 6 ways to Sunday by a Democrat Party prosecutor. Trump put on an aggressive and exhaustive defense before the Senate in February of 2021. Sorry, but he doesn't have to do it again. That's the way this works"


 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#514
#514
jmacvols1 said:
There was no TRIAL in Colorado.......there was no due process.....just 4 corrupt judges who hate Trump broke the law.

www.newsweek.com

Colorado Supreme Court justices defend Trump: "There was no fair trial"

In a blistering dissent, Justice Carlos Samour expressed shock at the court's handling of the case.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

"Justice Carlos Samour took particular issue with how the proceedings unfolded. He argued that Trump hasn't been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an insurrection, so he hasn't had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant.

"There was no fair trial either," Samour wrote, pointing to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers. "I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."

"Samour also took issue with the district court's handling of the case. He disagreed with the district court not allowing experts to be deposed and the decision to limit expert testimony. He likened the case to fitting a square peg into a round hole, which the district court allowed, writing that it was a "procedural Frankenstein."

"In my view, what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands," Samour wrote."

Donald Russo
@donaldrusso994

"Trump clearly beats Colorado on the fact that he was never charged with, or convicted of, insurrection. But even more importantly, Trump was acquitted of insurrection in a Senate trial February 13, 2021. You'd better read all about the doctrine of res judicata or else you won't be able to understand what SCOTUS is about to do. HINT: let's use the famous @AlanDersh shoe on the other foot test: you know damn well that if Trump had been CONVICTED on 2/13/21 instead of acquitted, he definitely would have been charged with insurrection 6 ways to Sunday by a Democrat Party prosecutor. Trump put on an aggressive and exhaustive defense before the Senate in February of 2021. Sorry, but he doesn't have to do it again. That's the way this works"


Click to expand...

Stop. The Senate doesnt dictate law to the SC. The SC rulings are all that matter here
 
#515
#515
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a state law that prevents caucus. It was passed in 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#516
#516
NurseGoodVol said:
There is a state law that prevents caucus. It was passed in 2016.
Click to expand...

Nothing says totalitarianism like making it possible to dictate who won't be on the ballot. CO is a very screwed up place (the original school shooting didn't happen there without reason); there's something dark and sinister there ... and has been for a while. CA is going to be hard pressed to stay out in front of the lunatic states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, CobbVol, davethevol and 1 other person
#517
#517
volfanhill said:
Stop. The Senate doesnt dictate law to the SC. The SC rulings are all that matter here
Click to expand...
I was pointing out the Senate already found Trump not guilty of an insurrection therefore Trump cannot keep getting tried over and over. The so called trial in Colorado was a farce in trying to convict a man who has already been found innocent, Trump was acquitted. What happened in Colorado was illegal and should not ever taken place and therefore should not be wasting the time of SOCTUS on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and AM64
#519
#519
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is Volnation. We freak out over the score on the first drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BernardKingGOAT, GroverCleveland and 1 other person
#522
#522
turbovol said:
We don't need trials to know what kind of person the gangster is--and what he has done--and whether he deserves further political support.

If you see a man beating his wife in his front yard, you don't REALLY need to wait on his assault trial to make a judgment about his character.
Click to expand...
“We don’t need trials”
- Turbo

Sounds about right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, CobbVol, whodeycin85 and 5 others
#523
#523
turbovol said:
We don't need trials to know what kind of person the gangster is--and what he has done--and whether he deserves further political support.

If you see a man beating his wife in his front yard, you don't REALLY need to wait on his assault trial to make a judgment about his character.
Click to expand...
What if she just murdered their kids or was trying to?


Good lord


IMG_2123.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, Orangeburst and 85SugarVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top