Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
I don't know who he is, but I want the Babylon Bee guy that writes this stuff to be the next president.
@Copper said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I don't know who he is, but I want the Babylon Bee guy that writes this stuff to be the next president.
He doesn’t write all of them, but he runs the team that does…
-
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
How else can one determine someone participated in an insurrection?
-
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Trump has never been charged with insurrection.
That's my question. Does there need to be a charge? For example, if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements?
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Trump has never been charged with insurrection.
That's my question. Does there need to be a charge? For example, if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements?
Big difference between an allegation of behavior and an objectively true fact.
-
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Trump has never been charged with insurrection.
That's my question. Does there need to be a charge? For example, if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements?
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements
"Convicted?" No.
However, this exact case (well, not Ahnold) was the case in which Gorsuch opined that a state can disqualify a candidate. It is the "precedent" being cited by many who support the Colorado decision.
-
https://reason.com/2023/12/21/was-the-capitol-riot-an-insurrection-and-did-trump-engage-in-it/
Achieving the same result under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, does require concluding that Trump "engaged in insurrection." But in reaching that conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court never actually defines insurrection.
"At oral argument," the opinion notes, "President Trump's counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct." But the court does not offer "a specific definition" either: "It suffices for us to conclude that any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country."
So it wasn't "Rape" rape.
Nor is it clear that Trump "engaged in" the "insurrection" that the court perceives. After reviewing dictionary definitions and the views of Henry Stanbery, the U.S. attorney general when the 14th Amendment was debated, the majority concludes that "'engaged in' requires 'an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.'"
Trump's pre-riot speech was reckless because it was foreseeable that at least some people in his audience would be moved to go beyond peaceful protest. Some 2,000 of the 50,000 or so supporters he addressed that day (around 4 percent) participated in the assault on the Capitol. But that does not necessarily mean Trump intended that result.
All of this evidence is consistent with recklessness and dereliction of duty. But it falls short of proving that Trump deliberately "encouraged the use of violence" or that he had a "specific intent" to cause a riot, let alone that he thereby "engaged in insurrection."
-
The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”
The outcome, which was generally expected, contrasts with the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.
With these dueling decisions, the expected appeals to the US Supreme Court become even more critical, especially as the nation races toward the start of the 2024 primaries. Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the case on procedural grounds.
The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts.
His decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned, and the court did not release a vote count.
Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan courts rejected the case wholly on procedural grounds. They never reached the questions of whether January 6 was an insurrection and whether Trump engaged in it.
-
-
Ilya Somin:
Over the last two days, the states of Maine and Michigan have issued rulings on challenges to Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (a Democrat) ruled that Trump is disqualified from being a candidate in the state's GOP presidential primary. Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to reconsider lower court rulings holding that Trump cannot be removed from the state's primary ballot because state law doesn't require primary candidates to be legally eligible for the office they seek election to.
The Maine decision is the more significant of the two, because it actually reaches the merits of the Section 3 issue. Secretary Bellows' ruling is similar to the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision on the same subject. Like the Colorado court, Bellows concludes that the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection (an easy call, in my view), that Trump's activities amounted to "engaging" in that insurrection (I think this is the hardest issue at stake), that the president is an "officer of the United States" covered by Section 3 (another easy issue), that Trump's activities were not protected by the First Amendment, and that Section 3 is "self-executing" and thus states can enforce it without additional congressional legislation. Like the Colorado Supreme Court, Bellows also concludes that the laws of her state require candidates whose names appear on primary ballots to be eligible for the office they seek.
I won't review Bellows' reasoning in detail. But, as already noted, it is largely similar to that of the Colorado Supreme Court decision, which I analyzed at some length here. I think the Colorado ruling is correct, and therefore Bellows' decision is sound, as well. As Bellows notes, her ruling is subject to review by state courts and—ultimately—the US Supreme Court.
...
I did a more detailed overview of the legal, moral, and political issues at stake in the Section 3 litigation in this article. In a more recent post, I explained why Section 3 disqualification doesn't require a prior criminal conviction for insurrection.
Critics of Somin's reasoning argue that article 5 of the 14 amendment explicitly states that enforcement is a matter for Congress, not the states.
- The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Power. POWER. POWER!
That is Trump's motivation, you're right!
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Power. POWER. POWER!
That is Trump's motivation, you're right!
Be off with you, Biden-boy!
-
LOL I do not like Biden. He shuffles around like a lost patient in a public gym locker room looking for the nearest hair dryer. But if he loses in the election, he'll at least take the loss like a man instead of a whiny 3rd grader making up stories and refusing to accept the results.
-
Hell, he lost last time, until Trump couldn't beat the cheat.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Hell, he lost last time, until Trump couldn't beat the cheat.
Dude, there's 5 stages of grief. Time to move past the first one.
