Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:18 last edited by
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule. I just don’t think that using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot is on the same level as trying to overturn a presidential election.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee Trump a right to try it again.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:25 last edited by
In any event it is a sad state of affairs we are in.
-
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule. I just don’t think that using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot is on the same level as trying to overturn a presidential election.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee Trump a right to try it again.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:30 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:57 last edited by
It's ok with me if they keep insurrectionists off the ballot.
Before he is kept off the ballot, Mr. Trump would have to be convicted of insurrection, or at least have some kind of due process that condemns him.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 16:29 last edited by@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
Because it’s unworkable and vague as written, at least without enabling legislation.
-
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
Because it’s unworkable and vague as written, at least without enabling legislation.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 16:52 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
Because it’s unworkable and vague as written, at least without enabling legislation.
Strange to call it vague, when your wording of it and as it applies to Trump is not vague at all. Is there something vague about whether Trump is an insurrectionist, or is the vagueness in the constitution itself and how it uses the term "insurrectionist"?
Just food for thought.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
Because it’s unworkable and vague as written, at least without enabling legislation.
Strange to call it vague, when your wording of it and as it applies to Trump is not vague at all. Is there something vague about whether Trump is an insurrectionist, or is the vagueness in the constitution itself and how it uses the term "insurrectionist"?
Just food for thought.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 17:11 last edited by@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Is there something vague about whether Trump is an insurrectionist
Neither Mr. Trump nor anyone has been convicted of insurrection in connection with the 1/6 doofuss affair.
I don't believe anyone has even been charged either.
-
What makes it unworkable and vague is the idea that a state official has the power to decide what (for example) ‘providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States’ actually means.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 17:29 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
What makes it unworkable and vague is the idea that a state official has the power to decide what (for example) ‘providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States’ actually means.
It's a good thing the 14th it uses the word "insurrectionist" then, which is obviously a much stronger and more clear claim than "aid and comfort to enemies", which could be made to fit a ham sandwich. Coincidentally, "insurrectionist" is the word people use to describe Trump, without equivocation. They get off on that unequivocal use of that word. Yet at the same time it's vague? This does not appear to be a coherent position. At what point does vagueness enter into this word "insurrectionist"?
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 17:31 last edited by
It's fine to admit that scotus should in fact hold up the application of the 14th amendment, to keep Trump from the ballot. A lot of people have that position. It's coherent, for those of us who believe Trump is unequivocally an insurrectionist. Again, this is all only food for thought. Sometimes the appearance of nuance is actually incoherency.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
What makes it unworkable and vague is the idea that a state official has the power to decide what (for example) ‘providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States’ actually means.
It's a good thing the 14th it uses the word "insurrectionist" then, which is obviously a much stronger and more clear claim than "aid and comfort to enemies", which could be made to fit a ham sandwich. Coincidentally, "insurrectionist" is the word people use to describe Trump, without equivocation. They get off on that unequivocal use of that word. Yet at the same time it's vague? This does not appear to be a coherent position. At what point does vagueness enter into this word "insurrectionist"?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 21:16 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Sept 2024, 21:19@Horace It uses both. If it were just insurrection it would be less open to abuse.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 22:25 last edited by
I think the point made about the 14th being enacted to limit state power and this usage strengthening state power over Federal is a very valid argument.
-
@Horace It uses both. If it were just insurrection it would be less open to abuse.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 22:51 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Horace It uses both. If it were just insurrection it would be less open to abuse.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
I am aware those words appear in the amendment. I never claimed they didn't. My claim was that an insurrectionist is disqualified explicitly, regardless of other vague wording that follow the word "or". Not "and". "or". If you have a bunch of conditions strung together by "or" words, the whole condition is true if one of them is true. I hate to spell things out this explicitly but here we are.
-
wrote on 16 Feb 2024, 14:53 last edited by
In which Justice Barrett agrees with me that it's not a good thing that CO is trying to control a national election via paperwork:
Link to video -
12 days later
-
wrote on 29 Feb 2024, 00:31 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Feb 2024, 00:51 last edited by
It would be immoral not to kick him off the ballot. There is blood on the hands of any judge or official who, in any capacity, can remove Trump from ballots, but does not do so.
Period.
Our morals define us. I, for one, will NEVER be complicit in another Trump presidency.
-
wrote on 29 Feb 2024, 14:04 last edited by
Darn, maybe he will won't win Illinois! They've only gone DEM every election for the past 30 years.
-
wrote on 29 Feb 2024, 14:53 last edited by
What are they scared of?
-
wrote on 29 Feb 2024, 15:00 last edited by
In their view, the law says people who engage in insurrection aren't allowed to run for President. So they are scared of an insurrectionist being President. Just the messenger...
