Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:40 last edited by
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the Secretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:41 last edited by
And her being a former ACLU official.
Freedom for me, not for thee.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:57 last edited by
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:03 last edited by
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
-
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the Secretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:04 last edited by Jolly@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the
unelectedSecretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot. -
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:10 last edited by
And now...The appointed idiot stays her own decision...
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html
-
And now...The appointed idiot stays her own decision...
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:14 last edited by@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
appointed
Colorado Supreme Court justices are appointed (and subject to electoral approval).
Maine's SoS is appointed.
Democracy dies in appointments.
-
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:16 last edited by@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
My lead? Ha! Trump’s been boning the US since Oral Roberts was a cowboy. Betcha y’all knowed that too.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:41 last edited by
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 03:33 last edited by
Take the red pill: The election was rigged.
Take the blue pill: The erection was rigid.
-
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
-
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.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 10:35 last edited by jon-nyc@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.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
-
@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.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 12:50 last edited by George K@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 13:33 last edited by@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Yes.
This is the foundation of TDS.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 14:38 last edited by@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Again I think it’s unworkable and shouldn’t be used. But it was never envisioned to require a conviction or a charge. It was US policy (generally) not to charge confederate veterans, yet everyone knew this was written to exclude them from office, including those veterans themselves.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 15:16 last edited by
From a strictly scholarly point of discussion, wouldn’t the 14th have disqualified the first 10 Presidents or so?
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 17:01 last edited by
No it has to be an act of insurrection against the US.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 20:20 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
No it has to be an act of insurrection against the US.
Well, technically they have to have led a FAILED insurrection….
-
wrote on 31 Dec 2023, 14:49 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Jan 2024, 23:53 last edited by
Bill Barr:
https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-banning-trump-from-the
I am firmly opposed to Trump’s candidacy. While I think it is critical the Biden administration be beaten at the polls, Trump is not the answer. He is not capable of winning the decisive victory Republicans need to advance conservative principles. And his truculent, petty, and toxic persona—unconstrained by any need to face the voters again—will damage the country.
But I also believe that the efforts to knock him off the ballot are legally untenable, politically counterproductive, and, most ominously, destructive of our political order. The Supreme Court needs to act swiftly to strike down these foolish decisions.
...in present-day America, under existing law, the only way to disqualify someone under Section Three is through criminal prosecution under Section 2383. The federal government, which has painstakingly examined the events of January 6, has not charged President Trump with insurrection or even incitement.
Even if, contrary to this analysis, Section Three is self-executing and states are free to adopt their own ad hoc enforcement procedures, Colorado’s and Maine’s actions do not pass legal muster.
An individual must be afforded due process before the government can deprive him of an important right—like the right to pursue public office.What is especially concerning in the Trump case is that the states are permitting disqualification based on mere preponderance of the evidence, whereas the enforcement mechanism enacted by Congress—prosecution for insurrection—requires a criminal conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The higher standard of proof is essential in this context because a political figure is being punished in connection with activities that, absent a finding of wrongful intent, lie at the heart of the First Amendment: challenging election results. Allowing states to make these decisions based on a lower evidentiary standard will have a serious chilling effect on legitimate election challenges in the future.
If Trump is to be held legally accountable for his actions on January 6, 2021, it should be through the pending federal prosecution that focuses on those actions. Period.