Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
What's the end result in the long run?
Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?
If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.
This is just wrong. He attempted to overturn an election. These two states attempted to keep a single name off a ballot.
According to the polls, that single name not being on the ballot is likely to change the results of the next election.
-
In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.
Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.
Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.
So we're quibbling over price, when precedent is obviously the important thing here. If it works in CO and ME, then what?
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
So we're quibbling over price, when precedent is obviously the important thing here. If it works in CO and ME, then what?
Exactly. This is a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop Texas from disqualifying Biden because he’s ignoring immigration laws?
And, it doesn’t even matter if he is. All they have to do is say that he
participated in an insurrectionis. -
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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@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.
-
@Copper - we talked about why none of that was necessary for the 14th amendment before. It is relevant to what makes it unworkable tho in go.
-
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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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"?
-
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.
-
@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 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.
-
@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.
-
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
