Very democracy-y.

The Rule of Law, The Justice System, and the Constitution are the bedrocks of Democracy. 

Meanwhile, in reality, other leaders are taking note.

 

1 hour ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

my party is too stupid and would rather back the guy that tried to steal the last election. 

It’s cause the republicans spent years of being ussys because they were afraid of a chunk of the electorate, so they said nothing which emboldened the stupid. 

6 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Meanwhile, in reality, other leaders are taking note.

 

Fact is, this exact thing has happened in other democracies around the world. So there's that.

 

Justice Gorsuch in the Hassan case has said that it is "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process" that "permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."

2 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

my party is too stupid and would rather back the guy that tried to steal the last election. 

Your party is now like 80% people like @Kz! who hate moderate republicans like Haley more than they hate Biden.

50 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Very democracy-y.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

So, this is a pretty intellectually interesting case study. The text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear"

Quote

 

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

So breaking this down logically, here are the decision points in my mind:

1. Is the POTUS "an officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States"? Trump has argued that POTUS doesn't fall under this definition because the President is not "an officer of the United States" and the oath is to "preserve, protect and defend," not support. The lower court in CO seemingly agreed with this, but to me that's a BS argument. The better argument for Trump would be to show that the Amendment called out other elected federal positions specifically (Senator and Representative) but not President or Vice President -- that the exclusion of these offices but the inclusion of others reveals the intent. Under contract law, that would be a powerful argument. I'd still argue that POTUS is covered as an "officer of the United States," but Trump could strengthen his argument here and I couldn't vehemently oppose SCOTUS coming to that conclusion. The truth is it never occurred to the drafters of the 14th amendment that we could be dealing with a former President. It also can be argued this doesn't apply to qualification for POTUS if that position is not an "officer of the United States," but I reject that since it also says "civil or military," and the POTUS is the Commander in Chief.

2. What does "engaged in insurrection" actually mean, and who determines what it means? So this is effectively the due process argument and is Trump's best argument -- that no court of law has found him guilty of "insurrection." However, the amendment does NOT require a person to be "convicted" of insurrection, merely to have "engaged" in it. Clearly the CO court reached the conclusion that Trump did "engage" in an insurrection, which of course he did. But the slippery slope and due process argument here is real. 

3. The intent -- clearly this amendment was meant to block former Confederated from being in the Federal Government. Intent matters. 

So where does this end, where should it end? Well, SCOTUS has a chance to do the funniest, and maybe fairest, thing possible. They should rule that Trump can stay on the ballot, BUT...if he is found guilty in the DC trial, he will be barred. They'd have to state that what he is being charged with (conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights) equals "engaging in insurrection" (which isn't a stretch). Basically, they'd punt the issue to the DC Court and the GOP -- tell the GOP they have to decide whether to take the risk that Trump is found guilty before November. It's honestly how I would rule.

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Your party is now like 80% people like @Kz! who hate moderate republicans like Haley more than they hate Biden.

I wouldn't say I hate her more than Biden. Most Republicans do hate swamp Republicans like Haley because they see them as complicit in what the federal government has become.  

OH NOEZ!!!

 

Vivkek Ramaswamy has said he will pull his name of the Colorado primary ballot, if Trump can't be on it.

 

Oh the humanity!

 

The GOP says it will not primary there, and move to a caucus, they are caucus suckers, after all.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

I wouldn't say I hate her more than Biden. Most Republicans do hate swamp Republicans like Haley because they see them as complicit in what the federal government has become.  

You actually make an excellent and well-informed point here. Whoever appointed Haley to a position in the federal government must be one swampy MFer. Any ideas who could've done something so stupid?

The Colorado Supreme Court may not be the highest court in the land, but it's certainly the stonedest.

 

8 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Well, SCOTUS has a chance to do the funniest, and maybe fairest, thing possible. They should rule that Trump can stay on the ballot, BUT...if he is found guilty in the DC trial, he will be barred. They'd have to state that what he is being charged with (conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights) equals "engaging in insurrection" (which isn't a stretch). Basically, they'd punt the issue to the DC Court and the GOP -- tell the GOP they have to decide whether to take the risk that Trump is found guilty before November. It's honestly how I would rule.

I doubt the Supreme Court would issue such a ruling.  The more likely result is that they toss the Colorado decision.  The matter isn't ripe yet for further review.  If he were to be convicted in DC before the election, the matter can be revisited.

30 minutes ago, Procus said:

I doubt the Supreme Court would issue such a ruling.  The more likely result is that they toss the Colorado decision.  The matter isn't ripe yet for further review.  If he were to be convicted in DC before the election, the matter can be revisited.

Doubtful that they’ll revisit it. More likely they’ll leave it up to the states now. 

Also, he’s likely going to be convicted. They’ve got him dead to rights and the feds have an insane conviction rate. You sure you’d rather he was removed from the ballot in the summer rather than now, when the Republicans can still choose whoever else they want?  Because if they remove him then you’re probably stuck with whoever his VP pick is. 

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Doubtful that they’ll revisit it. More likely they’ll leave it up to the states now. 

Also, he’s likely going to be convicted. They’ve got him dead to rights and the feds have an insane conviction rate. You sure you’d rather he was removed from the ballot in the summer rather than now, when the Republicans can still choose whoever else they want?  Because if they remove him then you’re probably stuck with whoever his VP pick is. 

Exactly, the Colorado court is trying to do republicans a favor, but their heads are too far up trumps ass to figure it out.

 

Mary Trump - In loving memory:

14 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Doubtful that they’ll revisit it. More likely they’ll leave it up to the states now. 

Also, he’s likely going to be convicted. They’ve got him dead to rights and the feds have an insane conviction rate. You sure you’d rather he was removed from the ballot in the summer rather than now, when the Republicans can still choose whoever else they want?  Because if they remove him then you’re probably stuck with whoever his VP pick is. 

So it turns out in a suprise twist, the Case before the Colorado Supreme Court was brought by a group of Republicans. How bout them apples. 

 

23 minutes ago, Gannan said:

 

The Standard for baring some one from Office under the 14th Amendment is a preponderance of the Evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. No conviction of insurrection is required. 

34 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

the Case before the Colorado Supreme Court was brought by a group of Republicans

 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

it's nice to see some in the GOP didn't drink the I still use the EMB's #1 Cliche.