Post New

Proving - the Left hates Democracy.

The left - loves electioneering.

And despite the economic numbers - they feel they can't beat Trump which means even after Trump......the flock will be a factor, and stupid things like - oh - Climate Change will be allowed to fester and grow:)

But the best thing......

Hopefully Dems are not opposed. That means - they can take a state and take more voters, for granted.

Less accountability - is bad for "democracy!".

It's one small step.

But one day, let's fry your Bill of Rights.

Hilarious. Let’s save democracy by denying the public a chance to vote. That’s perfect.

All they’re going to do is make *Biden* more unpopular with this.

EchotaSheeple: Proving - the Left hates Democracy.

Boater: No it is not, it is just more leftist nonsense


Umm.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed the lawsuit in Colorado state court on behalf of four Republican voters and two unaffiliated voters in September, arguing that Trump's actions related to the Jan. 6 assault disqualified him under Section 3.

Sorry, not a democrat among them.

Additionally, the Colorado decision directly quoted lifelong republican Neil Gorsuch's states' rights opinions and what he had to say about protecting ballots from people who did not belong on them.

What fun it'll be to watch Gorsuch twist himself into a hypocritical pretzel to escape his past state's rights opinions.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-colorado-suprem...

What fun it'll be to watch Gorsuch twist himself into a hypocritical pretzel to escape his past state's rights opinions.

I doubt very much that those opinions will be relevant to the issues that get taken up by SCOTUS.

"Boater: No it is not, it is just more leftist nonsense........

Common: Sorry, not a democrat among them."

The ruling was made by unelected Democrat judges .

So do you think that this case has merit and will be allowed to stand?

So do you think that this case has merit and will be allowed to stand?

The people who chant "We hAvE tO sAvE dEmOcRaCy!!!!" the most are the people who understand it the least. And would be the first ones to throw it away to get or maintain power.

If one of the liberals is reading this and agrees with what Colorado is trying to do, then, yes, that describes *you*.

Boater: The ruling was made by unelected Democrat judges .

So do you think that this case has merit and will be allowed to stand?

Dope1: The people who chant "We hAvE tO sAvE dEmOcRaCy!!!!" the most are the people who understand it the least. And would be the first ones to throw it away to get or maintain power.

If one of the liberals is reading this and agrees with what Colorado is trying to do, then, yes, that describes *you*.

You guys are hilarious. You're all about law and order and the sanctity of the courts until rulings don't go your way, then it's "what a bunch of idiots out to destroy democracy."

Although albaby1 is the lawyer here, since you asked, I'll opine.

The Colorado Supreme Court rendered an opinion that provided us with both factual and legal findings. On the factual side, it is now the second court to state that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the lower court's finding that Trump engaged in insurrection and reversed the lower court's finding that the president is not an officer of the United States and therefore is not included in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (14.3).

So both courts found that Trump did not need to be charged with or convicted of insurrection to have committed the act.

Also of note: none of the judges that voted in the minority did so because they thought Trump hadn't participated in an insurrection. They dissented for other reasons.

If the USSC were to agree that Trump participated in an insurrection, then other states would have an easier path to disqualifying him from the ballot. Sort of. The high court would also have to concur on the legal findings of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Since the three dissenting votes in Colorado based their findings on local Colorado election law, the Supremes likely will steer clear of that.

Although albaby1 disagrees, the Colorado Supreme Court opinion seems written knowing it will reach the high court and intentionally quotes Justice Gorsuch when he was serving as a circuit judge in Colorado, first about constitutionally ineligible candidates and then again from Hassan v Colorado.

Will the Supremes decide the president is not an "officer" of the US, or that 14.3 doesn't apply to his oath because of the exact wording of that oath?

I have no idea.

I don't think Trump will be kept off the primary ballot -- there's just not enough time to meet the January 4th deadline. As far as the general election is concerned, it's pretty much a coin toss.

In the end, Colorado is meaningless: Trump has no chance of winning Colorado anyway. This will only matter with respect to actions that swing states might take based on the high courts findings.

That last post was all for you, as it fits you perfectly.

You speak of the sanctity of courts? Boy, please.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This Colorado thing was wrong on 50 levels, but I don't expect Non-Player Characters to understand that.

You did get 1 thing right:
This will only matter with respect to actions that swing states might take based on the high courts findings.

This was the canary in the coal mine to see how the boundaries could be pushed.

Congrats. America is weaker today because of you and your fellow travelers.

Dope1: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...This Colorado thing was wrong on 50 levels, but I don't expect Non-Player Characters to understand that...America is weaker today because of you and your fellow travelers.

You Trump cultists are clueless.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says: "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... 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.”

Addressing his fellow insurrections by announcing to the world, "We love you, you’re very special," sure sounds like "comfort," doesn't it?

And please explain to this Non-Player Character, where are the words "indicted for a crime" or "convicted of a crime" in the amendment?

While you may want this to be a "criminal" matter, it is not; this is a constitutional matter in the same way that impeachment is a constitutional matter. Impeachment does not require indictment or conviction and neither does the 14th amendment.

You Trump cultists are clueless.

You're the cult.
When was Trump put on trial for insurrection? When was he convicted?

I must have missed that.

Your "logic" is equivalent to what an NPC would have. So you think that "insurrection" isn't actually a crime? How interesting. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, all you're doing is making Trump more popular. I can't wait to read you justifying all the inevitable riots if/when he wins.

I agree with what Colorado is trying to do. I just don't think you and I agree on what they're trying to do.

I think they are testing the law. This will be appealed. Does the 14th apply to Trump? He has not been convicted. Under ordinary matters of law, I would say that it doesn't apply without a conviction. Which is why I asked a few days ago what the scholarship around the 14th is.

In my opinion, Trump is guilty as sin of encouraging/instigating insurrection. If it were up to me (as grand ruler of the universe), Trump would not be allowed on another ballot. But my opinion is not a conviction, nor does the Constitution hinge on my opinion. What does it hinge on? I don't know.

That's why I think the Colorado ruling will be overturned. He hasn't been convicted, and I don't think we want a precedent of just being accused to be sufficient to fall under the insurrection rule. We would end up with everyone accusing everyone else of attempted insurrection, and no one would ever be on the ballot again.

OTOH, you don't have to be "convicted" of anything for the 25th to apply. But there is a procedure to enact that, where I don't think there is one to enact the 14th.

But, as always, IANAL. Nor a Constitutional expert.

it is now the second court to state that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.

-----------

His "guilt" was declared and not the result of a trial. No due process.

Reminiscent of Pelosi's attempt to declare a bill as "passed' to avoid actually risking a vote that might go the other way.

to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

--------

Engaged? as determined by who exactly?

Again, this is all a trial balloon to see what the USSC will let these partisan democrat lower courts get away with. Materially, it makes no difference to the process: The Colorado GOP has already raised a middle finger and said "If this stands, we'll just do a caucus instead" and there isn't diddly/squat the state supreme court can do about it.

This is just a warmup for their desperate efforts to throw Trump off the full ballot next November as the Fascist left is starting to sweat.

https://dersh.substack.com/p/alan-dershowitz-color...

In fact, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides that 'The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'

It's clear that this measure was never intended to turn the enforcement mechanisms over to individual states and their courts.

The libs' intention is to sow chaos ahead of the 2024 election, counting on

But regardless of what the high court does, the Republicans will fight back in a tit-for-tat manner.

Outraged – and perhaps emboldened – by this obvious misuse of the 14th Amendment some may try to disqualify President Joe Biden in some states or attempt other anti-democratic means to restrict access to the ballot.

Engaged? as determined by who exactly?

Why, their Totally Democratic You Guys Star Chamber, that's what! Where a bunch of left wingers get to decide who's guilty and what not. Forget that pesky fair trial and confronting your accusers nonsense.

Dope1: Why, their Totally Democratic You Guys Star Chamber, that's what! Where a bunch of left wingers get to decide who's guilty and what not. Forget that pesky fair trial and confronting your accusers nonsense.

You crack me up. Does chanting "Lock Her Up!" ring any bells for you Orange Jesus cultists?

Does the 14th apply to Trump? He has not been convicted. Under ordinary matters of law, I would say that it doesn't apply without a conviction. Which is why I asked a few days ago what the scholarship around the 14th is.

Two points on that question, which I believe are both true and point in different directions:

1) There's no requirement that Trump have been convicted of the crime of insurrection in order for him to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Any more than a President or officer has to be convicted of a crime prior to being impeached. It's entirely consistent with the Constitution for the determination of facts to be done in a civil trial (and yes, there was a trial in the Colorado case) rather than a criminal case. And Congress is not required to have a statute making it a crime to commit insurrection, nor are they required to have any such crime correspond exactly with the text of the 14th Amendment....

but

2) There is a federal statute that makes it a crime to engage in insurrection, and it is absolutely valid to point out that prosecutors' unwillingness to bring a charge against Trump for such crime is a strong indicator that his action do not constitute engaging in insurrection. Moreover, there isn't much factual dispute over what Trump did or said - which means the failure to prosecute is much more likely to reflect a DOJ decision that legally what he did was not the crime of insurrection.

* * *

As far as his supporters go, they're not being disenfranchised. If your preferred candidate for an office isn't eligible for that office, no one has taken away your ability to vote. Millions of people voted for Barack Obama - and if he tried to run for a third term in office, someone would file suit to stop him, and the fact that millions of people might prefer him to any other candidate doesn't change the fact that he is no longer eligible to run for that office.

If Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the 14A, he can't be President. If his supporters are mad about that, then their anger is appropriately direct at Trump for doing the prohibited thing, not at the courts for enforcing the Constitution. But it's obviously an understatement to note that "if" is a very contested point....

You crack me up. Does chanting "Lock Her Up!" ring any bells

Sure does! And Hillary! were she a normal human should have been arrested and tried.

You know. Due process and all that.

But the Fascist left doesn't roll that way, do you? Run along now. Your firmware needs an upgrade.

If Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the 14A, he can't be President. If his supporters are mad about that, then their anger is appropriately direct at Trump for doing the prohibited thing,

What insurrection did Trump participate in?

"...what Trump did or said - which means the failure to prosecute is much more likely to reflect a DOJ decision that legally what he did was not the crime of insurrection." Albaby

The voice of reason provides some sanity to a systematic craziness the public is being subjected to.

<You crack me up. Does chanting "Lock Her Up!" ring any bells for you Orange Jesus cultists?>

Exactly. They spent years chanting LOCK HER UP, now they want to blubber through their tears about 'innocent until proven guilty.'

You gotta love consistency!

What insurrection did Trump participate in?

The Colorado court found, after conducting a two-week trial, that the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection. They also found that Trump's actions in connection with those events constituted "engaging" in that insurrection.

I don't know whether anyone has posted a link to the actual opinion yet. It can be found below. The Court's discussion of whether an insurrection occurred, and whether Trump's actions constituted "engaging" in that insurrection, are on pages 96-116 of the opinion. It's worth reading, if you want to understand the basis for their finding.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Cour...

"You gotta love consistency!"

Yes you do.

Chuck Shumer 2021 "Why are you afraid of democracy ... and want to remove people from voting..."

The voice of reason provides some sanity to a systematic craziness the public is being subjected to.

I wouldn't overstate that. As we've discussed over and over again, a crime almost always requires a prosecutor to prove a particular mental state. A civil violation typically does not.

That's critically important when looking at actions that can be both criminal and civil violations. For example, battery - unlawful physical contact with another person - can be both a crime and a civil tort. If someone hits you and causes you an injury, they can be prosecuted as having committed a crime and you can sue them for damages as a civil claim. The difference is the level of intent necessary to prove up the claim. For a criminal case, the government has to prove that they had specific intent - to cause the injury. For a civil case, you only have to prove general intent - that they intended to hit you.

Specific intent is very hard to prove in many contexts. DOJ can easily have determined that Trump's actions did cause the insurrection to happen (and thus he engaged in insurrection), but that it did not have evidence to prove that Trump intended his actions to cause the insurrection.

That's why I don't think that the failure to prosecute is a slam-dunk, and I do not expect SCOTUS to base any decision on that argument.

The Colorado court found, after conducting a two-week trial, that the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection. They also found that Trump's actions in connection with those events constituted "engaging" in that insurrection.

Wow, they did?! That's nice.

Alan Dershowitz has already shot this full of holes, so I'll just link this: https://dersh.substack.com/p/alan-dershowitz-color...

...and quote him that
The language of the amendment only applies to politicians who have taken the congressional oath -- not the presidential oath. The text specifies an oath to 'support' the Constitution, which is the operative word in the congressional oath. The operative words in the presidential oath are 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution.

This is a technical distinction but coupled with the absence of the word 'president' and the presence of the words 'senator or representative', it cannot be said with certainty that the framers of the amendment intended for it to provide for the disqualification of candidates for the highest office in the land.

Live by the technicality, die by it.

"... but that it did not have evidence to prove that Trump intended his actions to cause the insurrection."

Exactly,. Due process has determined that there was not enough evidence to prove the case, ergo, non impeachable, and to not to be removed from ballots etc.

Alan Dershowitz has already shot this full of holes, so I'll just link this

The Colorado Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. It's laid out in pages 71-87 of the opinion. Again, if you're interested in understanding why they reached the conclusion they did, I recommend actually reading their reasoning.

If the SCOTUS reaches a different conclusion, they'll be able to dispose of the case on those grounds. But there is a counterargument to what Dershowitz argues.

Exactly,. Due process has determined that there was not enough evidence to prove the case, ergo, non impeachable, and to not to be removed from ballots etc.

That's completely incorrect.

First, the evidence of specific intent is not necessary to prove that someone engaged in an insurrection in a civil proceeding. That's the point. A criminal determination of insurrection involves an element that isn't present in proving insurrection in a civil case, which is why it is entirely possible to prove that Trump has "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of the 14A even if you can't prove that he committed the crime of insurrection under the relevant federal statute. And second, DOJ's declining to prosecute is not the same as an acquittal - there's no "due process" in determining that there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution, but an administrative decision.

"First, the evidence of specific intent is not necessary to prove that someone engaged in an insurrection in a civil proceeding."

civil proceeding without the subject being ...tried...is not present to face their accusers?
The issue had already been rejected by the US Senate, no facing ones accusers, to ability to rebut charges.....does this sound like the American way of Justice?

civil proceeding without the subject being ...tried...is not present to face their accusers?

Trump was a party-intervenor, and was a full participant in the trial.

The issue had already been rejected by the US Senate, no facing ones accusers, to ability to rebut charges.....does this sound like the American way of Justice?

Again, there is a difference between civil and criminal charges. You can be acquitted of a criminal charge and subsequently found civilly to have committed those actions (most famously, perhaps, in the case of O.J. Simpson).

"Trump was a party-intervenor, and was a full participant in the trial."

Actually I believe it wasn't even a trial but a local hearing which decided to disenfranchise 1 million voters. I am sorry if this is what American justice is considered to be OK and supported by those screaming for protecting Democracy. Sad.

Actually I believe it wasn't even a trial but a local hearing which decided to disenfranchise 1 million voters. I am sorry if this is what American justice is considered to be OK and supported by those screaming for protecting Democracy. Sad.

That's not correct. The district court conducted a five-day trial, at which trial Trump was allowed to - and did - present his own witnesses and evidence. Those proceedings are summarized in the district court's order, which you can read below:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Cour...

No one has been disenfranchised. All of those voters are free to cast their ballots. They are no more disenfranchised by the fact that Trump has been found (after a trial and numerous appeals) to be ineligible for office than Democrats are disenfranchised by the fact that Barack Obama is no longer eligible for office. Their franchise is based on the right to vote - not for every human being they might want to vote for to be eligible for every office they might want to vote them into.

If Trump lost his eligibility to hold office by engaging in an insurrection, the fact that millions of people might want to vote for him anyway doesn't change his lack of eligibility. And it doesn't disenfranchise them to rule that an ineligible candidate can't appear on the ballot.

"If Trump lost his eligibility to hold office by engaging in an insurrection, the fact that millions of people might want to vote for him anyway doesn't change his lack of eligibility. And it doesn't disenfranchise them to rule that an ineligible candidate can't appear on the ballot."

True, but that isn't the case here. As you point out people ca n still vote for him via write in votes for example, so he has not been determined to be ineligible for the office. Four unknown and unelected judges in Colorado have made it more difficult for people to vote for an eligible individual for office based on ...their... preferences.

Your irrelevant characterization of the judges aside, you do raise an interesting question (for me).

If I write 1poorkid's name on a ballot, and enough others do, and she ends up winning the nomination...is that valid given that she is only 27? POTUS is supposed to be 35. Her name wasn't on the ballot, but enough people wrote it in that she won anyway. Now what?

Now substitute Trump in that situation...can he serve? Or will the results be thrown out due to ineligibility?

From a legal standpoint, this is raising all sorts of interesting questions.

"... you do raise an interesting question (for me).'
No, really, You might notice that they never said that write in votes would not be counted, just that
Trumps name would not be on the ballot.

I get that. But if he is disqualified for whatever reason, is the write-in vote valid? For 1poorkid, age 27, would it be valid if she won despite the requirements of the Constitution? If she is disqualified, even if she wins via write-in, than Trump would also be, assuming the Colorado ruling holds (which is a huge assumption).

}I get that. But if he is disqualified for whatever reason, is the write-in vote valid? For 1poorkid, age 27, would it be valid if she.....|"

That is what is so stupid about this,,We won't list you but we will count count you 0n a write in

No, really, You might notice that they never said that write in votes would not be counted, just that
Trumps name would not be on the ballot.

That depends which "they" you've been listening to.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/20/colorado-supreme-co...

Numerous Republican voters have told CPR News that they plan to write in Trump in that case. However, those votes wouldn’t be counted if the ruling stands, according to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

“We do not count the votes of unqualified write-in candidates,” she said.

Laurence Tribe was on MSNBC tonight and gave a fabulously concise answer to the question about Trump as a write-in candidate (or any other state or federal candidate failing this qualification test). Here's how he framed it.

Imposing a qualification for an office then blocking someone from taking that office or running for it because of a failure to comply with that qualification isn't a PUNISHMENT of the would-be occupant. It's simply a consequence of enforcing the requirment for the office. There is no "right" to run for office. If you meet the requirements, great. If you don't, your "rights" have not been violated.

If someone fails to meet the qualifications for an office, the voters don't have some superseding "right" to push an individual into the position simply by voting for them, even on a write-in basis. The enforcement of the qualification takes precedence over any other input into the process.

Note to people of any political persuasion. This is a good example of why political parties need to do a far better job screening candidates. In this Tribe framing of the issue, "qualification for office" applies at any stage of the process. If a candidate is ineligible for any reason (age, citizenship status, criminal status, insurrection, etc.), if the candidate forges an identity that masks that during the campaign and gets elected THEN the disqualifying information comes out, it won't matter that the candidate GOT on the ballot or WON the election. They are still ineligible for office and once that fact is known, they cannot occupy the office. There won't be a one-term mulligan for anyone eventually found to have such a disqualification.



WTH

good morning, usual suspects, and others, do you think this decision moves one trump supporter away from Trump ? Why help to allow trump to make his point, that he’s a victim of over reach and novel ways to file lawsuits against him? The Dems need an alert, healthy, moderate, articulate candidate under 80 to beat Trump fair and square and the country can try to heal and move forward. Obviously, the sue Trump game plan is not working. Happy healthy holidays to you and yours. ☮️

Now that you have had an opportunity to read both sides from legal scholars like Dersh, Turley, Tribe, etc , what would you bet? Does this 4-3 decision get over ruled or not? Thank you.

Now that you have had an opportunity to read both sides from legal scholars like Dersh, Turley, Tribe, etc , what would you bet? Does this 4-3 decision get over ruled or not? Thank you.

I think it gets overruled. I wouldn't be shocked if it got upheld, but I think the far more likely outcome is that they overrule the decision - and in a way that resolves the issue, rather than dodging it based on standing or some such.

"" I think it gets overruled. "" I've lived in Vegas for 50 years but our books can't book political outcomes or issues like this. I can't find a friend or anyone willing to bet the decision stands. I wish I had access to the lunatics I watched on morning joe this morning, but I don't. If no one believes this 4-3 decision will stand, how does this hurt Trump? How will this cost trump one supporter , how? Thank you.

If no one believes this 4-3 decision will stand, how does this hurt Trump? How will this cost trump one supporter , how? Thank you.

It doesn't hurt Trump.

I don't think very many people in the Democratic party believed that these 14A lawsuits were going to hurt Trump, or make it any more likely that Biden would get re-elected. Because politics is a team sport, almost entirely divided between the two major parties, it's easy to forget that politics and the legal system are pretty much wide open for anyone to participate. These 14A lawsuits weren't some master stroke by the Democratic party as an institution, but mostly the quixotic project of a slice of folks (even some Republicans!) that believe Trump isn't qualified to run for office and thought they could get a binding court ruling that kept him off the ballot.

albaby1: I think it gets overruled. I wouldn't be shocked if it got upheld...

If the high court goes by the facts and the law, it should stand.

Here's why: the three dissenting opinions could not even agree in their dissension.

Boatright wrote that the concept of insurrection is too complex and too vague in comparison to age and birthright. In stock evaluation terms, it goes into the "too hard" pile.

Samour wrote that if Trump did participate in an insurrection then he should be removed from the ballot but that his case should go through the long, slow legal system first and even if he was found guilty his removal would be an "enlargement of state power" that is "antithetical to the framers’ intent." [Samour wins for the stupidest dissent.]

Berkenkotter wrote let's set aside the factual findings, "an insurrection challenge is necessarily going to involve complex legal questions of the type that no district court—no matter how hard working—could resolve in a summary proceeding." Too fast.

In short, pretty weak sauce.

If the high court had a lick of sense and could set aside it's republicanism, several of the justices would realize this is their opportunity -- given that the facts and the law clearly can be interpreted to bar Trump -- to rid their party of the most corrupt anti-democratic politician in American history and let the state supreme court opinion stand.

But they're mostly gutless and a little un-democratic (with a small 'd') to boot so my expectation is they overrule.

If the high court goes by the facts and the law, it should stand.

Here's why: the three dissenting opinions could not even agree in their dissension.

The high court could very easily disagree with the CO court on the facts and the law. They could hold that the events didn't constitute an insurrection within the meaning of the 14A, or that Trump didn't "engage" in the insurrection if it did. They could rule his speech didn't actually meet the Brandenburg v. Ohio test for being unlawful. They could adopt the holding of the CO trial court and intermediate appellate court that the 14A DQ clause doesn't apply to the President. Etc.

I've seen a few comments about the dissenting opinions, and I think they all miss the mark. I think it's pretty clear that the dissenters were trying to find a state law reason to throw out the suit, so that it would end the matter and not be appealable to SCOTUS (SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to hear appeals of purely state law issues). They couldn't get a fourth vote on that strategy - but the strategy is obvious from their dissents, which studiously ignore even a mention of any of the federal law issues involved.

If a candidate is ineligible for any reason (age, citizenship status, criminal status, insurrection, etc.), if the candidate forges an identity that masks that during the campaign and gets elected THEN the disqualifying information comes out, it won't matter that the candidate GOT on the ballot or WON the election. They are still ineligible for office and once that fact is known, they cannot occupy the office. There won't be a one-term mulligan for anyone eventually found to have such a disqualification.

That completely makes sense. But...who's gonna remove Trump if he wins, and is later found to be disqualified? He'll appoint the positions of anyone that could. And how would the mechanics of that work?

And how would the mechanics of that work?

It wouldn't.

We already went through this, with all the litigation filed by the Birthers after Obama's election. All of their cases got thrown out on standing issues. The same thing happened in the Colorado case, AIUI - Trump tried to remove the case to federal court, and was shot down because none of the plaintiffs have standing for a federal claim.

Not every legal defect is justiciable by private parties, and it's highly unlikely that any person has legal standing to challenge the qualifications of a sitting President.

...believe Trump isn't qualified to run for office...

Based on what I've read, he isn't. If no conviction is necessary, the Colorado judges laid-out the evidence in their decision. Should be case-closed. He clearly encouraged it, gave "aid and comfort"...so he's not qualified.

But I agree with you that it probably won't be upheld, but more for political than legal reasons. Unless we're all missing something about the 14th.

...it's highly unlikely that any person has legal standing to challenge the qualifications of a sitting President.

Then what's the point in having qualifications at all if no one can enforce them? Just let it go wild. Elect a 27 yr old Asian girl by write-in because no one can enforce the 35 yr old rule.

Doesn't make sense. But that's not the first time the law (or Constitution) didn't make sense.

Based on what I've read, he isn't. If no conviction is necessary, the Colorado judges laid-out the evidence in their decision. Should be case-closed. He clearly encouraged it, gave "aid and comfort"...so he's not qualified.

They made their argument. I don't think it's a "case-closed" argument. The events of January 6th were so different from the Civil War insurrection, and Trump's "engagement" with it was so different from most Civil War-era politicians' participation, that there's a ton of room for SCOTUS to conclude that those terms don't embrace the 1/6 scenario. Or that the specific language of the 14A doesn't embrace the Presidency. Or that that the CO Court erred when it applied Brandenburg v. Ohio (the case that governs when speech moves into unprotected action). Etc.

There's at least a half-dozen tough determinations on which SCOTUS can base a decision overturning the case, if they disagree.

As for your standing question, not every disagreement about what the law says constitutes a "case" that the U.S. judiciary can adjudicate. To get into court, you have to be presenting to them a dispute between two parties over something that the parties have a specific interest in that is distinguishable from general public policy, such that they specifically have an injury if the law isn't applied properly. There's lots of case law that says that people don't have that kind of specific individualized interest in "who the President is" (or who the governor or mayor or whomever is). That's why Orly Taitz had all of her cases thrown out.

"Indeed, the Supreme Court has "consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy."

https://casetext.com/case/taitz-v-obama

So the only folks who have standing after the election has happened are those who have the power to bring actions on behalf of the public rather than themselves. Congress has the power to impeach. The Attorney General probably has the right to file a writ of quo warranto. Before the election, candidates and campaigns have standing in contesting candidate qualification under a lot of state statutes (not federal ones, because the states determine those issues). Afterwards, not so much.

That completely makes sense. But...who's gonna remove Trump if he wins, and is later found to be disqualified? He'll appoint the positions of anyone that could. And how would the mechanics of that work?

We've got to defeat him at the polls with the electoral college disadvantage. Our problem is the progressives - purists with little concept of the damage they can do.

I agree we need to defeat him in the election. It will almost certainly come down to that, despite all the legal wrangling. In fact, the legal wrangling will probably amplify his "I'm a victim of the establishment" schtick (we see that echoed on this very board from some denizens here).

But from a legal perspective, this is uncharted territory, and therefore interesting. And a bit maddening since we have these rules in place that we can't seem to enforce should they be found to be applicable.

Though albaby brought up another point...does SCOTUS even have jurisdiction? He said that how elections are handled is a state matter. So is this even appropriate for a federal court? They already hit the highest state court in Colorado.

The January 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection, with plenty of violence and over 10 people convicted of seditious conspiracy. Trump continues to give aid and comfort to the violent J6 criminals. He failed to act on January 6th to stop the violence, and recently has called these convicted criminals "hostages".

I agree that the Supreme Court will find a way for Trump to avoid accountability. My guess is on first amendment grounds, over the meaning of "engage". Maybe with a pithy quote like "political speech is free speech and is never used to engage in insurrection".

The House of Representatives impeachment accused Trump of "incitement of insurrection".
“There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things...
“By the strict criminal standard, the president’s speech probably was not incitement. However — however — in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot,” McConnell said.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4946114/minority-le...

Trump has been indicted for:
Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
Conspiracy against rights

Though albaby brought up another point...does SCOTUS even have jurisdiction? He said that how elections are handled is a state matter. So is this even appropriate for a federal court? They already hit the highest state court in Colorado.

Yes, they'll have jurisdiction - because there now exists a live federal "case or controversy" between the parties over the propriety of the Colorado decision.

Let me illustrate by way of an absurd example. Suppose there's a federal law that requires the President to keep a jar of jellybeans on the Resolute Desk under certain circumstances. I, as a random citizen, have no standing to bring a lawsuit to enforce that law if Biden fails to keep a jar of jellybeans on his desk when I think those circumstances have been met. I have no interest or injury at stake to be resolved by a court.

But suppose a federal court lets me file anyway, and issues an order forcing Biden to put jellybeans on his desk. Unlike the initial situation, where I had no actual interest or injury in the case, the analysis turns to whether Biden has an interest or injury in the outcome of that decision. And he clearly does. Biden's interests are concrete, specific to him, and require him (as the aggrieved party) to take an action. So now there is an interest or injury that a party can allege to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

But suppose a federal court lets me file anyway, and issues an order forcing Biden to put jellybeans on his desk. Unlike the initial situation, where I had no actual interest or injury in the case, the analysis turns to whether Biden has an interest or injury in the outcome of that decision. And he clearly does. Biden's interests are concrete, specific to him, and require him (as the aggrieved party) to take an action. So now there is an interest or injury that a party can allege to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

I'm fuzzy on this. Could not Biden raise the question of standing in the original filing? Even if I can, and win that way, I would consider it too risky to not address the issue presented about the jelly beans. So I'd do both.

Could not Biden raise the question of standing in the original filing? Even if I can, and win that way, I would consider it too risky to not address the issue presented about the jelly beans. So I'd do both.

Yes - he certainly would, and that's the point.

In the initial suit, the plaintiff doesn't have standing. The plaintiff has no interest or injury from whether Biden has jellybeans on his desk, so the suit should be dismissed because the party has no standing. But if the court ignores that and issues against an order against Biden, then Biden does have standing to bring the appeal. Because unlike the initial plaintiff, he now does have an interest or injury that can be adjudicated.

So now that the CO electors have won their lawsuit, Trump has a very concrete interest or injury to adjudicate in the federal courts. He will have no difficulty establishing his standing to bring the appeal.

...Trump has a very concrete interest or injury to adjudicate in the federal courts. He will have no difficulty establishing his standing to bring the appeal.

Within CO, had it not been the CO Supreme Court, I would agree. But if how elections are run is up to the states (you said), then how is it a federal matter? That's what I'm not clear on, given that you said previously it was up to the state(s).

But if how elections are run is up to the states (you said), then how is it a federal matter? That's what I'm not clear on, given that you said previously it was up to the state(s).

Because they're arguing that Trump is ineligible due to the US Constitution, not Colorado law.

Within CO, had it not been the CO Supreme Court, I would agree. But if how elections are run is up to the states (you said), then how is it a federal matter? That's what I'm not clear on, given that you said previously it was up to the state(s).

Oh! Sorry, I didn't understand the question.

Just because something is left to the states doesn't mean it won't implicate federal questions. For example, regulation of wills and trusts (estate law) is generally a matter of state law - but if the state does something that is alleged to violate the Fifth Amendment's protection of property rights, then the assertion of that federal claim will make it a "federal question" case for subject matter jurisdiction. Even if the case runs through state courts, if the disposition of the case ultimately turns entirely on a question of federal law, SCOTUS can hear the appeal. For an example of that, the SCOTUS case striking down term limits followed that procedural history: the case went through the Arkansas courts before being heard on appeal by SCOTUS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_In...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.