Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

[SMOGZINN]

Just like the the other argument some were trying to advance: he's somehow not an officer when President, despite occupying an office of the United States and taking an oath, because he isn't on this semi arbitrary list on this 150 year old paper, nevermind that such logic would mean that Jefferson Davis could have run for president then.

And never mind that it was asked on the floor of the Senate when debating the wording of the 14th amendment if that language would include the President, and it was an unambiguous yes from all parties.

 

[pmv]

After reading the questions that the Justices asked it seems that they are leaning on ruling that the 14th Amendment is poorly worded and would cause a lot of work for them to straighten out so they are just going to ignore it and rule in favor of Trump so as to not having to hear a bunch more cases on it.

Good precedent for dealing with the 2nd amendment, surely? Just get the right people on the Court and declare "too many commas, it's barely a sentence, who knows what it means anyway, so let's just ignore it"

 

[pmv]

Or just appoint a bunch of illiterate people to the court and throw out the whole document. "What do all these funny-looking squiggles mean anyhow? Nobody knows - if the founders wanted us to pay attention to it they'd have made a YouTube video about it"

 

[eelw]

I don't disagree with you. There are 3 conditions that need to be met for him to be removed from a ballot. 1) Insurrection, 2) 14th applies to him, and 3) Supremes agree Trump did 1 and 2. If today's conversation is any indication, condition 3 is not going to be met.

From the parts I heard, defense lawyer “only congress can make insurrection decision”. Forgot which justice, “so when new congress is sworn in, could they remove them before Inauguration Day?” Lawyer had to sheepishly agree

 

[Dave_5k]

From the parts I heard, defense lawyer “only congress can make insurrection decision”. Forgot which justice, “so when new congress is sworn in, could they remove them before Inauguration Day?” Lawyer had to sheepishly agree

And a substantial majority of both the house and senate did in fact find Trump to have committed said insurrection, but not the supermajority separately needed to convict on impeachment (no supermajority is specified for an insurrection finding...)

 

[ivwshane]

Good precedent for dealing with the 2nd amendment, surely? Just get the right people on the Court and declare "too many commas, it's barely a sentence, who knows what it means anyway, so let's just ignore it"

Yeah that’s kind of how we got here. The Supreme Court reinterpreted the 2nd while also ignoring precedent.

If the SC says the 14th doesn’t apply to the president then the Dems need to make either expanding the court or impeaching several justices (Thomas at least), otherwise all of their legislation will eventually be killed via the bench.

 

[ivwshane]

So it sounds like the reasoning the SC will use to overturn the ruling is that it allows states to abuse this power and make getting people on the ballot a political issue.

Let me just ask this; since when has an abuse of power of an constitutionally stated power, ever been reason enough to ignore the constitution?

For example, the president has the power to pardon. However it’s pretty obvious trump abused that power in order to protect himself. If the SC uses the reasoning I think they will then the presidential pardon power can be taken away with zero constitutional amendments or even laws and regulations to take it away.

Just to give another example because I’m sure many would be happy if the pardon power was weakened. But using the previous reasoning they could rule that the government has the right to limit freedom of speech because of the potential for free speech to be abused.

I hope to god the reasoning they use isn’t something stupid and I hope to god the liberal justices don’t sign on to such shitty reasoning…so help me god!

 

[HomerJS]

Once again conservatives have proven yet again they don’t give a shit about any beliefs they profess.

The so called textualists just threw that out a 10 story window. They only thing they were concerned about was the chaos fearing 50 separate solutions to the insurrectionist question. How many times did we hear the word chaos?

These textualists who are so concerned about states rights have done a complete 180. What are the cases where they jettisoned their so called principles. This one and Bush v Gore. Seems principles got in the way of their agenda.

Isn’t it interesting their lack of concern for chaos when it came to killing Roe. That decision did lead to chaos and put the lives and health of women in jeopardy.

 

[HomerJS]

Did anyone catch a justice worried that one state can decide the election?

Once again they were cool with Florida deciding the entire Presidential election

 

[ivwshane]

Did anyone catch a justice worried that one state can decide the election?

Once again they were cool with Florida deciding the entire Presidential election

Its a bull shit argument anyway as the states currently have the power to disqualify people from running…using current constitutional standards. The 14th is simply another standard.

However as I asked in an earlier post; when have powers or rights delegated by the constitution, been removed or ignored because of a potential for abuse? Never because doing so without an amendment would be a violation of the constitution.

God conservatives are so fucking dumb! So fucking dumb!

 

[Zorba]

Once again conservatives have proven yet again they don’t give a shit about any beliefs they profess.

The so called textualists just threw that out a 10 story window. They only thing they were concerned about was the chaos fearing 50 separate solutions to the insurrectionist question. How many times did we hear the word chaos?

These textualists who are so concerned about states rights have done a complete 180. What are the cases where they jettisoned their so called principles. This one and Bush v Gore. Seems principles got in the way of their agenda.

Isn’t it interesting their lack of concern for chaos when it came to killing Roe. That decision did lead to chaos and put the lives and health of women in jeopardy.

I'm guessing it the supreme court agreed there has been an insurrection, there wouldn't be 50 different decisions.

 

[Zorba]

Its a bull shit argument anyway as the states currently have the power to disqualify people from running…using current constitutional standards. The 14th is simply another standard.

However as I asked in an earlier post; when have powers or rights delegated by the constitution, been removed or ignored because of a potential for abuse? Never because doing so without an amendment would be a violation of the constitution.

God conservatives are so fucking dumb! So fucking dumb!

They aren't dumb, they are power hungry and do any to get and keep power. They don't care about anything else.

 

[ivwshane]

They aren't dumb, they are power hungry and do any to get and keep power. They don't care about anything else.

You aren’t wrong

 

[trenchfoot]

Well it looks like the SCOTUS conservative majority wants control over this particular decision making process vs the states ability to do so. The conservatives on the court will probably force the liberal states who want to disqualify Trump to toe the conservative line and be nice to Trump.

So all I can hope beyond hope for is that at the end of the day, these conservative judges who want Trump to keep running away from justice without being held accountable will keep in mind all of the deeply knowledgeable constitutional scholars who all agreed that Trump should be disqualified from running again.

Ahhhh fuck it. Who am I kidding. Citizens United, Heller and Roe was already enough to convince me to give up hope.

 

[Ken g6]

My question is, if it is not for the states to enforce the 14th amendment, then who? Who would vet the list of candidates in the first place? It shouldn't be the executive branch because that's a potential conflict of interest. (Biden would rightly block Trump, but Trump would wrongly block, um, anyone else.) Congress has no mechanism for vetting a candidate list before the election.

Maybe Congress is supposed to block Trump on 14th amendment grounds after he's been re-elected? (At the point where Trump tried to steal the election last time?) That sounds like the worst possible time to do it.

 

[HomerJS]

Well it looks like the SCOTUS conservative majority wants control over this particular decision making process vs the states ability to do so. The conservatives on the court will probably force the liberal states who want to disqualify Trump to toe the conservative line and be nice to Trump.

So all I can hope beyond hope for is that at the end of the day, these conservative judges who want Trump to keep running away from justice without being held accountable will keep in mind all of the deeply knowledgeable constitutional scholars who all agreed that Trump should be disqualified from running again.

Ahhhh fuck it. Who am I kidding. Citizens United, Heller and Roe was already enough to convince me to give up hope.

Don’t forget Shelby

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

My question is, if it is not for the states to enforce the 14th amendment, then who? Who would vet the list of candidates in the first place? It shouldn't be the executive branch because that's a potential conflict of interest. (Biden would rightly block Trump, but Trump would wrongly block, um, anyone else.) Congress has no mechanism for vetting a candidate list before the election.

Maybe Congress is supposed to block Trump on 14th amendment grounds after he's been re-elected? (At the point where Trump tried to steal the election last time?) That sounds like the worst possible time to do it.

This was what I was going to ask. If this isn't a trigger for the 14th, what is? Who's the enforcement body, if the states can't decide, and the SC punts. Congress? They already have that power elsewhere. If it was reliant on impeachment/conviction, why have the 14th? Pants-on-head dumb decision making.

Apparently the 14th should have been written more clearly.

May I suggest either:
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 during the years of 1861-1865, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

or:
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 in any way, shape or form, to include anything from incitation to physical participation, as decided by either state courts or legislative bodies. No such individual may be elected, But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[thraashman]

It was a peaceful protest. No guns involved.

I'll be sure to inform my friend who is Capitol Police and was defending the Capitol on Jan 6th that his broken foot, broken arm, and concussion were peacefully caused.

 

[JTsyo]

Maybe Congress is supposed to block Trump on 14th amendment grounds after he's been re-elected? (At the point where Trump tried to steal the election last time?) That sounds like the worst possible time to do it.

That came up in with Trumps lawyers arguing for it. One Justice asked if then the incoming Congress could block the elected President from taking office and the lawyer had to say they could.

 

[SMOGZINN]

My question is, if it is not for the states to enforce the 14th amendment, then who? Who would vet the list of candidates in the first place? It shouldn't be the executive branch because that's a potential conflict of interest. (Biden would rightly block Trump, but Trump would wrongly block, um, anyone else.) Congress has no mechanism for vetting a candidate list before the election.

Maybe Congress is supposed to block Trump on 14th amendment grounds after he's been re-elected? (At the point where Trump tried to steal the election last time?) That sounds like the worst possible time to do it.

Don't forget that the 14th amendment applies to Congress as well, so are they going to vet who can run against themselves? How is that any better than the States deciding?

My actual guess is that SCOTUS is going to find that original intent of 14s3 was to only apply to people that fought in the civil war and is now sunsetted as there is no one alive today that it would apply to. It is historically incorrect, but what do they care? Constitutional history is what they decide it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't forget that the 14th amendment applies to Congress as well, so are they going to vet who can run against themselves? How is that any better than the States deciding?

My actual guess is that SCOTUS is going to find that original intent of 14s3 was to only apply to people that fought in the civil war and is now sunsetted as there is no one alive today that it would apply to. It is historically incorrect, but what do they care? Constitutional history is what they decide it is.

Yes, that is plainly contradicted by the legislative history where they discussed applying it only to Confederates and then explicitly chose not to.

Honestly who cares what their reasoning is, it's not like it matters because if this decision becomes problematic in the future they would just Calvinball the other way.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Don't forget that the 14th amendment applies to Congress as well, so are they going to vet who can run against themselves? How is that any better than the States deciding?

My actual guess is that SCOTUS is going to find that original intent of 14s3 was to only apply to people that fought in the civil war and is now sunsetted as there is no one alive today that it would apply to. It is historically incorrect, but what do they care? Constitutional history is what they decide it is.

It would be the first time in history that an amendment, or any part of the constitution had a expiration tied to it. My understanding, is the constitution and all amendments are till the end of time until Congress votes and approves making amendments to it. Considering that nearly every amendment is created out of events that took place during those times, and put in place to prevent simular happening going forward, wouldn't such a ruling nulify nearly all, if not all amendments, as they all truly applied to the people of those time? Every admendment has to have the same rules and qualifications applied. (I know, they won't).

 

[ivwshane]

Considering that nearly every amendment is created out of events that took place during those times, and put in place to prevent simular happening going forward, wouldn't such a ruling nulify nearly all, if not all amendments? Every admendment has to have the same rules and qualifications applied. (I know, they won't).

Yep. They can be dismissed using similar shitty logic. I tried making this point earlier but it was ignored.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It would be the first time in history that an amendment, or any part of the constitution had a expiration tied to it. My understanding, is the constitution and all amendments are till the end of time until Congress votes and approves making amendments to it. Considering that nearly every amendment is created out of events that took place during those times, and put in place to prevent simular happening going forward, wouldn't such a ruling nulify nearly all, if not all amendments, as they all truly applied to the people of those time? Every admendment has to have the same rules and qualifications applied. (I know, they won't).

Yup, the whole point of the 2A was to avoid repression by a govt such as Britain, so may as well chuck that one right now.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It would be the first time in history that an amendment, or any part of the constitution had a expiration tied to it. My understanding, is the constitution and all amendments are till the end of time until Congress votes and approves making amendments to it. Considering that nearly every amendment is created out of events that took place during those times, and put in place to prevent simular happening going forward, wouldn't such a ruling nulify nearly all, if not all amendments, as they all truly applied to the people of those time? Every admendment has to have the same rules and qualifications applied. (I know, they won't).

No, you see they would be using their magic oracle to determine what the writers of the Amendment intended for it to say, as opposed to what they wrote down and repeatedly said, on record, it meant. There is no audio or video recordings of what they intended, so what are you going to believe, the words on some old document, or how five people feel? It is all just squiggles on a page, it could mean anything! Have you seen the original document? I didn't think so! You are just brainwashed to believe what the liberal media wants you to believe!
/gaslight