Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Free speech can't be used as an excuse when one tries to get others to break the law.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump kicked off Colorado ballot
- Thread starter Viker
- Start date
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Post#178
The court made factual findings. It went far beyond interpreting the law.
The court made findings of fact. We typically leave that to a jury of peers. The jury is the fact finder, not the judge(s).
In a criminal trial. As has been pointed out by many people, this wasn't a criminal trial.
... and appeals aren't heard before juries, anyhow.
When the test in the 14th Amendment is met, the Amendment requires that the person be prohibited from serving in office again ("No person shall be...").
Where I think the Colorado court's decision gets a bit iffy is in the idea that Trump's prohibition to serve as President also implies a prohibition for him to run in a primary to be a candidate for President. Edit: it would be pointless and futile for the Republicans to put Trump forward as their candidate for an office he's ineligible to hold, but "pointless and futile" does not necessarily mean "illegal."
What these people said is what Trump said?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
In a bench trial, the judge is the finder of fact. Trump was not the defendant in the Colorado district court, but an intervenor. Here is the .pdf of the district court ruling on November 17. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf
Here is the definition of an intervenor. Trump entered into the case as a third party. intervene.
Not a criminal trial but who is the finder of fact? Turns out it was the appellate court.
Is everyone really so obtuse as to not see the danger of what’s happening? I despise Trump but this is not the right way to eliminate him (in fact, it will only boost his numbers). What Colorado did feels like third world kangaroo court BS.
And a state appellate court decided he met that test. Do you not see the dangerous precedent?
This strengthens my position
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
How so? Bench trials are common. The district court judge felt that the evidence presented by the petitioner's attorneys was sufficient to show that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Read the decision here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf
I will be asking you later if you read the decision and what legal errors the judge committed in her ruling.
The danger of having appeals to higher levels of courts? I'm not following you.
Whether you like it or not, this is the process spelled out in the Constitution. Trump made himself ineligible for re-election through his actions.
And I should point out that it has a release valve: a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress.
Consider the possibility that it feels this way because insurrection has been normalized in the US. This doesn't change the law, though.
Again: the "dangerous precedent" of an appeals process?
**THREAD MOVED TO POLITICAL DEBATES**
The Constitution spells out a few qualifications for President:
- You have to be at least 35.
- You have to be a natural-born citizen.
- You must have lived in the US for at least 14 years.
- You can't have engaged in insurrection or rebellion after swearing to support the Constitution as an officer of the United States.
The authors of the 14th Amendment could have phrased it so that a conviction for insurrection was required; they didn't. Why do you think that is? Personally, I think this had to have been a deliberate choice.
The constitution is often vague. Look at the debate over whether the 14th amendment applies to Trump or not. Just more words that claried the meansings would have esolved these disputes. That means courts are left to interpret the texts, for better or worse. Unfortunately we have highly divisive politics and social attitudes and Trump's popularity has caused much of this ongoing rift.
All this court chaos is due to Trump being popular. I can't wait for MAGA to die off like the old tea party, and conservatives revert back to being a part of political discourse.
And it's not like Trump was working behind the scenes, he was videoed supporting those who attacked the Capitol. He was the one who fostered all the rage against the USA with lies about election fraud. There are audio files of Trump tring to force state election officials to change election results. How much more is needed to show Trump is criminal? Does 12 people hearing the same evidence and coming to a unanimous decision make it any more conclusive?
Even without the 14th just basic sense can realize that Trump is not an honorable person that deserves another chance. It's sad that conservatives have become a cult of personality with some of the most antisocial directives at the core of the platform. After the leegal dust has settled many MAGAs will toss their hats in the trash with the other debris.