Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Watchmen]

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.

Why do you think exactly one of these should be irrelevant until decided by a criminal court?

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.

Being 35 and engaging in an insurrection are two very different things. One is a technical hurdle, the other should include due process.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

If you’re ever accused of a crime will you forego trial? Trump is scum. But when we start skipping the process that’s bad for everyone.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If you’re ever accused of a crime will you forego trial? Trump is scum. But when we start skipping the process that’s bad for everyone.

What process was skipped? District court in Colorado determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. Trump was represented by attorneys who made his case for him. Did you not read the document I posted earlier?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Exactly. This is nothing to do with Trump but everything to do with the judicial and fair electoral system and political system as a whole including double jeopardy protections which is far more important if a person values a free society.

Clearly a fair number of people here don't value that.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Exactly. This is nothing to do with Trump but everything to do with the judicial and fair electoral system and political system as a whole including double jeopardy protections which is far more important if a person values a free society.

Clearly a fair number of people here don't value that.

How is Trump being subjected to double jeopardy?

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is Trump being subjected to double jeopardy?

Being tried twice for the same offense but of course you knew that.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Being tried twice for the same offense but of course you knew that.

Are you referring to the impeachment after Jan 6?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being 35 and engaging in an insurrection are two very different things. One is a technical hurdle, the other should include due process.

So you would like the amendment to have been written differently from how it was written?

I guess it was the other thread where I raised this point, so I'll raise it here:

The authors of the 14th Amendment were living in the aftermath of the Civil War. Their apparent goal was to prevent people who had held public office but then violated their office to join the Confederacy from getting into office, presumably to stop former Confederates from usurping control of the federal government. Presumably, they were also looking forward to the possibility that other insurrections amd rebellions could happen in future.

So... imagine yourself back in that time, with that goal in mind, thinking about the thousands of defeated Confederates that would be excluded from office from the amendment you're preparing.

Would it be okay with you to wait the I-don't-know-how-many years it would take to get all those cases through the courts to get criminal convictions before you started barring these people from seeking election or appointment?

 

[Watchmen]

What process was skipped? District court in Colorado determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. Trump was represented by attorneys who made his case for him. Did you not read the document I posted earlier?

Trump wasn’t even named. He had to intervene. Due process was skipped.

 

[Watchmen]

So you would like the amendment to have been written differently from how it was written?

I guess it was the other thread where I raised this point, so I'll raise it here:

The authors of the 14th Amendment were living in the aftermath of the Civil War. Their apparent goal was to prevent people who had held public office but then violated their office to join the Confederacy from getting into office, presumably to stop former Confederates from usurping control of the federal government. Presumably, they were also looking forward to the possibility that other insurrections amd rebellions could happen in future.

So... imagine yourself back in that time, with that goal in mind, thinking about the thousands of defeated Confederates that would be excluded from office from the amendment you're preparing.

Would it be okay with you to wait the I-don't-know-how-many years it would take to get all those cases through the courts to get criminal convictions before you started barring these people from seeking election or appointment?

Would it be ok with you for the government to take action against you without due process? People / hate for Trump is trumping the constitution. We might as well be the Khmer Rouge.

 

[fantome profane]

Would it be ok with you for the government to take action against you without due process? People / hate for Trump is trumping the constitution. We might as well be the Khmer Rouge.

The kind of due process you are referring comes from common law. It protects people from being imprisoned or having their property taken from them by the state. It has nothing at all to do with this situation.

If there is part of the U.S. Constitution that the Colorado Court violated, please quote it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The kind of due process you are referring comes from common law. It protects people from being imprisoned or having their property taken from them by the state. It has nothing at all to do with this situation.

Did you explain that to those like Justice Carlos Samour?

The Washington Post notes:

“Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”​

It may turn out that you'tre correct. I just find it amazing that you would find yourself qualified to speak with such authority.

My knowledge of the law is entirely underwhelming. It nevertheless seems to me that:

1. a person should not be disqualified for participating in something not deemed illegal, and
2. a person should not be deemed to have participating in something illegal without being found guilty in a court of lay.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Did you explain that to those like Justice Carlos Samour?

The Washington Post notes:

“Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”​

It may turn out that you'tre correct. I just find it amazing that you would find yourself qualified to speak with such authority.

My knowledge of the law is entirely underwhelming. It nevertheless seems to me that:

1. a person should not be disqualified for participating in something not deemed illegal, and
2. a person should not be deemed to have participating in something illegal without being found guilty in a court of lay.

Trump was not denied due process! His attorneys participated in the district court proceedings on the question of eligibility. Ultimately the judge there, based on the evidence presented and on Trump attorneys arguments, ruled that Trump participated in insurrection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would it be ok with you for the government to take action against you without due process? People / hate for Trump is trumping the constitution. We might as well be the Khmer Rouge.

Are you trying to talk about what the law is or what you think the law ought to be? I'm talking about what it is.

That being said, in my opinion, a trial with the right to counsel, accompanied by the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, satisfies any reasonable interpretation of "due process."

BTW: you understand that the change you're asking for would mean that individual citizens, seeing that an ineligible candidate is set to run, would have no legal recourse whatsoever, don't you? From the Colorado Supreme Court decision:

The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump disqualified for ballot in Colorado. It will likely go on to the US Supreme Court next.

Who?

 

[Watchmen]

Are you trying to talk about what the law is or what you think the law ought to be? I'm talking about what it is.

That being said, in my opinion, a trial with the right to counsel, accompanied by the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, satisfies any reasonable interpretation of "due process."

BTW: you understand that the change you're asking for would mean that individual citizens, seeing that an ineligible candidate is set to run, would have no legal recourse whatsoever, don't you? From the Colorado Supreme Court decision:

There was no trial. Trump wasn’t even a party to the lawsuit and had to intervene. I’m not asking for a change. I’m saying Colorado overstepped what it can do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There was no trial. Trump wasn’t even a party to the lawsuit and had to intervene. I’m not asking for a change. I’m saying Colorado overstepped what it can do.

His attorneys got to argue his case before the court. How many times do I have to say this? He was represented. If they sucked, it is not the court's fault.

 

[Watchmen]

Are you trying to talk about what the law is or what you think the law ought to be? I'm talking about what it is.

That being said, in my opinion, a trial with the right to counsel, accompanied by the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, satisfies any reasonable interpretation of "due process."

BTW: you understand that the change you're asking for would mean that individual citizens, seeing that an ineligible candidate is set to run, would have no legal recourse whatsoever, don't you? From the Colorado Supreme Court decision:

Three Democratic appointed state Supreme Court judges in Colorado agree with me and wrote scathing dissents. Most legal experts agree the Supreme Court will overturn Colorado’s ruling. I’m confident I’m on sound legal ground.

 

[Watchmen]

His attorneys got to argue his case before the court. How many times do I have to say this? He was represented. If they sucked, it is not the court's fault.

Did you read the dissents? Are you aware it is likely to be overturned? Do you have legal training?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Trump was not denied due process! His attorneys participated in the district court proceedings on the question of eligibility

Oh, so that's what due process means. Thanks.

BTW, have you studied law?​