To the contrary, I value the law and the Constitution and am speaking out against the Colorado Court that acted unconstitutionally. When Colorado gets reversed will you admit I was right?
-
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
I find it funny that you'd complain about others not wanting to uphold the Constitution when you're arguing for ignoring the 14th Amendment.
Is everyone who disagrees with you the "Khmer Rouge" now?
That’s the nature of justices and interpretation. Have you noticed even the Supreme Court has disagreements? They even reverse themselves as we saw with Roe v Wade. The constitution is often vague and interpretation tends to follow personal beliefs. It’s no surprise that Roe got overturned after the Republicans confirmed three far right justices. Trump selected them for that purpose. So yeah, justices of Colorado will naturally reflect the liberal views of the state.
I have my own opinion and complaints about courts and the wide range of decisions. It’s political as hell. The Colorado decision has arguments for both sides, and the constitution is vague on what means what. So you can argue that the process sucks, but you can’t say it’s unconstitutional or undemocratic. Don’t forget the role of state’s rights and how they run their own elections according to their laws.
Incorrect.
Only those who promote kangaroo courts and ignoring the constitution.Is everyone who disagrees with you the "Khmer Rouge" now?
This is the best thing you’ve said so far. Yes- it’s up for interpretation. I believe the Colorado court misapplied the 14th amendment and acted unconstitutionally. We’ll see what happens.
As for States rights. The states don’t get to act unconstitutionally.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Due process involved a fair hearing, i.e. a hearing made without prejudice. Any hearing where the defendants are treated as persons is prejudical against their natural rights.
You keep on saying that you think the Colorado court acted unconstitutionally, but so far, you haven't said what you think is unconstitutional about it.
You keep talking about "due process," but haven't said what process you think the constitution requires (or how that differs from what has happened so far).
We are, admittedly, in uncharted territory. The Constitution is full of ambiguities. I think it should take an act of Congress to determine what an insurrection is. Then the courts can apply the elements with the defendant having the opportunity to have a fair trial. If the elements are met, and, the apply the 14th. I think it’s telling that Trump wasn’t even a party initially in the Colorado court and he had to intervene. Time will tell what happens. Given the ambiguities, I might be wrong, but I’m pretty confident I’m right and the Supreme Court will reverse Colorado.
This is a bit of a different tune than you started with.
"Should"? What you think "should" happen is irrelevant to whether what happened is constitutional under the actual Constitution as it exists today.
Where in the Constitution is this requirement?
... which makes sense. The case was only indirectly about Trump. The case was about what the Secretary of State of Colorado was required or prohibited from doing under the Constitution and relevant law.
Trump wasn’t under subpoena and wasn’t required to account for himself, but he was entitled to intervenor status if he chose to take it.
I think there's a decent chance that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision as well, not with a clear decision about whether Trump is eligible to be President again, but with a ruling about whether this should be decided at the state level.
The worst outcome for democracy, but an outcome I think has a decent chance of happening, is that the US Supreme Court will rule that the determination of Trump's eligibility has to be done by the joint session of Congress counting the EC votes via their process to challenge irregularities in the count.
In terms of the ideals of fairness and democracy, I think it's much better for ineligible candidates to be left off the ballot in the first place than for citizens' votes to be thrown out after the fact.
We need to deal with what the Constitution says, not what you think it should say.
It seems to me that when people say this ruling is unconstitutional what they really mean is they don't like it. But the reality is that this is perfectly constitutional whether you like it or not.
My concern is that this 'kicking candidates off the ballot' thing will domino into a new weapon that both major parties will try and wield against the other when they don't think their candidate can win by a vote of the people.
One need only look at impeachment's newfound popularity.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
This is going through the legal process and is specifically about the 14th Amendment and insurrection. This is not just arbitrarily kicking people off the ballot for political reasons no matter what the right wing liars are saying.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn this. But that is because they are a corrupt Republican institution right now. They have demonstrated that with various 9-3 decisions. There decisions have been politically based and not Constitutionally based.
But meanwhile you have as yet to show why they should not follow the Constitution besides you not liking it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Please demonstrate how. So far you have only demonstrated your own ignorance by conflating criminal cases with non-criminal cases.
What part of the Constitution do you think they're ignoring? Please be specific.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Election interference and lack of due process are both Unconstitutional. That being said, should Trump have just gone along with the result of the 2020 election, even of the winner used unconstitutional methods? This is Trump's argument for Jan 6. He felt he had to speak out against the unconstitutional tactics and deem the election unconstitutional. The team that won in 2020 used Big Government to engage in unconstitutional Social media censorship, which violated free speech to cheat the election. The Hunter Biden Laptop was misrepresented by the swamp attacking the messengers of truth, with lies and lack of due process. The crooks are only starting to see some due process starting with Biden.
It all goes back to the swamp led Coup against Trump in 2016, connected to the fake dossier charge of Russian Collusion. Due process was also ignored by the Swamp. The crooks used government resources to railroaded many people as pawns to coup. There was also Watergate type spying by the Obama and Biden administration, and then going after political opponents.
Trump came to the conclusion the swamp will not self police or atone, and therefore he had no choice but to fight the result. The crooks are playing new games to rig the system. If they can prevent the leading candidate from participating, then Democracy is finished. Trump is fighting for Democracy, via the legal system.
If Trump wins, after all this dirty play by the Swamp, it will be almost like Israel needing to purge Hamas, which is the an Arab version of a swamp. Trump will need to do an Israel on the swamp and hunt them down. Unless you purge that cancer, it will try to regrow. It has no conscience or character.
The world does not want the destabilizing effect of the American Swamp able to control American elections. Then we become another Russia with billionaire Oligarchs. America is supposed to be a beacon of light and not swamp darkness.