Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[The Hammer]

Up to the states to decide what an insurrection is? Where in the world do you get that???

The Supreme Court and other conservative judges. See my above claims by former Judge Luttig.


"“Indeed, the Constitution tells us that it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification. Namely, an insurrection or rebellion that is anti-democratic. To me, that’s about as clear as any document or Constitution could make that point,” Luttig said.

“I think it’s crystal clear, and it will be crystal clear to the American public, that it’s the Constitution of the United States that’s disqualifying the former president from higher office, if he is to be disqualified. To speak to the political warriors, it’s not President Joe Biden. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not the anti-Trumpers. It’s the Constitution of the United States,” he added.""

 

[The Hammer]

‘No easy exit ramp’ for SCOTUS on Trump, Harvard scholar says— Harvard Gazette

Historic 4-3 decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar former president from the state’s primary ballot has turned up the heat on the 2024 presidential race.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Watchmen]

The Supreme Court and other conservative judges. See my above claims by former Judge Luttig.


"“Indeed, the Constitution tells us that it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification. Namely, an insurrection or rebellion that is anti-democratic. To me, that’s about as clear as any document or Constitution could make that point,” Luttig said.

“I think it’s crystal clear, and it will be crystal clear to the American public, that it’s the Constitution of the United States that’s disqualifying the former president from higher office, if he is to be disqualified. To speak to the political warriors, it’s not President Joe Biden. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not the anti-Trumpers. It’s the Constitution of the United States,” he added.""

Your quotes don’t rebut my position. In fact, they support my position. States don’t individually get to decide what the constitution means. Do you understand?

 

[The Hammer]

Your quotes don’t rebut my position. In fact, they support my position. States don’t individually get to decide what the constitution means. Do you understand?

Obvs no.

Considering the Justice I cited previously stated that CO's ruling was in line with the Constitution.

Edit: “Yesterday's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court was masterful. It was brilliant, and it is an unassailable interpretation of the 14th Amendment,” the former judge added.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are the elements of an “insurrection” under the 14th?

Sorry, your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He isn't formally charged in a criminal court of law yet. Where do you think this came from?

So what? Once again, why haven't you checked the precedents for disqualification?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your quotes don’t rebut my position. In fact, they support my position. States don’t individually get to decide what the constitution means. Do you understand?

I do not think that anyone ever thought that it would end at a state level. States appear to have a very good case to remove someone if they violate the 14th Amendment in the primaries in their state. And probably for the Presidency as well since the states get to choose their electors. In fact states do not even have to award their electors to the popular vote winner, though practically all of them have state laws that say they have to:

About the Electors

What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall...

www.archives.gov

But by the standards in that article it looks as if states can decide that a candidate cannot legally run.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So what? Once again, why haven't you checked the precedents for disqualification?

There aren't any until Trump is formally declared an insurrectionist through criminal court. Maybe you should check the due process clause in the same amendment.

 

[Ebionite]

There aren't any until Trump is formally declared an insurrectionist through criminal court. Maybe you should check the due process clause in the same amendment.

Cat you be sure that the court can hear the matter without prejudice?

 

[Watchmen]

Obvs no.

Considering the Justice I cited previously stated that CO's ruling was in line with the Constitution.

Edit: “Yesterday's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court was masterful. It was brilliant, and it is an unassailable interpretation of the 14th Amendment,” the former judge added.

Really? One person’s opinion? What happens when the Supremes reverse Colorado and you and your cite are wrong?

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, your claim, your burden of proof.

The fact you can’t name the elements necessary to prove “insurrection” proves my point. Thanks for playing.

 

[Watchmen]

I do not think that anyone ever thought that it would end at a state level. States appear to have a very good case to remove someone if they violate the 14th Amendment in the primaries in their state. And probably for the Presidency as well since the states get to choose their electors. In fact states do not even have to award their electors to the popular vote winner, though practically all of them have state laws that say they have to:

About the Electors

What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall...

www.archives.gov

But by the standards in that article it looks as if states can decide that a candidate cannot legally run.

States don’t get to decide what the Constitution ultimately means.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Cat you be sure that the court can hear the matter without prejudice?

I dunno. But its certainly a lot better in line with due process as outlined in the 14 Amendment's clause which means a formal trial with a proper jury of peers than it is with just a single judge or judges that can easily be bought and paid for by activists and or is politically biased at the start.

There was no due process in Colorado , it's more like an episode of Judge Judy if you ask me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As a public service link, here's the entire trial in Colorado. Please note that it's over 2 hours long and and of course afterwards, that was that.

Of course Retuers doesn't have the guts to turn on the comments those cowards.

LIVE: Trial over disqualification of Trump from 2024 Colorado ballot

Opening arguments begin in a Colorado trial to decide whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from the state's ballot in the 2024 presidential election over...

www.youtube.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

There aren't any until Trump is formally declared an insurrectionist through criminal court. Maybe you should check the due process clause in the same amendment.

I have linked them multiple times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

States don’t get to decide what the Constitution ultimately means.

You are not making any sense. The states often are allowed to interpret the Constitution for state matters. In fact the Tenth Amendment makes that clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact you can’t name the elements necessary to prove “insurrection” proves my point. Thanks for playing.

No, it proves that you have no clue. But you already know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a public service link, here's the entire trial in Colorado. Please note that it's over 2 hours long and and of course afterwards, that was that.

Of course Retuers doesn't have the guts to turn on the comments those cowards.

LIVE: Trial over disqualification of Trump from 2024 Colorado ballot

Opening arguments begin in a Colorado trial to decide whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from the state's ballot in the 2024 presidential election over...

www.youtube.com

It appears that Reuters has the comments turned off for all of their videos. It has noting to do with cowardice.

 

[Ebionite]

I dunno. But its certainly a lot better in line with due process as outlined in the 14 Amendment's clause which means a formal trial with a proper jury of peers than it is with just a single judge or judges that can easily be bought and paid for by activists and or is politically biased at the start.

There was no due process in Colorado , it's more like an episode of Judge Judy if you ask me.

From Black's dictionary, 5th edition:

Aside from all else, "due process" means fundamental fairness. Pinkerton v. Farr, W.Va., 220 S.E.2d 682, 687.

Prejudice is unfair, so due process only exists without prejudice. Prejudice can still exist with a jury of peers because of the inherent prejudice of the system of administration, which regards the contestants as being persons with no natural rights. Natural rights are relevant to justice, so if the the defence against insurrection involves the a goal of a just outcome then predjudice exists, which would be expressed in the instructions to the jurors as to what forms of evidence were admissable. Jurors don't get to make determinations about matters of law, that's the judge's job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um... you just can't just say a person's an insurrectionist outright and then conveniently kick them off the ballot on that alone.

Even though that's basically what the 14th Amendment lays out?

The eligibility criteria for President in the Constitution are pretty cut-and-dry, but if there's a question about the facts of the matter, it would go to the courts to make a ruling... as happened in the Colorado case.

I think you would need a Criminal Court to decide that first.

Based on what? Cite some actual law on this... preferably a section of the Constitution that says things work the way you're suggesting.