• 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

Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Twilight Hue said:
No. They didn't make a finding, they just made a decree without trial or jury.
Click to expand...
The petition was brought by six voters against the Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot. Trump's attorneys were involved as intervenors. Trump was represented in this case. Did Trump's attorneys request a jury? In this the type of trial that a jury is even a thing? This was not a criminal or civil case. This was a case on qualification under the 14th Amendment. There are no criminal or civil penalties involved. It is a qualification question. There are other qualifications for running for president: age 35, natural born citizen of the United States for instance.

BTW, this is the proceeding in which Trump's lawyers said he can't be disqualified because he never took an oath to support the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
SalixIncendium said:
If he remains on the ballot for the other 49 states and wins the primary, I presume he would remain off the ballot in the general election in that state leaving 9 electoral votes that would default to the Democratic candidate.
Click to expand...

It probably should be added that while this might be deemed unfair in the abstract, most if not all informed project list Colorado as a "blue" State; it's unlikely that Trump would get Colorado's electoral votes in any case.

It seems unlikely that Trump could find himself on the ballot in all but one State. (BTW, I believe that Washington D.C. has 3 Electoral Votes.)
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Kenny said:
As I noted before, all the attacks against Trump only helps Trump. It is the attacks that gives him the advantage.
Click to expand...
Then this suggests Trump supporters are flawed as citizens/humans. Flawed to an extreme level that is dangerous to the country and planet.
 
B

Bthoth

Well-Known Member
Viker said:
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump disqualified for ballot in Colorado. It will likely go on to the US Supreme Court next.

Click to expand...
Apparently the attorneys have another case to soak up the half billion, still in the PAC fund.

"We the people' are being used and trump is wasting taxpayers money
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
What kind of 'free' country does this?
Click to expand...
Those with laws that are respected.

Trump is a person who thinks he is above the law and social norms, and why sould he be treated differently than a drunk driver?y

As far as Tyump not being convicted of insurrection first, well the crime was televised. The crime against the 2020 election was a conspiracy that unfolded over months, and is still being ajudicated. There is no doubt what Trump has done. Trump's lawyers have been able to slow the progress of justice, and that shouldn't be why he gets to slide into a position of power. If Trump could win a popular vote, then so be it. But he never has, and the eelctoral college is a flawed system that favors republicans.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Figures the leftist socialist communists creed is forever one party one voice, no competition against them.
Click to expand...

No, just a hope for a return to the days when "right wing" meant fiscal and social conservatism, not fascists supporting attempted coups.

The only limit here is that parties and candidates can't engage in improper activities that are so extreme that they threaten liberty and democracy itself. If you think that this is an assault on your party's inherent nature, well, that's quite the self-condemnation.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
What kind of 'free' country does this?

It's really not about Trump, I'm not voting for him anyways, it's about a system where you can just throw any political opponent off the ballot on the basis of yet to be proven accusations and conjecture.
Click to expand...

It was proven. That's what the trials were about.

Twilight Hue said:
All this tells me is the left is centered on the big centralized state where not the people voting chooses who they want on the ballot in their state, but rather its the government who who decides whom can and cannot be on the ballot all on the basis of yet to be proven facts completely void of due process.

Talk about election interference.
Click to expand...
No, it should tell you that people who try to attack liberty and democracy are unqualified to uphold them as elected officials.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
The petition was brought by six voters against the Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot. Trump's attorneys were involved as intervenors. Trump was represented in this case. Did Trump's attorneys request a jury? In this the type of trial that a jury is even a thing? This was not a criminal or civil case. This was a case on qualification under the 14th Amendment. There are no criminal or civil penalties involved. It is a qualification question. There are other qualifications for running for president: age 35, natural born citizen of the United States for instance.

BTW, this is the proceeding in which Trump's lawyers said he can't be disqualified because he never took an oath to support the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The district court ruled that the 14th amendment, Section 3 does not apply to presidents. The colorado supreme court overruled them and said that it does.

This is why the 14th amendment does not apply to presidents. If you read it it lists electors, people that have taken an oath of congress, officer of the US or member of state legislature, executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the US. It does not list the president or vice president in that list. So why would it apply to them? Here is the text:

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Show me where this applies to presidents.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
Yeah this leaves open to the fact that all someone has to do now is simply accuse somebody of something and then he or she is off the ballot.
Click to expand...
Trump isn't merely accused of something by somebody. The facts are clear even though the judicial evaluation isn't completed, yet.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
The district court ruled that the 14th amendment, Section 3 does not apply to presidents. The colorado supreme court overruled them and said that it does.

This is why the 14th amendment does not apply to presidents. If you read it it lists electors, people that have taken an oath of congress, officer of the US or member of state legislature, executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the US. It does not list the president or vice president in that list. So why would it apply to them? Here is the text:

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Show me where this applies to presidents.
Click to expand...
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.




It applies to anyone who holds any office civil or military.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Terrywoodenpic said:
He could have had a jury if Trump had asked for one through his lawyers.
He had a trial with the judge presiding as is usual in such cases.
Click to expand...
Yea. A bench trial also known as the judge alone, is entirely the jury and conviction arm. A bit like Night Court.


If what you say is true, with Trumps lawyers present for his defense, then it has some merit and Trump can appeal.

Only one thing. What was this trial about? You can't be tried twice for the same crime.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
So there was an actual trial in Colorado with actual lawyers and jury arguing the case with an actual declaration of innocent or guilty?

Funny. Trumps insurrection trial is scheduled for March 2024 last I heard.



What was this trial all about?
Click to expand...
It was about Trump's eligibility to run for President. Try to keep up.

Sometimes, people's criminal conduct will have other implications: sometimes it's civil liability; sometimes it's revocation of a professional license; sometimes it's ineligibility to run for office, etc., etc.

These processes can all run in parallel. There's no rule that says that everything else has to wait until the criminal trial has wrapped up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top