Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Twilight Hue]

I thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. What makes you think that? Where in the Constitution does it say that one cannot be tried both civilly and criminally?


I have listened. I have asked for evidence that due process was not followed and all that you had was Barr making that claim without any evidence. By the way, Barr was more of a prosecutor. He may not be as aware of civil matters. I am sure that he knows the law better than I do, but this appears to be a bit of personal prejudice since he did not site any evidence that supported his claims. Just as you never have.

Oh my oh my! There goes another irony meter.
Once again, a case law example of a person that was found to be disqualified:

J.D. Watkins

District Attorney

“Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did)

State Judge

Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3.

Louisiana Supreme Court

Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869).

No

1869

Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

He was never charged with any crime and he was still removed. Just as Trump may be. We will see how the Supreme Court reacts.

Please read that last block of print. It shows you what everyone that has been opposing you has been claiming all along.

Now unless you can find some actual legal evidence it looks as if you are just working using your own feelings.

Tell me how somebody can be removed without being convicted of anything!

How exactly does that work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your the one that is saying it's OK to have a Civil Trial before criminal trial, now you're saying the opposite?

I am saying that in regards to disqualification a criminal trial makes no difference either way. Have one, do not have one. Find him guilty, find him innocent. It is not part of the due process of disqualification. There is no indication that it needs to be. Did you not see the specific case that I copied and pasted from a link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me how somebody can be removed without being convicted of anything!

How exactly does that work?

Tell me why you think that he needs to be convicted? Once again, I provided a link that gave just such a case. Actually there were several such cases in the link but the one I copied and pasted specifically pointed out that a criminal conviction was not needed. You are the one that seems to think that a criminal conviction is needed for a civil matter but you have not been able to support that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tell me why you think that he needs to be convicted? Once again, I provided a link that gave just such a case. Actually there were several such cases in the link but the one I copied and pasted specifically pointed out that a criminal conviction was not needed. You are the one that seems to think that a criminal conviction is needed for a civil matter but you have not been able to support that.

Then you admit there is no cause whatsoever required for a court to remove any unconvicted man or woman for that matter off any federal election ballot.

All they need to do is be accused of anything they want, get a Judge Judy kangaroo kourt to go along with it , and bingo! They're off the ballot!

Oh by the way that Insurrection thing well that's not a civil matter , it's a criminal matter. Maybe someday you'll realize that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you admit there is no cause whatsoever required for a court to remove any unconvicted man or woman for that matter off any federal election ballot.

All they need to do is be accused of anything they want, get a Judge Judy kangaroo kourt to go along with it , and bingo! They're off the ballot!

Oh by the way that Insurrection thing well that's not a civil matter , it's a criminal matter. Maybe someday you'll realize that.

Your logic simply does not work. You seem to be able to think that a person can be removed at will. That is not the case. Due process still has to be followed even if you cannot understand the concept.

Also, thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Copernicus]

We all have our opinions on how the case ought to be decided, but the Supreme Court has announced it will hear arguments on the Colorado decision by January 31. The decision is likely to come quickly. My own guess is that at least five of the Justices will vote to keep him on the ballot, but I have no idea what justification they will use to get there. Thomas never recuses himself, so he especially won't on this one, given that his wife was involved in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. I also expect Alito to vote to overturn the Colorado decision. The other justices are less predictable, but they include three people who owe their lifetime appointments to Trump. Five justices is all Trump needs, but the odds are 6-3 against the Colorado decision prevailing, if we just look at political biases. Unfortunately, that seems to be how the Supreme Court decides their cases these days. The Supreme Court majority has basically been shaped by the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your logic simply does not work. You seem to be able to think that a person can be removed at will. That is not the case. Due process still has to be followed even if you cannot understand the concept.

Also, thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

Thanks for demonstrating to everyone here there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in any of your arguments, except of course to yourself and your ra ra followers.

Go ahead give yourself a pat on the back thinking you won the debate. ;0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

We all have our opinions on how the case ought to be decided, but the Supreme Court has announced it will hear arguments on the Colorado decision by January 31. The decision is likely to come quickly. My own guess is that at least five of the Justices will vote to keep him on the ballot, but I have no idea what justification they will use to get there. Thomas never recuses himself, so he especially won't on this one, given that his wife was involved in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. I also expect Alito to vote to overturn the Colorado decision. The other justices are less predictable, but they include three people who owe their lifetime appointments to Trump. Five justices is all Trump needs, but the odds are 6-3 against the Colorado decision prevailing, if we just look at political biases. Unfortunately, that seems to be how the Supreme Court decides their cases these days. The Supreme Court majority has basically been shaped by the Heritage Foundation.

I just heard that as well. I'm looking forward to see what the Supreme Court says on the matter.

Of course it will be also be interesting to see if the leftest people's brigade will comply with what the Supreme Court determines.

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, because it is a civil matter. This is not a criminal matter. That is not denying that there is a criminal side to this too. You are the one that keeps mixing up criminal matters and civil ones. They have different burdens of proof. They have very different punishments. The existence of one does not automatically negate the existence of the other. But the removal of a person from the ballot is a civil issue. It is not a criminal one..


Let's go back to OJ Simpson. He was charged and found not guilty of murder after the prosecution screwed the pooch. And they voted "Not guilty" unanimously so it was not a hung jury. He could not be tried again for the same crime, or to be clearer he could not be tried criminally again for the same crime. That is what double jeopardy is.

That does not mean that he could not be tried civilly. And he was. And he lost. Badly. As a result they were able to strip him of much of his wealth. He was tried both criminally and civilly. And his case supports that we do not need to try Trump criminally for a civil matter. He could have been sue civilly before the criminal trial. But the families were still grieving. It was not until the criminal trial was lost that they tried to get some degree of justice.

Again .. you are just making things up "This is a civil matter - not a criminal matter" followed by absolutely no support of any kind that this claim is true. .. assumed premise fallacy right out of the starting blocks.

You then follow by acknowledging a "criminal Side" but then stating it is me who is mixing up civil and criminal .. again no support for this naked personal invective either.

OJ Simpson has absolutely nothing to do with this friend .. nor do any other cases where you have a criminal trial followed by civil .. Nothing at all .. scoring your post .. fail fail and fail .. once again with no argument to be found nor addressing anything that was said to you previously .. such as the fact that it has not been determined whether this can proceed as civil or criminal .. there is no precedent .. no bar that has been established .

What part of "No Bar has been established" - keeps going deer in headlights ? or do you just not know how to respond .. or simiply ignoring things that disturb flawed perspective.

What do you think the consequences are .. another question you have failed to address .. Cop City not come to mind ? Every Protester now a Terrorist using the new bar .. all it takes is a scuffle .. started by the Police .. 10 years in Jail for the instigators of the Protest .. absolutely no accounting for the consequences .. either don't know or don't care .. in the ends justifies the means Trump Blood Lust ..

 

[Copernicus]

I just heard that as well. I'm looking forward to see what the Supreme Court says on the matter.

Of course it will be also be interesting to see if the leftest people's brigade will comply with what the Supreme Court determines.

There is a lot that you don't understand about Democrats, which is currently absorbing some of the moderates fleeing from the Republican Party. Traditionally, Democrats have not been "originalists" or "textualists" when it comes to Constitutional law. The Constitution was never intended to preserve 18th century values, so the wording is sometimes left more vague or general to give room for evolving conditions over time. The strict textual reading of section 3 of the 14th amendment includes any federal office, including the presidency, and historical precedence says that people can be disqualified to run for office if there is some determination by a court that they engaged in insurrection, not necessarily a criminal determination. Disqualification can be triggered by merely giving aid and comfort to those rebelling against Constitutional law.

However, there are Democrats who think that the Supreme Court ought to standardize the modern interpretation of just what an "insurrection" is. When the 14th Amendment passed, everybody understood clearly what it entailed--support for the Confederate rebellion against the United States. The January 6 insurrection was clearly an attempt by the sitting president to keep himself in power, even though he had lost both the popular election and the state electoral count. Nevertheless, it was a very different type of rebellion from the Civil War. Theoretically, the Court could simply rule that the concept of insurrection that held at the end of the Civil War has evolved and that it did not really apply to the kind that happened on January 6. Some legal pundits have been taking the position that the Supreme Court might use that approach as an "off ramp" to get around disqualifying Trump under a strictly textualist interpretation of the 14th.

 

[Sargonski]

I thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. What makes you think that? Where in the Constitution does it say that one cannot be tried both civilly and criminally?


I have listened. I have asked for evidence that due process was not followed and all that you had was Barr making that claim without any evidence. By the way, Barr was more of a prosecutor. He may not be as aware of civil matters. I am sure that he knows the law better than I do, but this appears to be a bit of personal prejudice since he did not site any evidence that supported his claims. Just as you never have.

Oh my oh my! There goes another irony meter.
Once again, a case law example of a person that was found to be disqualified:

J.D. Watkins

District Attorney

“Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did)

State Judge

Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3.

Louisiana Supreme Court

Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869).

No

1869

Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

He was never charged with any crime and he was still removed. Just as Trump may be. We will see how the Supreme Court reacts.

Please read that last block of print. It shows you what everyone that has been opposing you has been claiming all along.

Now unless you can find some actual legal evidence it looks as if you are just working using your own feelings.

You were not told that the constitution states one could not be tried both criminally and civily .. so why are you pretending I said such a thing

Followed by presenting a case where someone who had engaged in a full on civil war/"rebellion" againt the state ... in an attempt to take over the Gov't .. Usurp vast amounts of territory .... and so forth.

This is the definition of insurrection being referred to. There was no such "Insurrection" .. cept in the mind of Kangarooland .. The Capital Protest was not a Section 3 "rebellion" against authority .. having no military .. no legitimate possibility of the plan taking over the US Gov't .. and thus this case is meritless..

however .. Barr was not arguing the merits of the case .. he stating that these definitional issues -- whether the the bar is criminal or civil.... and so on .. can not be arbitrarily determined by some State Judge .. with no due process. no process by which that determination made .. no Jury .. no expert testimony .. There has never been a case like this .. Precedent is set with this case .. to set this precedent without due process is an anathama to the principles of Justice

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were not told that the constitution states one could not be tried both criminally and civily .. so why are you pretending I said such a thing

Followed by presenting a case where someone who had engaged in a full on civil war/"rebellion" againt the state ... in an attempt to take over the Gov't .. Usurp vast amounts of territory .... and so forth.

This is the definition of insurrection being referred to. There was no such "Insurrection" .. cept in the mind of Kangarooland .. The Capital Protest was not a Section 3 "rebellion" against authority .. having no military .. no legitimate possibility of the plan taking over the US Gov't .. and thus this case is meritless..

however .. Barr was not arguing the merits of the case .. he stating that these definitional issues -- whether the the bar is criminal or civil.... and so on .. can not be arbitrarily determined by some State Judge .. with no due process. no process by which that determination made .. no Jury .. no expert testimony .. There has never been a case like this .. Precedent is set with this case .. to set this precedent without due process is an anathama to the principles of Justice

What are you talking about? That is not how you admitted that you were wrong.

 

[Sargonski]

What are you talking about? That is not how you admitted that you were wrong.

I didn't admit I was wrong .. this is a falsehood o fantasy in your mind friend .. and you should know better than to even think or question such a thing .. given past track record

 

[Copernicus]

You were not told that the constitution states one could not be tried both criminally and civily .. so why are you pretending I said such a thing

Followed by presenting a case where someone who had engaged in a full on civil war/"rebellion" againt the state ... in an attempt to take over the Gov't .. Usurp vast amounts of territory .... and so forth.

This is the definition of insurrection being referred to. There was no such "Insurrection" .. cept in the mind of Kangarooland .. The Capital Protest was not a Section 3 "rebellion" against authority .. having no military .. no legitimate possibility of the plan taking over the US Gov't .. and thus this case is meritless..

however .. Barr was not arguing the merits of the case .. he stating that these definitional issues -- whether the the bar is criminal or civil.... and so on .. can not be arbitrarily determined by some State Judge .. with no due process. no process by which that determination made .. no Jury .. no expert testimony .. There has never been a case like this .. Precedent is set with this case .. to set this precedent without due process is an anathama to the principles of Justice

But the only precedent for Section 3 cases has involved disqualifying people who were not convicted of crimes. Enforcement of the law has been rare, but not unprecedented, and state courts have been involved in the past. See:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification​

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.

It is interesting that Congress did pass an Amnesty Act in 1872 that removed Section 3 disqualifications from those who had participated in the Confederate rebellion except for those who had acted in a leadership role.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't admit I was wrong .. this is a falsehood o fantasy in your mind friend .. and you should know better than to even think or question such a thing .. given past track record

But you did. You used a false claim that you were warned about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the only precedent for Section 3 cases has involved disqualifying people who were not convicted of crimes. Enforcement of the law has been rare, but not unprecedented, and state courts have been involved in the past. See:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification​

It is interesting that Congress did pass an Amnesty Act in 1872 that removed Section 3 disqualifications from those who had participated in the Confederate rebellion except for those who had acted in a leadership role.

Sadly I have posted that source quite a few times and even quoted specific cases. Their only response was to use the ostrich defense.

 

[Copernicus]

But the only precedent for Section 3 cases has involved disqualifying people who were not convicted of crimes. Enforcement of the law has been rare, but not unprecedented, and state courts have been involved in the past. See:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification​

It is interesting that Congress did pass an Amnesty Act in 1872 that removed Section 3 disqualifications from those who had participated in the Confederate rebellion except for those who had acted in a leadership role.

Sadly I have posted that source quite a few times and even quoted specific cases. Their only response was to use the ostrich defense.

I know, but the ostrich defense is the mainstay of an ad nauseam argument. Ignore the refutations and keep repeating the discredited claims as if they had not been refuted. Donald Trump has set the tone for this kind of behavior, and his followers love to copy it. It is effective with a surprisingly large segment of the population. They come to believe claims that they had earlier dismissed as false. Repetition does work, unfortunately.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yea , right he was. Yea he was there the whole time.

Nothing passes your genius observations on the matter.

They seem to have passed by your genius observations on the matter.