Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And that was what the first judge based her decision upon. It may be valid, it may not be. I am not a lawyer. We will see how this works out at the USSC. Personally I believe that the interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court was correct. I know that the first judge had no thoughts that she was the final arbiter. I was not crying and yelling when she ruled for Trump. I know that the Colorado Supreme Court knows that they are not the final world when they ruled against Trump so sadly no Dancing in the Street. The USSC will be those that make the final decision. And since they are rather corrupt in their support of right wing causes instead of following the Constitution lately you should not get your panties in too much of a knot. The odds for Trump are pretty good.

They are not corrupt, they just interpret the law as the constitution is written instead of how you want the to rule. If they go by what is actually written, then the president is not subject to the 14th amendment section 3. It is pretty clear if you understand english.

 

[McBell]

And you know so little about the fact you can't hold a trial twice for the same crime.

That is not what double jeopardy states.

You tell me what it was about then if it wasn't that , even though you still mentioned insurrection in your very postings.

Here with this exchange in post #73...

Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

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...

www.religiousforums.com

Make up your mind what this is actually over.

You do know that there are trials that are not criminal trials, right?

You are being redirected...

www.legallanguage.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is not what double jeopardy states.


You do know that there are trials that are not criminal trials, right?

You are being redirected...

www.legallanguage.com

Okay tell me how an Insurrection is not a criminal act.

Pretty simple right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

The issue is whether "an officer of the United States" includes the office of President.

The issue is also whether the wording of the presidential oath "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution is an oath to "support" the Constitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the answer to both of these questions is "yes."

FYI: the commas are weird and don't follow modern practice. It doesn't impact the interpretation of the amendment (same as for the 2nd Amendment).

 

[Viker]

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

It says any office. It doesn't list the Secretary of State either, because it can be understood that any office means any.... the office of the President as well.

 

[McBell]

Okay tell me how an Insurrection is not a criminal act.

Pretty simple right?

Who is claiming it is not a criminal act?
And what does it being a criminal act have to do with the fact there are trials that are not criminal trials?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Who is claiming it is not a criminal act?
And what does it being a criminal act have to do with the fact there are trials that are not criminal trials?

Don't be daft.

You're the one who explicitly said some trials aren't criminal trials , so I ask you again how an Insurrection is not a criminal act?

 

[McBell]

Don't be daft.

You're the one who explicitly said some trials aren't criminal trials , so I ask you again how an Insurrection is not a criminal act?

Again, no one has claimed it isn't.

Your inability (or unwillingness) to understand that not all trials are criminal trials is on you.
AND
it is not my responsibility to educate you enough for you to understand it.

I would hate to see your reaction when you find out that not all trials required the same amount of evidence for verdicts to be rendered.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Again, no one has claimed it isn't.

Your inability (or unwillingness) to understand that not all trials are criminal trials is on you.
AND
it is not my responsibility to educate you enough for you to understand it.

I would hate to see your reaction when you find out that not all trials required the same amount of evidence for verdicts to be rendered.

Are you going to answer the question or not, or are you just going to continue trying to weasel out of answering your apparent and clearly redundant 'education' on the matter ?

A proper non deflecting response would suffice as to why exactly it not criminal as it pertains to an insurrection, given the clear reason Trump was kicked off the ballot was over the insurrection?

Not very difficult right?

Not hard to understand that.

Since you're such an expert on this matter on non criminal proceedings, you can most certainly tell me , and even educate me as to why or how an insurrection qualifies as a non-criminal here , or are you just going to continue repeating the same thing over and over that not all trials are criminal without ever explaining why an Insurrection, the very reason given for taking Trump off the ballot in the first place, qualifies as being non-criminal warranting a non criminal trial?

 

[McBell]

Are you going to answer the question or not, or are you just going to continue trying to weasel out of answering your apparent and clearly redundant 'education' on the matter ?

A proper non deflecting response would suffice as to why exactly it not criminal as it pertains to an insurrection, given the clear reason Trump was kicked off the ballot was over the insurrection?

Not very difficult right?

Not hard to understand that.

Since you're such an expert on this matter on non criminal proceedings, you can most certainly tell me , and even educate me as to why or how an insurrection qualifies as a non-criminal here , or are you just going to continue repeating the same thing over and over that not all trials are criminal without ever explaining why an Insurrection qualifies as non-criminal?

Since I am not aware of anyone thinking that insurrection is not a criminal act, you question appears to be nothing more than a distraction tactic.

However, if you are so ignorant of the legal system that you honestly have no idea that your question has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand...

Sadly, I do not have the time nor patience to bring your knowledge of the legal system up to par enough for you to understand it.

I understand that I must seem like an expert to you.
But I am no expert on the law.
far from it.

The fact of the matter is that the trial in Colorado was not a criminal trial.
That your whole "argument" about double jeopardy hinging on it being a criminal trial is your problem.

That you do not understand that not all trials are criminal trials is once again, your problem.

That you continuously ask for something that is not the case, is yet another you problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one who said this was over the Insurrection. Now your deflecting as everyone knows you habitually do.

You tell me what it was about then if it wasn't that , even though you still mentioned insurrection in your very postings.

Here with this exchange in post #73...

Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

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...

www.religiousforums.com

Make up your mind what this is actually over.

Oh my, false claims about others. Not nice. I never deflected. You are the one that is making the error of assuming that criminal trial was needed. It has been explained to you more than once that it was not needed. Criminal trials deal with imprisonment. We do not have to imprison Trump to know that he incited an insurrection. I have always claimed that was what he did, There was no deflection.

And the anti-Trump side in the first trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt for the judge that he did engage in that act. Once again, this was not a criminal trial, it was a trial to see if he qualified to be on the ballot. This is why Schwarzenegger was a perfect example. In a trial it would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not born here and therefore could not be put on the ballot. It is in the Constitution. In the same way Trump can be disqualified from the ballot if it is shown (there is nothing about being convicted) to have participated in an insurrection and that was judged to be the case. It is in the Constitution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not corrupt, they just interpret the law as the constitution is written instead of how you want the to rule. If they go by what is actually written, then the president is not subject to the 14th amendment section 3. It is pretty clear if you understand english.

But they did not do that. They are corrupt in at least two cases that I can think of.

 

[F1fan]

No, read it again. There is a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

If you don’t classify the president as an officer of the USA, then what is it? What do you think an officer is if not a category that includes the president?

Let’s note that the text doesn’t say the president is exempt. It doesn’t mention “governor” of states but it can be concluded that they aren’t exempt either.

Let’s further emphasize that the text mentions anyone who has taken an oath, and this includes the president. This means the president is expected to honor this oath and is accountable if there are actions made against the USA.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

So there is no "Office of the Presidency?" Did you miss the part of the amendment that says "or any office holder?"

 

[Wandering Monk]

They are not corrupt, they just interpret the law as the constitution is written instead of how you want the to rule. If they go by what is actually written, then the president is not subject to the 14th amendment section 3. It is pretty clear if you understand english.

So there was nothing preventing Jefferson Davis from becoming POTUS after the Civil War?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The odds of him actually making it to the end of the poll are going down day by day.
That is whether he makes it on to the ballot papers or not.

If I were him I would quit while I still could.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meanwhile ...

... the silence you hear is that of the news media not talking about Nikki Haley.

 

[Kenny]

Then this suggests Trump supporters are flawed as citizens/humans. Flawed to an extreme level that is dangerous to the country and planet.

I think we all are flawed. If one gives looking enough time, one can find flaws.

 

[Kenny]

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.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/28/1196309946/trump-trial-jan-6

What was this trial all about?

Politics?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Politics?

No doubt about it.

The latest leftest attempt to spit on this nation and turn it into an authoritarian regime that is to be controlled only by them, and only by their rule.

Eliminating political opponents is just the first step , and a massive red flag to this nation as to who these people truly and really are.

They are far worse traitors than Trump is.