• 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

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Subduction Zone said:
Interesting. The Republican Party is no longer the party of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Neither is the neo- Democrat Party, which is why we're all screwed at least for us common people.

In fairness however , I probably wouldn't object to people calling Republicans Neo-Republicans now.

I don't think neither party today is recognizable compared to it's past identity. At least in terms of cooperation and compromise and of course the decorum and professionalism that has all but disappeared today.

Sounds like it would make a good thread on its own.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Wandering Monk said:
Mango Mussolini's lawyers argued that he could not be removed under the 14th Amendment because he never took an oath to support the Constitution.

www.newsweek.com

Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"

The former president's lawyers argue why he cannot be barred from running for office for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
TThe sad thijg is that won't stop MAGAs who won't shut up about the Constitution and how limited their understanding of it is.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
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).
Click to expand...
The wording is clear that the oath of the president does not matter what it says. The president is not listed in the list. Two things must be true, they take an oath to support the constitution and are listed in the list. This is basic english. Also, there is ambiguity over if the president is an officer. Here is NY University Journal of Law and Liberty says the president is not an officer. The district court agrees with this conclusion.


With so much ambiguity the law should err on the side of the accused not the government. If not, the government turns into a tyranny and can accuse anyone of anything based on flimsy evidence.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Viker said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it says any office that took one of the oaths listed. Read the entire sentence it says any office that took one of the listed oaths. The president is not listed. Here is a long explanation.

 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here you go:

 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
Read the entire sentence. It qualifies the office holder as taken an oath to support the constitution and one of the listed offices. The president is not listed.

Click to expand...
That is true. And that is why the first judge found against them. But it is rather insane to try to claim that there is no office of the Presidency. I am betting that they never expect mass insanity when it came to the voters.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
Read the entire sentence. It qualifies the office holder as taken an oath to support the constitution and one of the listed offices. The president is not listed.

Click to expand...
Actually he is. The Presidency of the United States is an office and he did swear an oath for that office. From the article: "or as an officer of the United States". I have not read the whole thing yet, but the author then goes on to state that he was not convicted by the Senate. But that had nothing to do with the fact of whether he was involved in an insurrection or not. That was not a criminal trial either. That was a political trail and carries no weight in this debate. The precedent does not say that they need to be convicted. They only need to have sworn an oath. A President Trump did.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium 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...
This is a sad day for the Constitution. I despise Trump, but the Colorado Court acted as judge, jury, and executioner. If and when Trump is actually convicted of insurrection, we can keep him off the ballot, but until then he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that? Colorado has set a dangerous precedent, but I suspect the Supremes will overturn the ruling.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Watchmen said:
This is a sad day for the Constitution. I despise Trump, but the Colorado Court acted as judge, jury, and executioner. If and when Trump is actually convicted of insurrection, we can keep him off the ballot, but until then he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that? Colorado has set a dangerous precedent, but I suspect the Supremes will overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...
Except that this is not a condition that requires a conviction. There is legal precedent. The ones wanting to keep Trump off the ballot had to prove it in a court of law, and that was done in the lower court. The Amendment requires no conviction just as one does not have to be "convicted' of being born outside of the country to be banned from the ballot. In a criminal trial the standard is innocent until proven guilty, but different courts have different standards.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
What you all seem to miss is that jurisprudence is not an exact science. It isn't even logical or consistent. Different legislative entities can use different definitions, they may even use different definition for different paragraphs within the same law.
And all of them are open for interpretation. If that weren't so we wouldn't need lawyers.
The only thing we can be sure about (sometimes only temporary) is when a court has come to a verdict. So, currently, we know that Trump is not fit to run for office in Colorado. That is a fact (until a higher court decides otherwise).
And it is pretty moot to argue against a fact.
What you (as a US citizen) can argue about is the ambiguous wording of the 14th Amendment. You can not only argue about it, you can also start a process to replace the 14th Amendment with a clearer version.

A question only tangentially related to the current ruling is how a democracy could defend itself against anti democratic agents from within. That would be more productive than trying to be smarter than the Justices.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Watchmen said:
This is a sad day for the Constitution. I despise Trump, but the Colorado Court acted as judge, jury, and executioner. If and when Trump is actually convicted of insurrection, we can keep him off the ballot, but until then he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that? Colorado has set a dangerous precedent, but I suspect the Supremes will overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm hoping for. If not , then this country is royally screwed where election interference now happens from the inside.

Double Jeopardy will henceforth be decreed a privilege by the unified one mind hive of drones, and not any longer a constitutionally protected right.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
Except that this is not a condition that requires a conviction. There is legal precedent. The ones wanting to keep Trump off the ballot had to prove it in a court of law, and that was done in the lower court. The Amendment requires no conviction just as one does not have to be "convicted' of being born outside of the country to be banned from the ballot. In a criminal trial the standard is innocent until proven guilty, but different courts have different standards.
Click to expand...
Actually the lower court ruled for Trump. And place of birth and insurrection are wildly different things. This is a dangerous precedent.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It is not Trump that is on trial
It is those American people who might vote for him.
It is their values and principles that are on trial.
If they elect Trump it will be a mark of their own degeneration.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top