• 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

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
This is a sad day for the Constitution. I despise Trump, but the Colorado Court acted as judge, jury, and executioner.
Click to expand...

No, it acted as a (panel of) judges.

Watchmen said:
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...
You don't think the Colorado case proves guilt?

I know it wasn't a criminal case, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a high bar to clear.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is an office that has taken one of the oaths listed. It is like saying you can have any piece of candy as long as it has chocolate in it. Skittles would be left out of the any piece of candy. Just like the president if it is an office, would be left out because it is left out of the list of oaths. If Trump would have been a senator previously then maybe you have a case, since it says "previously".
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it says swear one of the oaths listed. He did not do that.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
No it says swear one of the oaths listed. He did not do that.
Click to expand...
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
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.​

Here is the Presidential Oath of Office:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Trump's attorney seems to think that the word 'support' is not synonymous with 'preserve, protect and defend.' Are you saying the same thing?
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
F

F1fan

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...
From those actually writing this amendment:

finance.yahoo.com

Original records leave no question that the 14th Amendment applies to Trump

Alex Wagner looks at an exchange from 1866, highlighted in the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, between Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill about whether the 14th Amendment they were drafting would apply to presidents and vice presidents. In sum, yes it does.
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
F

F1fan

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...
How is following the Constitution bad for the Constitution? It is ugly, but then so is Trump. Who ever expected such a corrupt guy getting support from nearly half the nation's citizens?

It would be embarrassing for 10% of citizens supporting Trump, but 45%? That is a shock, and disappointing. That there was an amendment that predicted more attempts to sabotage the election process is why it is being used now.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
It is an office that has taken one of the oaths listed. It is like saying you can have any piece of candy as long as it has chocolate in it. Skittles would be left out of the any piece of candy. Just like the president if it is an office, would be left out because it is left out of the list of oaths. If Trump would have been a senator previously then maybe you have a case, since it says "previously".
Click to expand...
As was shown by @Wandering Monk who already did my homework for me that is not the case.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
That's what I'm hoping for. If not , then this country is royally screwed where election interference now happens from the inside.
Click to expand...
Yet nothing about Trump's election interferance? The one that has a massive conspiracy indictment in Geogia, in case you are confused. Trump is owed nothing.
Twilight Hue said:
Double Jeopardy will henceforth be decreed a privilege by the unified one mind hive of drones, and not any longer a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...
LOL, so you are watching disinformation news. An impeachment isn't a legal process, so irrelevant. Funny you yot duped.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Kenny said:
I thought they told us that it was Trump that wanted a totalitarian regime. Hmmm… maybe we need to look elsewhere
Click to expand...
Yes, the guy who concocted a scheme to never leave office even when he clearly lost, complete with false electors and voting machine breaches seems to me to be the guy who obviously doesn't have any respect for the democratic process. But that's just me, I guess.

I find it bizarre that anyone could interpret upholding the already existing laws and holding the above person and his co-conspirators accountable for the traitorous actions in a court of law, as anything close to totalitarian anything. Can you explain that?
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

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...
If a court's job isn't to interpret law, then what job do they have, exactly?
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
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.​

Here is the Presidential Oath of Office:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Trump's attorney seems to think that the word 'support' is not synonymous with 'preserve, protect and defend.' Are you saying the same thing?
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
For the Roe v Wade vote many of them swore under oath that they were not revisiting that. The high school teacher praying on field was clearly a violation of the First Amendment. That was settled in the 1950's.
Click to expand...
So again, this is just rulings you don't like, it is not corruption. I don't know what they said under oath but if you think lying under oath is corruption then all of our politicians need to go including Biden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top