Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

but in reality he just wants Don the soon to be con to win

Na, just democracy and not a banana republic where unelected officials and he who has the most money, chooses the representation. 

 

Crazy, huh

 

 

[Pokebball]

Just now, daz28 said:

Bringing a case before court isn't "unprecedented", and for someone who refuses to look at and discuss the merits of it fairly and unbiased, it sure seems partisan.  

In this case it is. At least that is what those smarter than me are calling it.

[daz28]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Na, just democracy and not a banana republic where unelected officials and he who has the most money, chooses the representation. 

 

Crazy, huh

 

 

Yeah, a country where courts try to uphold the Constitution(including the 14th Amendment).  Crazy, huh

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Bringing a case before court isn't "unprecedented", and for someone who refuses to look at and discuss the merits of it fairly and unbiased, it sure seems partisan.  

Who brought the case?  who funds the group that brought the case?  is that group partisan?  

 

503(C)  are political.

 

 

 

 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

In this case it is. At least that is what those smarter than me are calling it.

So just ignore the parts of the Constitution that come up rarely?  btw, there's a difference between the words unprecedented, and having precedent.  There IS precedent on the disqualification clause, and I'll bet you've researched zero of it.

1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Who brought the case?  who funds the group that brought the case?  is that group partisan?  

 

503(C)  are political.

 

 

 

 

Is the court?  If so, then you're just playing the rino/deep state card, which I'm not going to argue.  If Trump taught you anything, it's that the courts can and will be abused to death.  It's up to the courts to get things right.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

That wager on the SCOTUS' decision...you up to that challenge?

Wager on the bought up court? I'll bet Clarence Thomas sides with Trump, the guy whose wife wanted Trump to arrest Biden. You wanna bet on that? 

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So just ignore the parts of the Constitution that come up rarely?  btw, there's a difference between the words unprecedented, and having precedent.  There IS precedent on the disqualification clause, and I'll bet you've researched zero of it.

CREW?  The PAC that sued to take him off the ticket and is now fund raising off it?

 

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (citizensforethics.org)

 

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.”

 

the thing is J6 was never found to be a rebellion or insurrection. look at the convictions.

 

 

 

 

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Wager on the bought up court? I'll bet Clarence Thomas sides with Trump, the guy whose wife wanted Trump to arrest Biden. You wanna bet on that? 

They aren't siding with trump, they're siding, or not siding, with the 4-3 vote by the CO appellate court.

 

How much you willing to put on your partisan political opinion?

[Tommy Callahan]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Wager on the bought up court? I'll bet Clarence Thomas sides with Trump, the guy whose wife wanted Trump to arrest Biden. You wanna bet on that? 

Work that conspiracy early.

 

Everyone outside of TDS dems knows the SC will toss it.

 

Then we will see if the sack of potatoes can get 81 million again, or if the orange dude can get 75 million or whatever number it takes to win.

 

So no response on what PAC sued and who funds said pac

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[daz28]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

CREW?  The PAC that sued to take him off the ticket and is now fund raising off it?

 

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (citizensforethics.org)

 

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.”

 

the thing is J6 was never found to be a rebellion or insurrection. look at the convictions.

 

 

 

 

There is no legal definition of insurrection, and that's why no one is charged with it.  It's an undefined statute.  Whether it was an insurrection or not is certainly up for debate, but all the judges who've ruled on it so far have said yes.  Thanks for confirming one of the facts I already pointed out, and I'm glad you're actually trying to research.  

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

They aren't siding with trump, they're siding, or not siding, with the 4-3 vote by the CO appellate court. 

Ha ha, good one! 

 

It's sad, you actually probably believe that! 🤣

[Tommy Callahan]

LMAO. 

 

MSNBC, NPR and the rest of the tools been talking up this suit for a long time. 

 

but always fail to mention the corporation that's doing it, and who funds it.

 

like you are

 

 

[daz28]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Wager on the bought up court? I'll bet Clarence Thomas sides with Trump, the guy whose wife wanted Trump to arrest Biden. You wanna bet on that? 

I'm not betting on them backing Trump just because, but rather because they are going to look at it, and say "what a mess", and find a way to avoid facing the details.  They may be lying shills at times, but I hope they still have some honor.

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

LMAO. 

 

MSNBC, NPR and the rest of the tools been talking up this suit for a long time. 

 

but always fail to mention the corporation that's doing it, and who funds it.

 

like you are

 

 

Oh really, I'm the one who just posted the facts on CREW, and who they've gone after before.  I'm not a partisan hack.

[The Frankish Reich]

As a starting point: I don't think it is a good idea to exclude Trump from the primary (and then, logically, the general election) ballot.

 

So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get there?

 

1. By applying the Colorado state laws on ballot qualification.

2. By looking to the standard definitions of "insurrection" at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War. That's because the 14th Amendment itself did not define the term.

 

Bigger picture: this is, weirdly, the logical endpoint of conservative "textualism" in interpreting the Constitution. We all know the historical background of the 14th Amendment: it was to prevent the rebellious southern states from electing their secessionist leaders all over again. But a textual approach says that historical context isn't important. We apply the plain language of the text, which in this case bars anyone who engaged in "insurrection." Not "anyone who was involved in or encouraged the efforts of the states that purported to secede from the United States of America." No. "Insurrection" in general. And so according to conservative legal doctrine the courts look to what "insurrection" in general was understood to mean in America at the time the Amendment was ratified by the states. That's why the Colorado Supreme Court cites 1860s American dictionary definitions of 'insurrection." This is the same approach that got us to an expansive definition of the Second Amendment. Forget about all that "militia" stuff and the historical context of state militias c. 1789. Instead, let's just read the words and decide what "right to bear arms" was understood to mean in 1789. Historical context is relevant only with respect to what we believe certain words meant to people of that era, not to why the Amendment was promulgated and then ratified. 

 

So here we are. I read the Colorado Supreme Court decision, including the three dissents that would have decided the case in the opposite way. I can't see any clear legal error in what the majority decision did. The trial level Court found that Trump had engaged in "insurrection." The Colorado Supreme Court said they review whether there was "substantial evidence" in support of that finding. (NOTE: the standard is not "clear and convincing evidence." It takes more to overturn an NFL call than a finding of a state trial court.) They said yes, there was. They review questions of law without deference to the trial court's findings. Therefore, they found that the President of the United States is an "officer" of the United States, which is a pretty damn reasonable decision, although the U.S. Supreme Court may decide otherwise. They said there was due process - a 5-day trial in which Trump and his proposed electors had a fair opportunity under Colorado law to challenge evidence and put on their own evidence. Applying Colorado evidence law, they said there was a clear exception to the rule barring hearsay and that allowing the January 6 committee report was therefore fair.

 

The law was applied fairly, and the result is perfectly defensible. Should Presidential candidates have to answer to the separate ballot exclusion provisions in all 50 states (plus, I guess, Puerto Rico and DC)? In my opinion, no. Our electoral laws are antiquated and we need new ones. But based on the ones we have, it is the height of hypocrisy for Trump supporters to argue that the state legislatures had the authority to reject certified Biden electors and accept their own slates, and to now argue that the states cannot make their own decisions as to who qualifies for their own damn ballots and who does not. 

 

Hoist by their own petard. I think that's the expression.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsFanNC]

 

[daz28]

16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

As a starting point: I don't think it is a good idea to exclude Trump from the primary (and then, logically, the general election) ballot.

 

So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get there?

 

1. By applying the Colorado state laws on ballot qualification.

2. By looking to the standard definitions of "insurrection" at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War. That's because the 14th Amendment itself did not define the term.

 

Bigger picture: this is, weirdly, the logical endpoint of conservative "textualism" in interpreting the Constitution. We all know the historical background of the 14th Amendment: it was to prevent the rebellious southern states from electing their secessionist leaders all over again. But a textual approach says that historical context isn't important. We apply the plain language of the text, which in this case bars anyone who engaged in "insurrection." Not "anyone who was involved in or encouraged the efforts of the states that purported to secede from the United States of America." No. "Insurrection" in general. And so according to conservative legal doctrine the courts look to what "insurrection" in general was understood to mean in America at the time the Amendment was ratified by the states. That's why the Colorado Supreme Court cites 1860s American dictionary definitions of 'insurrection." This is the same approach that got us to an expansive definition of the Second Amendment. Forget about all that "militia" stuff and the historical context of state militias c. 1789. Instead, let's just read the words and decide what "right to bear arms" was understood to mean in 1789. Historical context is relevant only with respect to what we believe certain words meant to people of that era, not to why the Amendment was promulgated and then ratified. 

 

So here we are. I read the Colorado Supreme Court decision, including the three dissents that would have decided the case in the opposite way. I can't see any clear legal error in what the majority decision did. The trial level Court found that Trump had engaged in "insurrection." The Colorado Supreme Court said they review whether there was "substantial evidence" in support of that finding. (NOTE: the standard is not "clear and convincing evidence." It takes more to overturn an NFL call than a finding of a state trial court.) They said yes, there was. They review questions of law without deference to the trial court's findings. Therefore, they found that the President of the United States is an "officer" of the United States, which is a pretty damn reasonable decision, although the U.S. Supreme Court may decide otherwise. They said there was due process - a 5-day trial in which Trump and his proposed electors had a fair opportunity under Colorado law to challenge evidence and put on their own evidence. Applying Colorado evidence law, they said there was a clear exception to the rule barring hearsay and that allowing the January 6 committee report was therefore fair.

 

The law was applied fairly, and the result is perfectly defensible. Should Presidential candidates have to answer to the separate ballot exclusion provisions in all 50 states (plus, I guess, Puerto Rico and DC)? In my opinion, no. Our electoral laws are antiquated and we need new ones. But based on the ones we have, it is the height of hypocrisy for Trump supporters to argue that the state legislatures had the authority to reject certified Biden electors and accept their own slates, and to now argue that the states cannot make their own decisions as to who qualifies for their own damn ballots and who does not. 

 

Hoist by their own petard. I think that's the expression.

 

Very well done, sir.  The only thing I might add is you may have wanted to preface this so the posters purposely avoiding any factual context to the case could ignore it.  So if Poke and Tommy read this first, you might not want to read what Frank just wrote.  I'd also like to add, that the definition of insurrection in America at the time was based mostly on slave revolt.  ie: an uprising in an attempt to seize power.  I think that fits Jan 6th pretty well.  

Edited December 20, 2023 by daz28

[nedboy7]

Meanwhile Trump is going after Chip Roy? 
 

"Has any smart and energetic Republican in the Great State of Texas decided to run in the Primary against RINO Congressman Chip Roy. For the right person, he is very beatable. If interested, let me know!!!"

[BillsFanNC]

 

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

This is President of the United States. You don't mess with that. If there is an actual crime, like Watergate, it needs to be obvious like when they review a play in football and everyone is like yep that's a fumble. You can't make up stuff and hope something sticks if you have enough votes due to politics. They will just use that same tactic against you next time and just like that we no longer have a democracy 

wait did you say make stuff up and see if it sticks?  How about some self awareness for the gop. 

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

Nobody should EVER want see civil war…it is quite horrific 

Thats the right wing rhetoric. So whatever. Bring it. 

[The Frankish Reich]

As far as being convicted of "insurrection" - the only federal statute I see that makes "insurrection" a crime was created in 1946, after WWII. In other words, some three quarters of a century AFTER the 14th Amendment exclusion for participating in insurrection. So arguing that a conviction is necessary is clearly wrong.