Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Conservatives throw conniption fit over Julia Roberts ad for Harris, aimed at Trumpers' wives.
Humor by Curt_Anderson     October 31, 2024 3:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (4 comments) [21 views]

Seven Lies Kamala Harris Packed Into 22-Minute Harrisburg Rally
Crime by HatetheSwamp     October 31, 2024 6:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [108 views]

Why Donald Trump Supporters Are Garbage.
Opinion by Ponderer     October 30, 2024 7:44 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (24 comments) [181 views]

Six Major Ways the Dims have Weakened the US REPUBLIC
Conspiracy by oldedude     October 31, 2024 12:44 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [37 views]

Trump rides in garbage truck in effort to seize on Biden comment
Humor by HatetheSwamp     October 30, 2024 4:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [54 views]

How Elon Musk may have just swung the election...
Media by HatetheSwamp     October 31, 2024 4:36 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [50 views]

Ukrainians Tell of Brutal Russian Repression in Occupied Territories
Horror by Donna     October 31, 2024 8:02 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (5 comments) [40 views]

Seven lies The Federalist said about Kamala Harris, the seven lies HtS said about them
Fact Check by Curt_Anderson     October 31, 2024 12:48 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [44 views]

The JD Vance Joe Rogan podcast is available
Media by HatetheSwamp     October 31, 2024 10:09 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [33 views]

From the Gays Against Groomers honchos:
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp     October 30, 2024 12:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [64 views]

Law selectors, pages, etc.
Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot
By Curt_Anderson
December 19, 2023 3:55 pm
Category: Law

(5.0 from 1 vote)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules
It’s the first court to find that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Mr. Trump, in addition to affirming that he engaged in insurrection.

Trump will appeal, of course. If the US Supreme Court upholds the Supreme Court of Colorado’s decision, other states might follow Colorado’s lead.

Regardless of the eventual SCOTUS decision, it’s a reminder to decent patriotic constitution respecting people everywhere that Trump is an insurrectionist.

Cited and related links:

  1. nytimes.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on December 19, 2023 4:22 pm

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha baha baha keeheeheeheeheeheeheehee hoohoo hahaha hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheehee hahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.

    024 is gunna be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!

    Yeeeeeeeeeeeeha!

  2. by HatetheSwamp on December 19, 2023 4:31 pm

    Seriously, gang. The only way Trump'd win Colorado is if he'd end up with 350+ Electoral College votes.

    The Supreme Court will trash this decision but it's essentially meaningless anyway.

    Still, I do enjoy the progressive Swampcult and its defiance of due process.

  3. by Curt_Anderson on December 19, 2023 4:55 pm
    HtS,
    SCOTUS has ruled against Trump a number of times. They ruled against him twice in his contesting of the 2020 election. Most conservatives, including Trump's nominees to the high court, say they are "textualists", that is they read the text of the Constitution and its amendments literally.

    14th Amendment, Section 3
    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.

  4. by HatetheSwamp on December 19, 2023 6:01 pm

    14th Amendment, Section 3
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,...

    Keep a good thought, Curt.

    Do you notice that Senator and Representative, even elector are mentioned...but not President or Veep?

    But, Curt. Please keep a good thought. Please.

    Please, please, please, please, please. Sincere and earnest TrumpHate is so charming.

  5. by Curt_Anderson on December 19, 2023 6:30 pm
    "No person shall...hold any office, civil or military...who, having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

    That covers the presidency.


  6. by oldedude on December 19, 2023 6:58 pm
    I agree. The "issue" is to prove that in a court of law. It's underway now, but trumpster has one hell of a defense right now. Later? maybe zero. Now, as the law stands to have a trial against a President that leans on being a traitor, is slim and none. And slim just walked out of the building.

  7. by Ponderer on December 19, 2023 7:09 pm

    "That covers the presidency." -Curt

    It sure does. The president is legally under oath for their whole presidency and beyond. Officially swearing to the oath of office is a legal oath, like the legal kind that you swear in court that can get you put in jail if you dishonor. There should be consequences for wiping your ass with your oath to the Constitution like Trump did.

    And now here's Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to see that there is.

    "No person shall...hold any office, civil or military...who, having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

    It really couldn't be plainer that he violated the livingshit out of that law. It's completely inarguable that he has engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution.



    I'll predict right here that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear his appeal.



    It's a states rights issue. And the Trump bunch won't want him to know that they had to deny his appeal on legal, Constitutional grounds with a unanimous vote.

    I mean it's a little difficult to imagine the Supreme Court declaring that states do not have the right to abide by the statutes of the Constitution of the United States if they have a mind to.

  8. by Indy! on December 19, 2023 7:36 pm

    I wouldn't put any faith at all in the Supreme Clowns doing the right thing when they have clearly been making decisions along party lines ever since the fraudulent "justices" were instilled under their Orange Clown leader. But it will be a positive result either way because overturning Colorado would make more people aware of just how illegitimate the Clowns have become.

  9. by Indy! on December 19, 2023 7:36 pm

    *installed*

  10. by Ponderer on December 19, 2023 7:41 pm

    I am doubling-down on my prediction.

  11. by Curt_Anderson on December 19, 2023 7:59 pm
    Indy,
    As I noted above, SCOTUS ruled against Trump twice in his efforts to overturn the election. So it's not an automatic that SCOTUS will favor Trump.

    Even if Trump avoids (most likely with delaying tactics) a guilty verdict in his efforts to subvert the election, Trump will be tripped up with these words:
    "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

    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.

    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.





    citizensforethics.org

  12. by Indy! on December 19, 2023 8:31 pm

    Well, we all hope it happens, Curt. I'm just saying don't bet the rent on anything when it comes to Bretty Boof, the religious nutjob and Clarence "Can you spare a buck?" Thomas.

  13. by Curt_Anderson on December 19, 2023 8:50 pm
    Indy,
    I agree with that. It's not a slam dunk either way. However, I think the better legal arguments are on our side, but let's see what the court decides. Reportedly, the Supremes have to make their decision by the middle of January so Colorado can print their ballots.

    I also agree that either way people will see if the Supremes are illegitimate or not. Also, it's a good national conversation if people are debating if Trump should be disqualified or not.

  14. by oldedude on December 19, 2023 9:20 pm
    Reportedly, the Supremes have to make their decision by the middle of January so Colorado can print their ballots.
    That's pretty fucking bold to "tell" SCOTUS when they "must" decide on anything. I think that's arrogant at best, and borders on being a little bitch.


    I also agree that either way people will see if the Supremes are illegitimate or not.
    I completely disagree with the illegitimacy of SCOTUS on this case. Question 1. Where has it been proven in a court that he is guilty? 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
    2. you're talking about a "legal" term here. Ergo, you must show me case law to show your case. Prove it. By case law. Show me the facts in that case vs. this case. If you can't do that, you're useless in court. Your "evidence" is bullshit. You're "feelings" about this are bullshit. You have to prove you have standing. I don't think you can. You have no standing in SCOTUS. With a Batchelor degree in PSCI, I'm able to tell you that. I know you're an "artist" which means you know everything, but the law? Yaaaaaaanotaclue.

    Also, it's a good national conversation if people are debating if Trump should be disqualified or not.
    Again. those who actually believe in the rule of law are actually looking at the law (not their "artistic" "feelings" of a case as the deciding factors. Again, trumpster doesn't live in "most" peoples' heads. I know they do in yours. You've got this psychotic rage about him that I've never had with anyone in the whole world. Maybe it's the weed, maybe it's the 'schrooms, Idunno. I've just never been able for someone to live in my head like that. And you're profoundly affected.

    I'm just going to say it once again. IF YOU HAD A FUKKING CASE, WTF? WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING IT ALREADY? YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT? AND YOU COULDN'T? WTFO? YOUR CASES ARE WEAK AND HOLD ZERO LEGAL CREDENCE. EVERYTHING YOU SAY/DO ARE YOUR "FEELINGS." NOBODY GIVES A FLYING F*** ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS. BRING ON SOMETHING THAT I CAN USE IN COURT. GET RID OF THIS SOB LEGALLY. NO BULLSHIT.

  15. by HatetheSwamp on December 19, 2023 9:36 pm

    pb's Legal Goober #2: "The court is dead wrong."

    But, TrumpHate is so d@ng cute.

     View Video

  16. by HatetheSwamp on December 19, 2023 9:44 pm

    "It's a states rights issue. And the Trump bunch won't want him to know that they had to deny his appeal on legal, Constitutional grounds with a unanimous vote." ~po

    Well, there you have it. It's settled.

    po, I wish that I, too, had been a Supreme Court clerk and was, even now, an Ivy League law school professor. Your mastery of the Tenth Amendment is a thing to behold! I stand amazed in your presence.

  17. by Curt_Anderson on December 19, 2023 9:49 pm
    "Where has it been proven in a court that he is guilty?" ---OD

    I already addressed that by quoting and citing my source in comment #11. It is not necessary to prove guilt to disqualify a candidate. There is precedent on that in several cases.

    Last year a candidate who was convicted of nothing more than trespassing on January 6th was disqualified for running for office because of the 14th.

    "WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING IT ALREADY? YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT? AND YOU COULDN'T? WTFO?" ---OD

    The president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

    That said, Trump would drag the cases out as he has out of office.
    abcnews.go.com
    abcnews.go.com

  18. by oldedude on December 19, 2023 11:07 pm
    If there were any credence at all to these, the trials should have started two years ago. That could have been done. I think the dims don't have anything to actually do something about. It's all smoking mirrors and BS. If they had ANYTHING AT ALL, they would have brought that up in his "trials" while he was president to be forwarded to a crooked DOJ. That would have been easy to do. And it wasn't done. You have NOTHING. If you did, it would have already been charged. and he'd be in jail now. This is just kabuki theater.

    Your Fuher is really disappointing. You've completely wasted so much time, energy and money on zero.

  19. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 2:35 am

    Y'know OD, for TDSers, this Colorado ruling is like offering a fine bourbon to an AA member in celebration of receiving their 1 Year pin. I hate myself for this, but it's also as if the Colorado Supreme Court Fed Exed me a Christmas present!

    Curt,

    I already addressed that by quoting and citing my source in comment #11. It is not necessary to prove guilt to disqualify a candidate. There is precedent on that in several cases.

    Thing is, baha baha, Trump was charged... by the United States House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate. He ain't guilty!

    I just think that it's emotionally unfair of those Coloradans to toy with your sanity...and, so close to Xmas, especially. It ain't right. It just ain't right.

    And, d@ng it. I'm enjoying myself! At least there's enuff decency in me that I hate myself for enjoying it.

  20. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 4:58 am

    The MORNING JOE take: baha...

    ...for you practitioners of brainless TrumpHate. Keehee.

    BTW, I think that, early on in the video, Joe himself nailed it: This Court believes that this is a nation "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE." Let the voters decide who will be the next President...with apologies to all you Big Bro fans.

    The Dobbs doctrine? settled "by the people..."

    Now, again, I ain't po. I didn't clerk for a Supreme Court Justice. I'm not an Ivy League law school professor. So, we'll see.

     View Video

  21. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 7:08 am

    pb's Legal Goober #1:

    "...it's the most undemocratic, unconstitutional decision I've seen..."

    And, honestly, gang, #1 is parroting pb from earlier in this thread. Keehee.


    View Video

  22. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 7:16 am

    More insanity from MSNBC:

     View Video

  23. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 7:30 am

    Common sense from NewsNation:

    "Due process"

     View Video

  24. by islander on December 20, 2023 7:37 am
    Curt, The funniest thing to me is watching the State’s Rights crowd claim that a woman’s reproductive rights should be left up to each states the people !! That's why they don't want a woman to have a Constitutional right to own their own body...Bodily autonomy.

    Yet, here we have the possibility of the Federal Gov. usurping the State’s right to regulate elections in their own state and yet I hear very few of those same people complaining about that in this instance !!

    I’m in favor of states rights for matters pertaining to state politics and polices but Federal elections which affect all of us should, in my opinion, be uniform across the country.

  25. by islander on December 20, 2023 7:54 am

    By the way, I personally believe Trump is guilty of engaging in insurrection and should be banned from running for president.

  26. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 8:22 am

    ...here we have the possibility of the Federal Gov. usurping the State’s right to regulate elections in their own state and yet I hear very few of those same people complaining about that in this instance !!

    Just curious, isle. Has Heather weighed in on this yet?

    But, buddy! I think you're misrepresenting the argument.

    I've not come across anyone denying the states the right to run their own elections.

    As pb's Legal Goober #1 pointed out, the Colorado Supreme Court has robbed the PEOPLE of Colorado the right to regulate their election. Colorado's government has a legislature. If the PEOPLE of Colorado can uphold the law and keep Trump off the ballot... and choose to,...groovy. As you love to point out,... America is a democracy.

    My friend. Take a gander at the Tenth Amendment. For your convenience:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or [as po'd say] to the EFFINpeople."

    That's precisely what the Founders founded. It's what Lincoln gave his life for. "Of the people, by the people and for the people" BABY!

    Long live the people...and, may your Big Bruh die a quick but painful death.

    Truth? Be honest. You absolutely EFFINhate the notion that the people might rule. As pb's Legal Goober #1 notes, what the Colorado Supreme Court did was historically anti-democratic...

    ...and, you groove on that. Ain't!!!!!?

  27. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 8:40 am

    Yeah, Isle. They just don't get it.

    If a twenty two year old wants to run for president, some people don't get that they aren't being "robbed of their right" to vote for that person because they are not eligible to run for president and are not allowed on the ballot. If a person is ineligible to run, they are ineligible to run. Trump is ineligible to run because he engaged in insurrectionist behavior and attempted a revolution against our government.

    Why do so many people seem to believe that Donald Trump is so special of a human being that he deserves extra special treatment that no other American citizen is allowed by law to get? Why do they believe that he is absolutely above the law?

    Heck, if they want their right to vote for him so badly, they can write him in!




  28. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 8:48 am
    I love the hissy fit the Republicans are having right now. I love seeing them in a tizzy. I love seeing them hoisted by their own petard. In particular, their views on states rights as Islander pointed out. I love seeing their hypocritical inconsistencies on being textualists when it comes to the second amendment, but suddenly not wanting to read the plain language when it comes to the 14th amendment.

  29. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 9:03 am

    I love the hissy fit the Republicans are having right now.

    Really? Where are you picking that up. Frank Luntz is saying that this will help Trump and what I'm hearing in right wing media and from GOP sources...

    ...and, of course, from pb's Legal Goober #1,...

    ... is that when the dust settles, Trump comes out waaaaaaaaaay ahead.

    Could you link us to a GOP hissy? I'm sure there's one or two out there. But, for the most part...

  30. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 9:04 am
    Do you remember how Trump got started in the politics? His entry ticket was Birtherism. He was the chief instigator of the fringe conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore, ineligible to run for president. None of those wingnuts, including Trump himself, worried about denying the people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

  31. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 9:06 am

    Flaming hypocrites to the bitter end, aren't they Curt?

    They also don't get that the Colorado Supreme Court is not trying to throw him in prison for his insurrectionist behavior. They aren't finding him guilty of a crime. They are judging him by his insurrectionist actions, which make him wholly ineligible to be president and keeping his name off an official ballot.

    When this amendment was added to the Constitution after the civil war, do you think that there had to be a criminal trial to determine that some Confederate officer engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the country? It was not needed. A court finding was not legally required to disqualify them. What they did was proof in itself. Same deal here.

    The entire world watched as Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution and the country on live TV. We've heard many tapes of him engaging in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the country. He even still constantly pushes his insurrectionist and rebellious trope that the 2020 election was stolen from him. There's tons of evidence that everyone else saw.

    The Colorado SS has all the legal standing they need to do what they are doing.

    And I only hope that more states follow suit.



  32. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 9:16 am

    Do you remember how Trump got started in the politics?

    That's your hissy? Jumping back to 015? As "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap'd" say, "C'mon man. Gimme an, as po'd say, EFFINbreak!"

  33. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 9:19 am
    Here is a safe prediction: Trump’s legal defense will not he is innocent, but some arcane technical argument.

  34. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 9:25 am

    When this amendment was added to the Constitution after the civil war, do you think that there had to be a criminal trial to determine that some Confederate officer engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the country?

    Of course not, po. But, the fact that that person was a Confederate officer had to be a verified, objective fact.

    As pb pointed out earlier in this thread, Trump was charged by Congress over the J6 events... and was, as you'd say, EFFINaquitted by the US Senate.

    Right! According to the legislative branch of the United States government, Trump is not guilty of leading an insurrection. Baha.

    This Colorado ruling really is an early Xmas present for ol pb. He loves watching you lot work yourself up into a lather! Hoohoo!

    This is very close to being too much fun for ol pb! Very close. Very, very close.

  35. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 9:32 am

    Here is a safe prediction: Trump’s legal defense will not he is innocent, but some arcane technical argument.

    I've tried to help you out on this by linking to pb's Legal Goober videos.

    #1 makes it very simple. Article 5 on the Fourteenth Amendment: "The [EFFIN] Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    No court can apply Article 3. Period!

    Only Congress.

    "Of the people, by the people and for the people," BABY!

  36. by Indy! on December 20, 2023 9:40 am

    The answer to one of OD's questions seems pretty obvious - if the Supreme Clowns choose not to address the Colorado question before January - Colorado simply prints their ballots without Trump as an option.

  37. by islander on December 20, 2023 9:54 am

    In Trump's insurrection impeachment trial the majority of the House and Senate found him guilty.

    I too believe he was guilty. Therefore, I hope he is not allowed on the ballot.

    Trump's supporters will naturally disagree with me over Trump being on the ballot.

    While he was the only one who could stop them,I watched him, in real time, sit there doing nothing while his supporters attacked and trashed our Capital in an attempt to stop the vote count and overturn the election...all based on Trump's lies.

  38. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 9:57 am

    In Trump's insurrection impeachment trial the majority of the House and Senate found him guilty.

    Exactly!

    Congress failed to impeach Trump.

  39. by oldedude on December 20, 2023 9:59 am
    Here is a safe prediction: Trump’s legal defense will not he is innocent, but some arcane technical argument.

    The "arcane technical argument" is called due process. You're saying that because in "your feelings" you "feel" he's guilty, he needs to be drawn and quartered. Using that as your "standard" means that we should put pedojoe in jail on his circumstantial "evidence." And before he's gone before his peers and been found guilty (and all the appeals are done).

    That's as simple as it is. And as a person in the US judicial system, he has a right to a trial before the little Nazis hang him. The violation here is the basis of the US judicial system and is a measure to prevent lynch mobs. But that's okay with the sheeple. They don't care about the judicial system unless a child hair-sniffing public boob grazer is their hero.

  40. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 10:05 am

    They may well do that Indy!. The Colorado SS is on very good legal grounds here. Trump's insurrectionist and rebellious engagements have been very well verified. By anyone who watched even a tenth of the Congressional hearings into his insurrection and saw the mountains of inarguable evidence and bus loads of sworn witnesses.

    It really amazes me, the asinine and stupid legal claims that some are trying their best to make in here. If they don't like the way the amendment disables Trump from r8unning for and occupying public office, then as the statute itself declares, "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability". That's all the Congress can legally do about any state that does this. And good luck to 'em with that.

    Neither the US Supreme Court nor Congress can keep a state from simply obeying the Constitution.


  41. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 10:18 am

    "The "arcane technical argument" is called due process. You're saying that because in "your feelings" you "feel" he's guilty, he needs to be drawn and quartered." -olde dude

    No, you're wrong. As usual.

    We're saying that because of the mountains of evidence and bus loads of sworn witnesses that the American public has been presented to them in Congressional hearings and other cases, which all totally verify the fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution he swore an oath to protect and given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. And he is therefore not eligible to run for president. He's even still doing it!


    I mean GEEZ! Someone at least please explain how publicly and repeatedly promising to pardon convicted insurrectionist felons who are in prison for engaging in his insurrection and rebellion against the government to turn over the results of a free, fair, and legal election, is not giving aid and comfort to those same convicted felon insurrectionist enemies of this country?


  42. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 10:21 am

    They may well do that Indy!. The Colorado SS is on very good legal grounds here.

    And, this is where you've got me, po. I only have Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy. All of them think the Colorado ruling is doomed at the Supreme Court.

    But, you clerked at SCOTUS and you teach at an Ivy League law school. Maybe my three Legal Goobers are wrong. We will see.

  43. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 10:23 am
    Regarding comment #35 by HtS the courts have already stopped a candidate from being on the ballot because the part took in the January 6 insurrection. There was no congressional involvement in that decision. Look up Couy Griffith, who attempted to run for sheriff in New Mexico.

    Secondly, regarding section 5 of the 14th amendment, that sentence uses the word “shall”. The Supreme Court has ruled that the word shall means may.

  44. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 10:26 am

    We're saying that because of the mountains of evidence and bus loads of sworn witnesses that the American public has been presented to them in Congressional hearings and other cases, which all totally verify the fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution...

    But, po.

    T'only time Trump was charged with the J6 events, he was acquitted...by the United States Congress, no less. That should matter. Ain't!!!!!?

  45. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 10:28 am

    "And as a person in the US judicial system, he has a right to a trial before the little Nazis hang him." -olde dude

    He is not being found guilty of a crime. He is not going to be put in prison. There is no trial required. He simply did something that disqualifies him.

    The Colorado Supreme Court (as well as the rest of the population of the United States of America) has apparently seen more than enough evidence to come to their conclusion that he engaged in insurrectionist actions enough to qualify for disqualification. Which, again, does not need to include a criminal prosecution and criminal guilty verdict for them to do. All they are doing is barring him from the ballot on Constitutional grounds by disqualifying him as the Constitution requires them to do, based on his undeniable and blatant actions.

    Calm the heck down, od. The Supreme Court of the state of Colorado is not about to hang Donald Trump.





  46. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 10:29 am

    Regarding comment #35 by HtS the courts have already stopped a candidate from being on the ballot because the part took in the January 6 insurrection. There was no congressional involvement in that decision. Look up Couy Griffith, who attempted to run for sheriff in New Mexico.

    So?

    The Fourteenth Amendment was violated. Nuff said.

    "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    That ain't going away.

  47. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 10:34 am

    Curt, it doesn't matter about any precedent set by other similar insurrectionists. Trump is Super Special! Human laws do not apply to him. Even the Constitution that he swore an oath to protect and defend doesn't apply to him if it suits him to wipe his fat ass with it.

    He's these people's Infallible Messiah. No human laws apply to him!

  48. by Ponderer on December 20, 2023 10:41 am

    Curt, do you think that the Congress would have the 2/3 majority needed to vote to overturn their Constitutionally given obligation to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"...?

    I sure don't.


  49. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 10:44 am

    po,

    I despise Trump. I support Ron DeSantis for President. He won't be the nominee. In the fall of 024, pb'll vote for a third party candidate. I'm not MAGA. I'm antiSwamp.

    But, face it. Your side is turning that despicable man in a figure who moderates and independents are beginning to find sympathetic.

    But, go for it.

  50. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 10:50 am

    "A terrible attack on our great country."

     View Video

  51. by Indy! on December 20, 2023 12:35 pm

    Some of Trump's own people were begging him to tell his Hitler Youth to stand down on J6 and he refused to do so. The people that still support him (OD and peebs obviously included) have no ground to stand on when they say they love America and believe in the Constitution. It's time to quit playing these stupid games - either you believe in the country or you don't. Trumpers don't.

  52. by oldedude on December 20, 2023 1:00 pm
    He is not being found guilty of a crime. He is not going to be put in prison. There is no trial required. He simply did something that disqualifies him.

    So you are my point exactly. PROVE he did something wrong in a court of law, and you're all good. It's called "DUE PROCESS."

    I've talked about this ad nauseum. Without due process, we'll be a despot dictatorship. This is as bad as the "red flag laws" where someone can make a claim against you, and you have no chance to defend yourself. US law says that ALL restrictions of liberties must have due process. No exceptions.

  53. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 1:06 pm

    So you are my point exactly. PROVE he did something wrong in a court of law, and you're all good. It's called "DUE PROCESS."

    po is, by light-years, the first person who'd join a lynch mob.

  54. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 3:14 pm

    More from pb's Legal Goober #1.

    Hearing this, po. You should be embarrassed...but, then, by rights, you should always be embarrassed. Baha!

     View Video

  55. by HatetheSwamp on December 20, 2023 4:09 pm

    A balanced and informative conversation between Brian Kilmeade and Jonathan Turley explaining that the Colorado ruling is an abomination.

    View Video

  56. by islander on December 20, 2023 4:17 pm

    Does the state of Colorado have the right to determine the qualifications necessary to be on the ballot in that sate or to be disqualified from being on the ballot?

    What Colorado law says a candidate must be convicted of a crime in order to be disqualified from being on the ballot?

    Do the people of Colorado, through their representatives and their courts, have the authority to determine whether a person can be disqualified due to the person’s behavior?

    Does the Colorado secretary of state, the Colorado courts and Colorado Supreme court have the right to make such determinations?

  57. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 4:47 pm
    Islander,
    I don't know the specific answers to your questions, but it has always been the case that states can run their elections as they see fit unless expressly prohibited by the US Constitution or its amendments.

    For example at various times in some states people who were non-white, women, property-less, didn't pay a poll tax, or fell under other restrictions could not vote. See link.

    Also now some states vote by mail only, some have in-person voting, some have a mix of both. Some states have open primaries, some are for party members only. Some states don't have primaries or caucuses. The Colorado decision (as of now) only applies to the Colorado GOP primary.

    In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if Trump's name is on the Colorado GOP primary ballot. It might matter if other states follow suit and especially if it applies to the general election or if the SCOTUS labels Trump an insurrectionist.
    en.wikipedia.org

  58. by Curt_Anderson on December 20, 2023 5:01 pm
    Islander,
    Additionally, the 50 states have different requirement to run for president of the United States. Independent and minor party presidential candidates are always struggling for ballot access. See links.




    nass.org
    gp.org

  59. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 1:34 am
    isle-
    Does the state of Colorado have the right to determine the qualifications necessary to be on the ballot in that sate or to be disqualified from being on the ballot?
    Two issues here. The first is for "state" elections. Each state has it's own rules for elected representatives in their state.
    Federal guidelines must be adhered to for federal positions. Several states looked at this (MN being one of those), and their legal beagles wouldn't even consider trying it, or making an effort.

    What Colorado law says a candidate must be convicted of a crime in order to be disqualified from being on the ballot?
    State:
    The US constitution? Being considered innocent until proven guilty?

    Do the people of Colorado, through their representatives and their courts, have the authority to determine whether a person can be disqualified due to the person’s behavior?
    Yes. Again for state representatives. Federal guidelines for POTUS, VP. This is why many of the states won't touch this.

    Does the Colorado secretary of state, the Colorado courts and Colorado Supreme court have the right to make such determinations?
    They believe that they either can, or they're making a political statement for a test run. None of the prior attempts at a 14th amendment violation have been used for a federal position.


    Curt #43. Regarding comment #35 by HtS the courts have already stopped a candidate from being on the ballot because the part took in the January 6 insurrection. There was no congressional involvement in that decision. Look up Couy Griffith, who attempted to run for sheriff in New Mexico.
    If NM law could do that, they can. It seems to me that Santa Fe & Albuquerque wanted to "get rid" of him. Think about this. Griffith won the Sheriff's position with a total of 708 votes (55% of the voting population). Welcome to the flyover states. His district is inconsequential to either of the "big cities" in NM, and he was a gnat flying around them. Stranger things have happened.

  60. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 6:15 am

    "Federal guidelines must be adhered to for federal positions." -olde dude

    The Constitution of the United States is a federal guideline, is it not? President is a federal position, is it not? Well, the Constitution says that Trump is ineligible to hold any public office because he engaged in insurrectionist and rebellious acts against the Constitution and the government of this country, does it not?


    What Colorado law says a candidate must be convicted of a crime in order to be disqualified from being on the ballot?

    State:
    The US constitution? Being considered innocent until proven guilty?

    Where does it say in the Constitution that one needs to be criminally convicted of anything to be removed from a ballot...? Please site amendment and section.

    So the Constitution is irrelevant regarding the states when you want it to be, and inarguable law in states when you want it to be?


    Do the people of Colorado, through their representatives and their courts, have the authority to determine whether a person can be disqualified due to the person’s behavior?

    "Yes. Again for state representatives. Federal guidelines for POTUS, VP. This is why many of the states won't touch this." -olde dude

    Is it your contention then that the population of a state can determine whether or not to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America? A state's voters can vote to ignore the Constitution if they so desire? Is this what you are saying?


    Does the Colorado secretary of state, the Colorado courts and Colorado Supreme court have the right to make such determinations?

    "They believe that they either can, or they're making a political statement for a test run. None of the prior attempts at a 14th amendment violation have been used for a federal position.' -olde dude

    This is true.

    However, a few years before the 14th was ratified, there were federal positions that were taken away for essentially the very reasons that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 later set in Constitutional stone:

    "The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged 'in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government' for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate.

    The resolution for expulsion cited their failure to appear in the Senate and alleged that members "engaged in said conspiracy for the destruction of the Union and Government, or, with full knowledge of such conspiracy, have failed to advise the Government of its progress or aid in its suppression."     [Remind you of anyone...?]

    The call for expulsion makes no mention of their purported refusal to acknowledge Lincoln's election.

    The senators expelled in July 1861 were: James Mason and Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; Thomas L. Clingman and Thomas Bragg, of North Carolina; James Chesnut Jr., of South Carolina; A.O.P. Nicholson, of Tennessee; William K. Sebastian and Charles B. Mitchel, of Arkansas; and John Hemphill and Louis T. Wigfall, of Texas."



    So basically od, is it your contention that the 14th Amendment only intends to keep insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution from state office, but fully allows insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution to run for federal office...?



    usatoday.com

  61. by islander on December 21, 2023 6:18 am

    This going to be interesting, Curt, since it puts the state’s rights crowd, who also abhor big government (our Federal government), in a very uncomfortable position. If we are one nation, United We Stand and not something like 50 individual little sovereign countries working together to assert our independence from Britain, sort of like the European Union, which is more akin to how the original 13 colonies and our founders envisioned it, then it should be up to Colorado to determine in their own state the qualifications and disqualifications to be on their ballots.

    That would not mean that nobody in Colorado can vote for Trump since they most certainly can by simply writing in his name. The way the founders framed the Constitution gave the states far more power than they have now. States could even determine who had the right to vote in a federal election. A lot of people, like the originalists and constitutionalists, would like us to adhere to the Constitution as our founders framed it.

    I’m a Untied We Stand person who advocates that Federal election rules and laws should not be determined by individual states but should be uniform across the country.

  62. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 6:22 am

    The Constitution of the United States is a federal guideline, is it not? President is a federal position, is it not? Well, the Constitution says that Trump is ineligible to hold any public office because he engaged in insurrectionist and rebellious acts against the Constitution and the government of this country, does it not?

    Cite the Article of the Constitution.

    po. You know that Debbs ran from prison as a convicted criminal several times, ain't. Rights for me but not for thee, baha.

  63. by islander on December 21, 2023 6:24 am

    "So the Constitution is irrelevant regarding the states when you want it to be, and inarguable law in states when you want it to be?" ~ Ponderer

    That's basically it, Ponderer. You hit the nail on the head. LoL !!


  64. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 6:39 am

    Thanks, Isle.

    These people are world-class hypocrites. The 14th Amendment, Section 3 couldn't be clearer about how someone who engaged in insurrectionist acts, as Trump undeniably did, is ineligible for public office. But that don't mean nuthin' to them. If Biden had ever done anything even vaguely like the rebellious and treasonous acts of Trump, they'd never shut up about the 14th Amendment.

  65. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 7:36 am

    Gang,

    Two of pb's three Legal Goobers are Dems. All three see the Colorado ruling as historically atrocious.

    Jusssayin.

  66. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 8:03 am
    jjpo- (#60)
    The Constitution of the United States is a federal guideline, is it not? President is a federal position, is it not? Well, the Constitution says that Trump is ineligible to hold any public office because he engaged in insurrectionist and rebellious acts against the Constitution and the government of this country, does it not?
    Obviously the constitution is what the specific laws are built from. It's not a guide, the laws are required to be within the constitution. For Federal law, you have to have a trial and verdict. yet again, that's called "due process." That's part of the constitution also.

    Where does it say in the Constitution that one needs to be criminally convicted of anything to be removed from a ballot...? Please site amendment and section.
    see above.

    So the Constitution is irrelevant regarding the states when you want it to be, and inarguable law in states when you want it to be?
    How do the state laws violate the federal law? FYSA: Griffith was convicted of regarding a state statute regarding J6, and also a charge at the state capital. That WAS charged as a trespass to a restricted area of the capital building. This made him ineligible to hold a state position. So he was guilty of a law in the state of NM.


    Is it your contention then that the population of a state can determine whether or not to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America? A state's voters can vote to ignore the Constitution if they so desire? Is this what you are saying?
    no.


    The resolution for expulsion cited their failure to appear in the Senate and alleged that members "engaged in said conspiracy for the destruction of the Union and Government, or, with full knowledge of such conspiracy, have failed to advise the Government of its progress or aid in its suppression." [Remind you of anyone...?]

    The call for expulsion makes no mention of their purported refusal to acknowledge Lincoln's election.
    Expulsion isn't criminal.


    So basically od, is it your contention that the 14th Amendment only intends to keep insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution from state office, but fully allows insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution to run for federal office...?
    Yes, because the federal government allows the states to write their own laws in this case. If it is equal to, or stronger than the federal government, the states are fine. The states have their own design for how politicians can legally run.


    Bold


    Bold
    cnn.com

  67. by Curt_Anderson on December 21, 2023 9:19 am
    “Where does it say in the Constitution that one needs to be criminally convicted of anything to be removed from a ballot...? Please site amendment and section.”

    It doesn’t. The word used is “engaged“.


  68. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 9:43 am

    Thanks, Curt. He must have missed that. I'll try again...

    olde dude, where does it say in the Constitution that one needs to be criminally convicted of anything to be removed from a ballot...? Please site amendment and section.

    "see above." -olde dude

    "Above" came nowhere near answering my question. Care to give it another go, od...?




    Where does it say in the Constitution that one needs to be criminally convicted of anything to be removed from a ballot...? Please site amendment and section.





  69. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 9:51 am

    "Obviously the constitution is what the specific laws are built from. It's not a guide, the laws are required to be within the constitution." -olde dude


    So basically od, is it your contention that the 14th Amendment only intends to keep insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution from state office, but fully allows insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Constitution to run for federal office...?

    Yes, because the federal government allows the states to write their own laws in this case. If it is equal to, or stronger than the federal government, the states are fine. The states have their own design for how politicians can legally run." -olde dude

    So what's the problem with Colorado, or any other state, doing this since it is in the Constitution? Can a state deny someone from the ballot in accordance to what is dictated in the US Constitution or not?


  70. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 9:56 am
    To both of you LOOK UP DUE PROCESS.

    In many other removals from the ballot, 99% of them are self-removals.
    Honestly you two, if you would just take GED course in government, you'd learn everything you need to answer all your asinine questions you're asking.

    You keep hoping the constitutional basics aren't there. Yet it is one of the major pillars of the US constitution. Please buy a fukking clue.

    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

    The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this article concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.

    CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

    law.cornell.edu

  71. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 9:59 am
    Apparently curt, you forgot to read the 14th Amendment, and let your quotes talk for you. I'd say, you need to get better citations. Or even better, read the law you're talking about first.

  72. by islander on December 21, 2023 10:02 am

    Curt and Pondy ~ I think this is a state’s rights issue. I think those who oppose Colorado’s right to determine who qualifies or does not qualify to be on their ballot in their own state are just using smoke and mirrors to hide that fact.

    Whether or not Trump has been convicted of a crime is irrelevant. It’s just an attempt to draw people away from the actual issue…which is…Does a state have the right to determine the qualifications for someone running for office to have their name put on the state’s ballot?

    This isn’t a question of choosing who qualifies to run for president or hold that office. The Federal government, in accordance with the Constitution, has already decided that.

  73. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 10:17 am

    isle,

    Scary stuff.

    You're a student of history. You have to know that the reason the Fourteenth Amendment was passed is because southern states were prohibiting blacks from being on the election ballots.

    pb's Legal Goober #1...a Harvard law professor for decades, makes the point continually these days that it's y'nes who are on the wrong side of history. You'd treat Trump like a darkness was, in the south, after the south...LOST baha...the war. Keehee.

    The Fourteenth Amendment...which you purport to love...actually is the source of the taking away from states a degree of control over their own elections...

    ...and, read Section 5 of the Amendment... gives authority to the EFFIN-US Congress.

    In any event, on SS no one is touting states rights. OD and pb are all about DUE PROCESS.

  74. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 10:33 am

    "Does a state have the right to determine the qualifications for someone running for office to have their name put on the state’s ballot?" -Isle


    I would say sure it does.

    Just so long as it does not allow something that the US Constitution says it can't.


    I would love to see olde dude present an example of something that the Constitution prohibits that states are free to just legally blow off and do anyway if they want to.





  75. by Curt_Anderson on December 21, 2023 10:43 am
    In regards to comment #74 in which you quote Islander’s question, we see the answer to that every four years. Green and libertarian party candidates appear on some state ballots, but not every states’ ballots.

    I love that the cultists are now arguing that Trump is not a “convicted” insurrectionist. And much the same way that he’s not a convicted rapist or convicted of stealing classified documents or convicted of election interference. Pretty soon they won’t be able to say that he’s not convicted of tax and bank fraud.

  76. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 11:03 am

    No, Curt.

    Because the United States Congress did not convict Trump over the J6 mess. He's been subject to impeachment and he prevailed.

    *****

    Still, the truth remains. In a setting in which due process applies, Trump has not been found guilty of leading an insurrection.

    In the US, there is a Bill of Rights. You seem to think that Trump doesn't possess the essential liberties all citizens of the nation possess. My guess is that the Supreme Court will rule that the Bill of Rights continues to matter here.

  77. by islander on December 21, 2023 11:05 am

    Remember folks…this isn’t about due process. Nor is it about disqualifying someone from running for office. This claim is patently wrong The Fourteenth Amendment was passed because southern states were prohibiting blacks from being on the election ballots. The 14th Amendment protected black from being prohibited for running for president or public office which is what the southern states were doing.

    In Maine, as in most states I would imagine, our state legislators are in charge of designing our ballots and determining which Candidates and how many candidates’ names will be printed on the ballot (we have ranked choice voting here). Write in votes are fully acceptable as they should be.

    It would be a violation of the 14th amendment if a state tried to prohibit a candidate from running for office in that state.

  78. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 11:08 am
    "Does a state have the right to determine the qualifications for someone running for office to have their name put on the state’s ballot?" -IsleBold



    I would say sure it does.

    Just so long as it does not allow something that the US Constitution says it can't.


    I would love to see olde dude present an example of something that the Constitution prohibits that states are free to just legally blow off and do anyway if they want to.
    That should automatically go to the federal courts and be rebuffed and declared unconstitutional.

    Gun rights would be one of those. How the feds see gun rights is different than the states do. CA has been spanked several times for "unconstitutional" gun laws. So has NY, NJ, MD IL. The issues are about safeties, loads, types of guns, "supposed" "assault" weapons (which they aren't). That sort of thing. Generally speaking, the states will push the envelope to see how far they can go.

    If you're interested there's more examples of how the states follow federal law their own ways and how they do that.

    AND everyone has to follow federal law e.g. everyone has to fill out the federal form and go through a clearance process. The states have different ways to do that.

    Concealed carry has been given as a "right" yet it's a limited right. There are different rules for different states. (much like there was/is for same sex marriage). If you travel in a car, you have to be careful if you're carrying, depending on the state. AND you have to be careful "how" or "where" you have guns depending on the state. In CO, Concealed Carry Permits are issued by the counties. And the counties may or may not accept your county's permit. FL is given by the state. The permit is as valid of an ID as my drivers' licence.

  79. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 11:27 am

    Gang,

    Here's a video of former AG Bill Barr on CNN from a few days ago, discussing the role of Due Process in the Colorado ruling.

    pb'd designate Barr as pb's Legal Goober #4. Barr and pb think alike in many ways. Trump now, as po'd say, EFFINhates Barr because Barr refused to enable Trump's delusion that he was the winner of the 020 election.

    Barr's not a pb Legal Goober because he offers so little material.

    Nevertheless, here he is...on CNN...saying what pb believes better than pb could dream of saying it:

     View Video

  80. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 11:41 am

    "That should automatically go to the federal courts and be rebuffed and declared unconstitutional.

    Gun rights would be one of those. How the feds see gun rights is different than the states do. CA has been spanked several times for "unconstitutional" gun laws. So has NY, NJ, MD IL."     -olde dude

    What I asked you, od, was to present an example of something that the Constitution prohibits that states are nonetheless free to just legally blow off and do anyway if they want to. California, as it turns out, was not Constitutionally allowed to do something that apparently had issues with the 2nd Amendment. So California was NOT free to blow off what the Constitution said. It was not allowed to do something that went against the Constitution.

    If the Constitution mandates that someone who engaged in insurrection is not legally qualified to be president, what is wrong with a state merely complying with what the Constitution says?

    Why should it not be allowed for a state to keep someone off the ballot who isn't qualified to hold the position in the first place?

    And will you be happier about all this once Trump is found legally guilty of engaging in insurrectionist behavior by trying to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election?


  81. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 11:44 am

    "If you're interested there's more examples of how the states follow federal law their own ways and how they do that." -olde dude


    Sure, they can follow federal law however they want to. But if it is found that the way they are doing it is in fact unconstitutional, then they are not allowed to do it. Your California case is one in point.


  82. by islander on December 21, 2023 12:10 pm

    Like I said, the Colorado case is not about Trump being convicted of a crime or being prohibited from running for president in that state. Any eligible voter in Colorado is perfectly free to vote for Trump or anyone else in 2024 despite the smoke and mirrors being thrown up here by some in attempt to hide or obfuscate that fact.

    Here’s a good example of what this case is about:

    Here on Maine there were five candidates for president printed on our ballots in the 2020 election. It was the Maine legislators who made that choice. Our Maine legislators designed our ballots and made the decision as to the number and names of those candidates that were printed on the ballots. There was also a place on the ballot for those who might wish to write in the person they wanted to vote for rather than one of those five. Not a single qualified candidate was prohibited from running for president in Maine, but the Maine legislators, not the Federal government designed the Maine ballots, and they did so in complete accord with the constitution and Federal law…

    Just like Colorado has done !!



  83. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 12:58 pm

    Maine legislators who made that choice. Our Maine legislators designed our ballots and made the decision...

    Now you're catching on. Now we're getting somewhere. Keehee hoo.

    pb said, from the beginning that the PEOPLE of Colorado could have done something...

    But, as you point out the Maine state court didn't foist anything. The people chose it...

    ...big EFFINdiff.

    And, that's just one of your problems.

    Just one, baha.

  84. by islander on December 21, 2023 1:30 pm

    In both Colorado and Maine, the people elected the legislators to represent them. Nobody had anything foisted on them.

  85. by Curt_Anderson on December 21, 2023 1:32 pm
    Also in Colorado, state supreme court justices are initially appointed by governors but then have to face the voters by running in statewide retention elections. Colorado voters previously chose to keep all four justices who were in the 4-3 majority that ruled against Trump.

  86. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 1:43 pm

    But, Curt, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives authority to the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

    We will, of course, have this settled for us BY THE SUPREME COURT. For now... and even Morning Joe Scarborough makes this point... it's the same Court that ruled that abortion law will be settled "by the people and their elected representatives," that is making this decision. This Court is all about the authority of the legislature.

    We'll see.

  87. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 1:54 pm

    So I guess that it all being such a federal issue, whether or not he's going to be on every state's ballot or not will not eventually be as important an issue as whether he can be legally sworn in as president or not if he wins... By virtue of the 14th, Sec3 and his insurrectionist engagements making him legally ineligible to hold the office...

    Whether he was elected to it or not...


  88. by islander on December 21, 2023 2:00 pm

    "Also in Colorado, state supreme court justices are initially appointed by governors but then have to face the voters by running in statewide retention elections." ~ Exactly !!

    That's why, as I said, this will be an interesting case !!

    I'm hoping this will help to make federal election rules and laws uniform in all 50 states. States can make their own rules and laws concerning their own state elections and policies...but individual states should not, in my opinion, be able to make their own rules and laws regarding Federal elections because those elections affect us all.

  89. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 2:00 pm

    po,

    Based on 14th Sec5, the US Congress has all the say.

    “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    How can you possibly disagree? Especially considering the make-up of the current Supreme Court?

  90. by Curt_Anderson on December 21, 2023 2:05 pm
    As I wrote in #43, "Secondly, regarding section 5 of the 14th amendment, that sentence uses the word “shall”. The Supreme Court has ruled that the word shall means may."

    Furthermore, "enforce" does not mean enact. In other words, if the state isn't doing their job (in this case forbidding an insurrectionist from appearing on the ballot), Congress may step in to enforce the 14th Amendment, section 3.

    Section 5
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.




  91. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 2:06 pm

    Isle, Donna and I have talked about how federal elections need to be uniform and not open to state tampering. Let the states elect whoever they want to state legislatures. But if it's for a position in a federal office, there needs to be a nationwide uniformity.


  92. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 2:10 pm

    po,

    I think, for that to happen, you're going to have to repeal the Tenth Amendment...a tall order, especially in a day when many on the right are abandoning conservatism to become libertarian.

  93. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 2:12 pm

    Curt,

    Re: #90. pb's Legal Goober #1 strenuously disagrees.

  94. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 2:17 pm

    Isle, there was also a case here in Arizona to keep Trump off the ballot because of 1/6. But it was just dismissed for lack of standing.

  95. by Curt_Anderson on December 21, 2023 2:30 pm
    Re: #93. I doubt there is a good argument that "enforce" means enact.

    Section 5 was added as a caveat against expected southern states recalcitrance in allowing former slaves to enjoy their civil rights.

    "In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts,7 and to provide criminal8 and civil9 liability for state officials and agents10 or persons associated with them11 who violate protected rights. These statutory measures designed to eliminate discrimination under color of law12 present no problems of constitutional foundation, although there may well be other problems of application.13 But the Reconstruction Congresses did not stop with the statutory implementation of rights guaranteed against state infringement, moving as well against private interference."
    constitution.findlaw.com

  96. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 2:45 pm

    Section 5 was added as a caveat against expected southern states recalcitrance in allowing former slaves to enjoy their civil rights.

    Still, it's in the Amendment. How do you think the 023 Roberts Court will apply Section 5 to the case at hand?

    I'll repeat what I've posted...and what pb's Legal Goober #1 has been saying. This Court is 100% on board for the power of "the people and their elected representatives." The Tenth Amendment is King in 023...and, that the people and their legislatures.

  97. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 7:50 pm
    jjpo- If the Constitution mandates that someone who engaged in insurrection is not legally qualified to be president, what is wrong with a state merely complying with what the Constitution says?

    Why should it not be allowed for a state to keep someone off the ballot who isn't qualified to hold the position in the first place?

    And will you be happier about all this once Trump is found legally guilty of engaging in insurrectionist behavior by trying to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election?

    You didn't read my post, did you. I actually cited the 14th Amendment (as well as the 5th, because they have the same language). It is a DUE PROCESS ISSUE. The law REQUIRES a trial and a conviction before the government has the authority to "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

    You keep hoping the constitutional basics aren't there. Yet it is one of the major pillars of the US constitution. Please buy a fukking clue.

    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

    The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this article concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.

    CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

  98. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 12:50 am

    It seems to me that po needs to function as Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Executioner. ol po has accused Trump of insurrection, passed judgment and EFFINknows that Trump will not permitted to take the oath of office by the courts.

    Signed, sealed, delivered.

    Three strikes. He's outathere!

    Badabing. Badabam. Badaboom!!!!!

  99. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 7:30 am

    pb's Legal Goober #2 calls for reason and moderation in the Colorado Supreme Court ruling question.

    View Video

Go To Top

Comment on: "Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page