Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from ballot

[auburnatl1 5,060]

I wonder what kind of legal and support team Trump has today to represent him.  The % of people that worked with him that are now in jail, bankruptcy, or he’s threatened to have executed  i would think would be… cause for concern.

[AU9377 5,043]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I 100% blame Trump for formenting the s*** that went down on Jan. 6th.  He's been constantly sending up dog whistles to these idiots from 2015 on and knew what he was doing.

That said, he hasn't been convicted of any of this, charged by Congress with any of it and thus I think the move by Colorado isn't legal and will and should get shot down by SCOTUS.

The most frustrating part of it all is that his actions and words alone should be enough to make even the most challenged members of society question his character and fitness for the office.  Instead, too many want to destroy anything they see as government with no plan what to do after they wreck it all.

[AU9377 5,043]

23 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I wonder what kind of legal and support team Trump has today to represent him.  The % of people that worked with him that are now in jail, bankruptcy, or he’s threatened to have executed  i would think would be… cause for concern.

There are so many attorneys that think they can roll the dice and somehow come out ahead and get famous simply by being in his orbit.  He won't get the best representation, but he can find a yes man or woman out there pretty easily.  That is how Michael Cohen went from chasing ambulances to representing the Trump organization for so long.

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

The Colorado decision along with the Maine is a huge politocal mistake. First they are on weak constitutional ground which many lawyers both on left and right have mentioned. First the amendment in question was written exclusively to prevent Confedrates who had been convicted of insurrection from serving. Second even if trying to stretch it to not include Confederates it still says convicted of insurrection. Finally it expressly mentions the Offices it is intended for and the President is not mentioned. 

It doesn't matter if you believe he was gulty of insurrection or not. Trump has not been convicted of Insurrection and is running for President not one of the offices expressly mentioned in the amendment.

By having an all Democratic Colorado Supreme Court agree to this and a Democratic Maine Attorney General who has many openly partisan tweets pushing this on very weak Constitutional grounds it feeds Trumps narrative the elites are afraid of him and don't trust the American people to decide who will be our next president. 

I expect the US Surpreme Court to take up this soon and overrule and hopefully not by a Liberal/Conservative split with at least two of the Liberal justices siding against using this amendment to block Trump from running. Ideally it will be unanimous in Trump's favor.

The reason I say it was a political mistake there are still a lot of people on the fence about voting for Trump but having what appears to be partisan rulings might put a good number of people who are on the fence into Trump's camp.

Edited December 29, 2023 by AuburnNTexas

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

4 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

The Colorado decision along with the Maine is a huge politocal mistake.

 Bingo 

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:51 PM, TexasTiger said:

So how does was determine if he did? What’s the process for determining if anyone did? 

Since the amendment says a person convicted if insurrection you must first convict Trump of insurrection. The Amendment also expressly stated what offices are effected and President is not one of them. So beleiving Trump was in insurectionist is not the same as being convicted of it.

Edited December 30, 2023 by AuburnNTexas

[TexasTiger 13,029]

3 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Since the amendment says a person convicted if insurrection you must first convict Trump of insurrection. The Amendment also expresly stated what offices are effected and President is not one of them. So beleiving Trump was in insurectionist is not the same as being convicted of it.

Doesn’t say “convicted” and just requires that they took an oath as an officer of the United States. He took an oath, didn’t he? In fact, it was this one:

“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.”

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Doesn’t say “convicted” and just requires that they took an oath as an officer of the United States. He took an oath, didn’t he? In fact, it was this one:

“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.”

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

You know what Colorado and Maine have done is beyond the pale of our democracy and can only end up hurting it.  

Can Biden be accused of the same because he is ignoring the invasion of foreigners at the Southern Border of our sovereign nation?

Give this crap up and beat Trump by convincing the public Joe is better.  A difficult task, I know.

[auburnatl1 5,060]

13 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Since the amendment says a person convicted if insurrection you must first convict Trump of insurrection. The Amendment also expressly stated what offices are effected and President is not one of them. So beleiving Trump was in insurectionist is not the same as being convicted of it.

The problem is that the world “insurrection” is subjective. And did he directly lead it?  So the courts must decide.

This country was founded on laws, not mob rule. Otherwise we’re Venezuela. So the “let the people decide sentiment” is silly if it’s already been established by law that he’s a traitor or criminal.  However, if the courts can’t provide some sort of clarity which establishes a threshold that he crossed - then he should be on the ballot.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

if the courts can’t provide some sort of clarity which establishes a threshold that he crossed - then he should be on the ballot.

The courts have not decided that he lead an insurrection and that point is not even being considered, yet these two states have, on their own decided he did.

It is a sad moment is our history.

[auburnatl1 5,060]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The courts have not decided that he lead an insurrection and that point is not even being considered, yet these two states have, on their own decided he did.

It is a sad moment is our history.

To be clear, IMO he did lead a (crazy land) insurrection. Gallows and all. Jan 6 was the day I left the Republican Party. However, my point is it’s not my/our call - I think scotus will need to provide final clarity.

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

To be clear, IMO he did lead a (crazy land) insurrection. Gallows and all. Jan 6 was the day I left the Republican Party. However, my point is it’s not my/our call - I think scotus will need to provide final clarity.

SCOTUS will have to now.  The insurrection crowd should have been quelled a long time ago. 

[homersapien 11,453]

On 12/29/2023 at 9:28 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

Since the amendment says a person convicted if insurrection you must first convict Trump of insurrection. The Amendment also expressly stated what offices are effected and President is not one of them. So beleiving Trump was in insurectionist is not the same as being convicted of it.

The 14 Amendments doesn't say - or require - a legal conviction.  This was deliberate.

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.

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:39 PM, TexasTiger said:

Doesn’t say “convicted” and just requires that they took an oath as an officer of the United States. He took an oath, didn’t he? In fact, it was this one:

“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.”

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

There is also a 5th Section of the 14th Amendment.  This section says the Congress shall have the power to enforce, etc as seen below.

I am not a lawyer but in no way does the Attorney General of Maine or the Colorado Supreme court qualify as being the Congress. 

Based on Section 5 it appears that both entities are overstepping their boundaries. 

Section 5

 

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

[homersapien 11,453]

On 12/30/2023 at 11:20 AM, auburnatl1 said:

The problem is that the world “insurrection” is subjective. And did he directly lead it?  So the courts must decide.

 

Well, IMO, trying to coerce Pence into rejecting the official acceptance of the electoral vote - taken in combination with all his lackeys in in various states -  should convince most reasonable people. 

He clearly made a serious attempt to overturn a legal and fair election.  If that's not insurrection, what is?

I guess we'll see just how impartial the SCOTUS is.

[auburnatl1 5,060]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, IMO, trying to coerce Pence into rejecting the official acceptance of the electoral vote - taken in combination with all his lackeys in in various states -  should convince most reasonable people. 

He clearly made a serious attempt to overturn a legal and fair election.  If that's not insurrection, what is?

I guess we'll see just how impartial the SCOTUS is.

The problem imo is scale (not a viable threat to actually over throwing gov) and did he directly lead the actual violence.  Like everything Trump does, it was idiotic and half a$$. I understand your pov but… you are biased.  Which is the challenge with all of this.

To keep the country from literally imploding there has to be a respected, impartial judgement that also establishes future precedence for what constitutes insurrection. Or this goes very sideways.

[AU9377 5,043]

On 12/30/2023 at 9:13 AM, I_M4_AU said:

You know what Colorado and Maine have done is beyond the pale of our democracy and can only end up hurting it.  

Can Biden be accused of the same because he is ignoring the invasion of foreigners at the Southern Border of our sovereign nation?

Give this crap up and beat Trump by convincing the public Joe is better.  A difficult task, I know.

If Barack Obama had enlisted fake electors or did any of the things that Trump did post election 2020, you all would have been demanding his head on a spike.

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

If Barack Obama had enlisted fake electors or did any of the things that Trump did post election 2020, you all would have been demanding his head on a spike.

His election was never in question was it?  

[AU9377 5,043]

18 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

His election was never in question was it?  

Do you honestly believe that the man would have acted that way had he lost?  By Jan  5th, it was well established that the results of the 2020 election were also not in question.  You have to stop making excuses for abhorrent behavior that was outside the bounds of anything seen in the history of this country.

Fox admitted that they knew their hosts were spreading false information, in an effort to appease their audience.  DJT had the FBI, DOJ and other intelligence services all telling him that his arguments had no merit.  The Attorney General quit.  He told the sitting President to go F himself and walked out of the White House when he was asked to use the power of his office to seize voting machines and make false accusations in order to support his plan.  The Vice President was called a traitor simply because he refused to violate his oath of office in furtherance of the plan.

The sitting U.S. President call the Georgia Secretary of State and threatened him when he refused to "find" the votes needed to change the Georgia results.  THIS IS THE KIND OF MAN THAT SOME OF YOU KEEP MAKING EXCUSES FOR.

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Do you honestly believe that the man would have acted that way had he lost?

You posed the question, I just pointed out that the situation was no where near the same, therefore, no one could possibly know how he would have reacted.

We do know that he pushed forward a made up dossier about Trump after Hillary lost the election.  That doesn’t seem to bode well for his charater. 

 

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

You have to stop making excuses for abhorrent behavior that was outside the bounds of anything seen in the history of this country.

Show me where I have made excuses for Trump’s behavior?  I have said if you have anything on him indict him, which has been done, so let’s see how that goes.

I get that you don't like the man and I don’t want him as the Republican nominee, but it is out of our hands.

It’s interesting that the very people that despise him the most will deny him due process when it comes to *letting him on the ballot* since part of the same amendment used to keep him off mentions due process.

If you believe wanting Trump to be treated fairly while being prosecuted is defending Trump, you’ve got it all wrong.

The Dems are making him look like a sympathetic soul, a martyr if you will.  Don’t blame that on his followers.  It’s red meat to Trump.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You posed the question, I just pointed out that the situation was no where near the same, therefore, no one could possibly know how he would have reacted.

We do know that he pushed forward a made up dossier about Trump after Hillary lost the election.  That doesn’t seem to bode well for his charater. 

 

Show me where I have made excuses for Trump’s behavior?  I have said if you have anything on him indict him, which has been done, so let’s see how that goes.

I get that you don't like the man and I don’t want him as the Republican nominee, but it is out of our hands.

It’s interesting that the very people that despise him the most will deny him due process when it comes to *letting him on the ballot* since part of the same amendment used to keep him off mentions due process.

If you believe wanting Trump to be treated fairly while being prosecuted is defending Trump, you’ve got it all wrong.

The Dems are making him look like a sympathetic soul, a martyr if you will.  Don’t blame that on his followers.  It’s red meat to Trump.

You continually deflect from Trump’s behavior, suggesting he’s little different from others. 

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You continually deflect from Trump’s behavior, suggesting he’s little different from others. 

Trump is who he is.  He is rude, crude and socially awkward.  If you don’t trust the general puplic in how they will vote, I guess keeping him off the ballot would be a way to do it, but don’t tell me you are defending democracy.  That’s the opposite and it has NOTHING to do with Trump’s behavior.  That’s all on the Dems.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trump is who he is.  He is rude, crude and socially awkward.  

He’s much worse than that. You diminish the criticism. You wind up defending him constantly. He’s not just “awkward” and “crude.” Ultimately, he’s your guy. If he was less crude, you’d openly defend everything else.

[I_M4_AU 8,004]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

He’s much worse than that. You diminish the criticism. You wind up defending him constantly. He’s not just “awkward” and “crude.” Ultimately, he’s your guy. If he was less crude, you’d openly defend everything else.

In your opinion I bet he is.  I only defend his ability to defend himself against a stacked deck.  We’ll see how it shakes out.  I will not vote for a President who has taken bribes. 

[TexasTiger 13,029]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

In your opinion I bet he is.  I only defend his ability to defend himself against a stacked deck.  We’ll see how it shakes out.  I will not vote for a President who has taken bribes. 

You’ll vote for a crook. You’ll just defend him.