Colorado Will Not Be Allowed To Deny Trump Access To Their Presidential Ballot

[icanhelp1]

The state district court agreed that he participated in insurrection. The state supreme Court interprets the section for the state. The SCOTUS can certainly overrule from a federal perspective and provide federal guidance.
Love how states' rights come and go like the wind.

Perhaps because the presidential election is a federal election that impacts the whole country.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Are you trying to hold onto the idea that because sec. 3 of the 14 amendment doesn’t specifically mention the Presidency that it doesn’t apply to Trump? Good luck.


https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/anderson-v-griswold/

“Dictionaries from the time of the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment show that the term “office” would have been understood to include the president, and the text of the Constitution itself refers to the presidency as an “office.””

Go back through my comments. I cited several questions SCOTUS will address.

 

[AlexBailey]

Go back through my comments. I cited several questions SCOTUS will address.

Unless you want to provide links to your posts it’s not worth my time. You often bark up the wrong tree, so I’ll use my time to pay attention to better sources than you.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Numerous Republican voters have told CPR News that they plan to write in Trump in that case. However, those votes wouldn't be counted if the ruling stands, according to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. “We do not count the votes of unqualified write-in candidates,” she said.

Trumps name is going to be on the March 5th ballot so nobody will have to write his name in.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Perhaps because the presidential election is a federal election that impacts the whole country.

And abortion doesn't impact the whole country......gmafb

 

[icanhelp1]

A big part of this argument has already been ruled on and upheld by a current Republican member of the SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has already previously ruled that a state can reject a presidential candidate and remove them from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nei...rado-ruling-disqualified-trump-ballot-2023-12


"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.

What is the limiting principle for such a ruling.

Being that presidential elections are federal elections. States rights govern state issues.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Unless you want to provide links to your posts it’s not worth my time. You often bark up the wrong tree, so I’ll use my time to pay attention to better sources than you.

SCOTUS is the best and definitive source. Their explanation will come soon enough.

 

[Bn2f]

I’m a democrat who knows Scalia got it exactly right believing in an originalist version of the constitution over the idiotic belief that it is a living, breathing document able to change with the times. Women voting? Not in there! Slavery? Worthwhile skills freely provided as affirmed by the likes of Ron desantis and any grand wizard you happen to talk to. As such, I know that our forefathers and wise architects of the constitution put in place section 3 of the 14th to prevent traitors and seditionists from joining congress to do more seditioning and traitoring. No convictions or trials were needed back then to uphold and I don’t wanna hear you whiny assed liberals questioning me nor Scalia now with any of your shuda, cuda hang wringing speculation.

 

[schism666]

did boomer predict anywhere in this thread about the outcome of the decision? he seems confident in his current predictions.

 

[ll74]

Perhaps because the presidential election is a federal election that impacts the whole country.

So you support an updated federal election law.

Cool

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It was a nutty idea, Pence did the right thing.

What right thing? You’re saying if Pence had done something different he’d face no legal consequences.

So you object to it only morally?

 

[schism666]

What is the limiting principle for such a ruling.

Being that presidential elections are federal elections. States rights govern state issues.

how do you feel about how abortion was handled regarding states rights and federal law?

 

[icanhelp1]

how do you feel about how abortion was handled regarding states rights and federal law?

Abortion was never codified federal law, it was a ruling. States now control their own abortion issues the way it was before 1972.

Congress could legislate to make it federal law but we all know how impotent congress is.

 

[ll74]

Abortion was never codified federal law, it was a ruling. States now control their own abortion issues the way it was before 1972.

Congress could legislate to make it federal law but we all know how impotent congress is.

Nothing in section 3 requires anyone to be convicted of insurrection.

 

[Rightguide]

Keep in mind that in every special election and ballot initiative this year, the Dems have overperformed the polls. I'm cautiously optimistic we'll see that again next year.


They didn't need to do any of that, and as someone else has already pointed out, it's not their responsibility. Whatever happened to the Republicans' love of states' rights anyway?

It's clear you don't understand the issue. There are several problems with the Colorado decision. The Section 3 provision does not explicitly mention the President, or the Vice President, nor does it specify the process or criteria for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Therefore, It can be argued that section 3 is not applicable to the President, or that it requires a judicial determination or a congressional vote to invoke it.

It can also be argued that Section 3 was intended to apply only to those who participated in the Civil War, and not to any future cases of alleged insurrection or rebellion. This argument is based on the historical context and purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and to prevent the former Confederate states from rejoining the Union without complying with certain conditions of the surrender. Section 3 was designed to prevent the former Confederate officials from regaining political power and undermining the Reconstruction efforts. So a plausible argument could be made that Section 3 is outdated and irrelevant to the modern context of the presidency.

Also effective arguments could be advanced that Section 3 is unconstitutional, or at least at odds with other constitutional provisions, such as the presidential pardon power, the impeachment and removal process, and the due process clause. For example, one could contend that section 3 violates the separation of powers by allowing Congress to disqualify the President from holding office without following the impeachment and removal procedure outlined in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. One could assert that section 3 infringes on the President’s pardon power by imposing a disability that cannot be removed by a presidential pardon, as stated in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, one could maintain that section 3 denies the President due process of law by imposing a punishment without a trial or a conviction, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. All the above can be asserted but the bottom line is the very foundation upon which the legal action against Trump is based, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, does not contemplate the President or the Vice President and neither is an "officer of the United States" under existing Supreme Court jurisprudence that I have [posted above.

PS: Just for your further entertainment:

Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Appointment Is Unconstitutional, Former Attorney General Tells Supreme Court​

966Alex Wong/Getty Images
BRADLEY JAYE20 Dec 20236
WASHINGTON, DC – Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional and so the Supreme Court must reject his petition against Donald Trump, lawyers representing former Attorney General Ed Meese and two top constitutional scholars in the country argued in a brief filed on Wednesday.

Their amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief argues that Smith lacks authority to represent the United States by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in (called a petition for certiorari) because the office he holds has not been created by Congress and his appointment violates the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution.

The filing essentially claims U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland improperly appointed Smith to an office that does not exist with authority Garland does not possess.

Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a prominent constitutional law professor, first argue that only Congress can create federal offices such as Smith currently holds, which Congress has not done.

The rest here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-former-attorney-general-tells-supreme-court/

This could be important, Ed Meese was Reagan's AG and is a constitutional scholar of notable repute as are Steve Calabresi, and Gary Laws

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing in section 3 requires anyone to be convicted of insurrection.

What an idiotic thing to say.

 

[HisArpy]

So the question of whether Colorado may exclude a presidential candidate has been already been decided and upheld.

Now it’s up to whether or not Anderson v. Griswold will be upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Griswold


It’s tricky for Trump, because the SCOTUS will have to rule on the legal legitimacy of Anderson v. Griswold, not on whether or not Trump’s name can be kept off the ballot.

Was it a clean case?

No. Read this, it's based on one of the dissenting opinions in the Colorado case:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/202...dmap-for-scotus-to-overturn-decision-n2167801

It's a very simple and clear explanation on how the idea that Trump is disqualified is incorrect in both principle and law.

The SCOTUS will reverse the decision and doesn't have to give an involved or long opinion to do so. All it needs to do is issue a per curiam reversal and cite 18 USC Sec. 2383 as the basis. Done.

 

[ll74]

What an idiotic thing to say.

Yes, facts are idiotic to you.

My point is that the court decides if he participated in insurrection regardless of whether he was convicted in the legal definition.

 

[Raazor]

If Trump wins, Biden and Harris will not be able to stop him from taking office

They can. They could invoke martial law, claim Trump is a threat to the country and have him arrested. After all, insurrection is perfectly acceptable to Conservatives and Republicans. And if SCOTUS gives Trump a pass on his 2020 attempt then why should any President, irrespective of party, accept the results of any election in the future?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

What right thing? You’re saying if Pence had done something different he’d face no legal consequences.

So you object to it only morally?

He defied Trump’s request and affirmed Biden’s electoral victory. I didn’t say anything about what legal consequences he could have faced if he’d done something differently. Had he followed Trump’s request, I highly doubt it would’ve held up. I believe Biden won the election and would have been sworn in either way. That’s just my opinion.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

They can. They could invoke martial law, claim Trump is a threat to the country and have him arrested. After all, insurrection is perfectly acceptable to Conservatives and Republicans. And if SCOTUS gives Trump a pass on his 2020 attempt then why should any President, irrespective of party, accept the results of any election in the future?

I don’t think that could or would happen and I’m not gonna worry about it.

 

[ll74]

I don’t think that could or would happen and I’m not gonna worry about it.

Martial law was part of the plan on January 6

 

[HisArpy]

He defied Trump’s request affirmed Biden’s electoral victory. I didn’t say anything about what legal consequences he could have faced if he’d done something differently. Had he followed Trump’s request, I highly it would’ve held up. I believe Biden won the election and would have been sworn in either way. That’s just my opinion.

I think the only issue I have with this is that I'd say Biden won the electoral college.

I'm not sure he won the actual election, there's too much that was hinky with it and any examination was repeatedly shut down by the states and courts. That we're now finding out that some events were unlawful and had those things not been ignored it might have swayed the results only supports the idea that something hinky happened. I don't know if it was enough to change the result, but I find myself wishing I knew for certain one way or the other.

Anyone who says there wasn't anything wrong with the election is deluded. Biden was sworn in based on the votes of the electoral college. Whether the actual votes and resulting tallies were lawful or not is a different question. One we don't have an answer to but which is trending toward saying not.

 

[Raazor]

I don’t think that could or would happen and I’m not gonna worry about it.

It could happen. Trump let that genie out of the bottle with his failed attempt. And if there is no penalty for insurrection then someone else will try. After all, what is the downside if you fail? Another attempt at office it seems.

Biden is a stubborn old bugger and if he genuinely believes that this is the right course of action to save the US then who knows. Winner of the popular vote, turmoil in the majority of big cities at a ’rigged‘ electoral collage - plenty of fruitful grounds to overturn the election.

As I said, Republicans are on board with insurrection, so, sauce for the gander and all that.

 

[Raazor]

I think the only issue I have with this is that I'd say Biden won the electoral college.

I'm not sure he won the actual election, there's too much that was hinky with it and any examination was repeatedly shut down by the states and courts. That we're now finding out that some events were unlawful and had those things not been ignored it might have swayed the results only supports the idea that something hinky happened. I don't know if it was enough to change the result, but I find myself wishing I knew for certain one way or the other.

Anyone who says there wasn't anything wrong with the election is deluded. Biden was sworn in based on the votes of the electoral college. Whether the actual votes and resulting tallies were lawful or not is a different question. One we don't have an answer to but which is trending toward saying not.

There was nothing wrong with the election. Your only issue is your man lost and got his arse handed to him.