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

[YDB95]

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,

But it does mention "any office". That includes the presidency, Reichguide.

nor does it specify the process or criteria for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Which shoots your own argument in the foot, since you're arguing the Colorado court had no right to bar him from the ballot because he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

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.

"Can be argued," perhaps, but that's not what it says. Are you a strict constructionist, or does that only apply to abortion rights?

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.

Again with "can be argued". If that was what they intended in 1868, that's what they should have written. They didn't.

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 So a plausible argument could be made that Section 3 is outdated and irrelevant to the modern context of the presidency.

Which doesn't matter at all until and unless it is repealed.

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.

Article II doesn't say anything about impeachment being the only option for barring a person from the presidency. And by definition, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional - it's part 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.

Again with "you could argue". You could, but you'd be wrong. A president's powers were never intended to be unlimited, and while we're at it, "one could assert" that no president should ever want to pardon someone who participated in an insurrection anyway.

PS: Just for your further entertainment:

Legal briefs from Breitbart...yeah, "entertainment" is a pretty good word for that.

 

[schism666]

I think

no, you don't.

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.

see?

 

[icanhelp1]

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

Well, maybe republicans could eliminate Biden of the the ballot for treason and bribery. Since a conviction isn’t necessary they can just make it so.

Ill wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

No it doesn't. The court doesn't get to make a political decision. The 14th and Section 3 isn't relevant to the President. Your point is incorrect.

 

[ll74]

Well, maybe republicans could eliminate Biden of the the ballot for treason and bribery. Since a conviction isn’t necessary they can just make it so.

Ill wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

Section 3 doesn't mention that.

 

[icanhelp1]

But it does mention "any office". That includes the presidency, Reichguide.

Which shoots your own argument in the foot, since you're arguing the Colorado court had no right to bar him from the ballot because he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

"Can be argued," perhaps, but that's not what it says. Are you a strict constructionist, or does that only apply to abortion rights?

Again with "can be argued". If that was what they intended in 1868, that's what they should have written. They didn't.

Which doesn't matter at all until and unless it is repealed.

Article II doesn't say anything about impeachment being the only option for barring a person from the presidency. And by definition, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional - it's part of the Constitution!

Again with "you could argue". You could, but you'd be wrong. A president's powers were never intended to be unlimited, and while we're at it, "one could assert" that no president should ever want to pardon someone who participated in an insurrection anyway.


Legal briefs from Breitbart...yeah, "entertainment" is a pretty good word for that.

So if no one was charged with insurrection on Jan 6th how could Trump be held off the ballot for insurrection. Apparently insurrection is a fictitious mindset festering in the little brains of TDS laden democrats. If Democrats believe in democracy then practice democracy, let the people determine how they want to be governed *NOT THE COURTS *

 

[Rightguide]

But it does mention "any office". That includes the presidency, Reichguide.

No it doesn't include the President or the Vice President. Read this very carefully:

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,

Three separate SCOTUS Rulings have held that, "officers of the United States" as mentioned in Section 3, are not elected, they are appointed officials. You will find out shortly when the SCOTUS rules on the Trump/Colorado case. These are the words of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2010 in regard to the Section 3 language concerning "officers of the United States":

In the decision of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion:

“The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States." Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the ‘assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.'” – Chief Justice John Roberts, 2010.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/

 

[YDB95]

So if no one was charged with insurrection on Jan 6th how could Trump be held off the ballot for insurrection.

That is up to the courts, as Reichguide's own screed acknowledges, though as usual he probably isn't aware of it.

Apparently insurrection is a fictitious mindset festering in the little brains of TDS laden democrats. If Democrats believe in democracy then practice democracy, let the people determine how they want to be governed *NOT THE COURTS *

It would certainly take "a fictitious mindset" to look at the events of January 6 and think it wasn't an insurrection, as you have repeatedly claimed.

 

[YDB95]

No it doesn't include the President or the Vice President. Read this very carefully:

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,

"Or hold any office" includes the presidency. "or as an officer of the United States" is irrelevant.

 

[schism666]

 

[icanhelp1]

"Or hold any office" includes the presidency. "or as an officer of the United States" is irrelevant.

More democrat style democracy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/special-city-council-meeting-thursday-sanctuary-city-status/

CHICAGO (CBS) -- The City Council on Thursday voted against the latest effort to ask voters in March if Chicago should remain a sanctuary city for immigrants, the latest volley in a heated debate over the city's handling of the ongoing migrant crisis.

At a special City Council meeting, aldermen voted 31-16 to block any debate or vote on a proposal to place a non-binding referendum for the March primary ballot, asking voters, "Should the City of Chicago continue to keep its designation as a Sanctuary City?"

 

[Bray123]

"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."


"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."

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Martial law was part of the plan on January 6

And what a brilliant plan it was!

 

[schism666]

More democrat style democracy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/special-city-council-meeting-thursday-sanctuary-city-status/

CHICAGO (CBS) -- The City Council on Thursday voted against the latest effort to ask voters in March if Chicago should remain a sanctuary city for immigrants, the latest volley in a heated debate over the city's handling of the ongoing migrant crisis.

At a special City Council meeting, aldermen voted 31-16 to block any debate or vote on a proposal to place a non-binding referendum for the March primary ballot, asking voters, "Should the City of Chicago continue to keep its designation as a Sanctuary City?"

are you lost, little boy?

 

[schism666]

 

[Bn2f]

So if no one was charged with insurrection on Jan 6th how could Trump be held off the ballot for insurrection. Apparently insurrection is a fictitious mindset festering in the little brains of TDS laden democrats. If Democrats believe in democracy then practice democracy, let the people determine how they want to be governed *NOT THE COURTS *

This ain’t moving the goalposts, this is blasting off to another planet.

 

[Bn2f]

I never tire from a good constitutional debate but I have seen the reports of the online threats already thrown at the Colorado judges. The 2a and childish pouts of tyranny accompanied with that amendment is where conservatives constitutionally excel.

 

[icanhelp1]

I never tire from a good constitutional debate but I have seen the reports of the online threats already thrown at the Colorado judges. The 2a and childish pouts of tyranny accompanied with that amendment is where conservatives constitutionally excel.

Kind of reminds ya of the threats directed at SCOTUS for overturning R vs W.

Should probably pay more attention to section I of the 14th A.

 

[Rightguide]

Section 3 doesn't mention that.

What is mentioned is that only the Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment:

14th Amendment Section 5.​

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

The State Supreme Court of Colorado has no authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Bn2f]

Kind of reminds ya of the threats directed at SCOTUS for overturning R vs W.

Should probably pay more attention to section I of the 14th A.

Americans have a constitutional right to peaceful protest. Even Supreme Court judges. Again, stick with defending the 2a and use the rest of our sacred legal rights to use for your morning constitution.

 

[Rightguide]

trump is not the President

He was when his alleged "insurrection" infraction took place.

 

[Rightguide]

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

---

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.

Seems to be pretty cut and clear in Section 1 that all citizens whether natural born or naturalized (i.e. legal citizen) have the same rights. Now as I always say the Constitution is only in play when you're losing an argument but I look at the words and state if this is true, then this is true.

I refuted this sentiment years ago, search my posts for birthright citizenship.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What is mentioned is that only the Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment:

14th Amendment Section 5.​

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

The State Supreme Court of Colorado has no authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

lol what's this, your fourth or fifth shot today at claiming Colorado was wrong.... keep trying, but I'm guessing SCOTUS judges know a whole lot more about the law than you (or PJ media) ever will.

 

[icanhelp1]

Americans have a constitutional right to peaceful protest. Even Supreme Court judges. Again, stick with defending the 2a and use the rest of our sacred legal rights to use for your morning constitution.

18 U.S. code § 1507

 

[icanhelp1]

I refuted this sentiment years ago, search my posts for birthright citizenship.

Not this issue again?