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

[ll74]

As the justices emphasized, the 14th is clear on this. This is a federal power. It’s not a state’s rights issue.

They haven't yet ruled. The justices inquired... That's part of the process.

If the 14th were clear on this, it wouldn't be considered.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As the justices emphasized, the 14th is clear on this. This is a federal power. It’s not a state’s rights issue.

I've yet to see the ruling saying that.

My guess on the ruling will be that anyone can run for Office, it's that if you have participated in an insurrection, you can't be sworn into office. At either the Federal/State or even municipal level....which is why Trump can remain on the ballot. States have removed names before from Federal election ballots and will again, but not due to the 14th.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Yep, and it sure puts a scuttle shot across the bow of all those "but but but States rights" people.

States rights don't include deciding whether the rest of the country can elect or not elect a particular Presidential candidate.

 

[ll74]

States rights don't include deciding whether the rest of the country can elect or not elect a particular Presidential candidate.

The court is actually ruling on that currently.

The Constitution doesn't specify and previous cases have mentioned that states determine their elections.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I've yet to see the ruling saying that.

My guess on the ruling will be that anyone can run for Office, it's that if you have participated in an insurrection, you can't be sworn into office. At either the Federal/State or even municipal level....which is why Trump can remain on the ballot. States have removed names before from Federal election ballots and will again, but not due to the 14th.

Fair enough. My comment was based on the questions and comments during yesterday’s hearing. I’ll be surprised if the “insurrection” question is even addressed in the decision. They seemed more focused on federal powers and the definition of an officer.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

States rights don't include deciding whether the rest of the country can elect or not elect a particular Presidential candidate.

LOL you don't really know that much, but State Ballot exclusions are actually common, including for President. This case is about the reason for the State exclusion granted by the Colorado SC and the 14th Amendment isn't valid for exclusion, and SCOTUS will rule as such.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fair enough. My comment was based on the questions and comments during yesterday’s hearing. I’ll be surprised if the “insurrection” question is even addressed in the decision. They seemed more focused on federal powers and the definition of an officer.

I think they (SCOTUS) are setting up for the possible ruling much later down the road, should Trump actually win. But this never should have gotten to this point, the language of the 14th in section 3? or is it 2, clearly states "hold office". It's pretty cut and dry,nothing in it about running for office.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

F I’ll be surprised if the “insurrection” question is even addressed in the decision.

If I was on SCOTUS I wouldn't go there.

They seemed more focused on federal powers and the definition of an officer.

Yep, good to clear the air now, on what is or isn't an "office" or officer. Ballot exclusion is a right granted to the States through the Election Clause, but the reason(s) for exclusion are based upon Federal law.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The court is actually ruling on that currently.

And even the court is clearly considering the idea absurd that states can dictate Federal candidacy options, and furthermore even more absurd is the idea that any ambiguity means leaning away from democracy.

The Constitution doesn't specify and previous cases have mentioned that states determine their elections.

States have authority and determination over their local elections, not candidacy for Federal ones.

The fact the Consitution doesn't specify with regards to the single highest possible position in Federal government should be a big clue, unless one thinks they just forgot to mention the Presidential position when writing it.

 

[ll74]

And even the court is clearly considering the idea absurd that states can dictate Federal candidacy options, and furthermore even more absurd is the idea that any ambiguity means leaning away from democracy.

If SCOTUS says otherwise, then it's the way they rule.

States have authority and determination over their local elections, not candidacy for Federal ones.

I would agree, but it's not yours or my authority to settle the case.

The fact the Consitution doesn't specify with regards to the single highest possible position in Federal government should be a big clue, unless one thinks they just forgot to mention the Presidential position when writing it.

There are many things the Constitution doesn't specify. That's why the court system exists. And that's why challenges to interpretation lead to better laws.

All in all, the court may rule on some things and not others.... Leaving open some of these questions.... It happens from time to time

 

[TastySuckToy]

If SCOTUS says otherwise, then it's the way they rule.

Doesn't necessarily make them correct, though. The existence of recognized authority doesn't confer infallibility when exercising it.

I would agree, but it's not yours or my authority to settle the case.

Absolutely true, we're just throwing opinions around here.

There are many things the Constitution doesn't specify. That's why the court system exists. And that's why challenges to interpretation lead to better laws.

I would only change this to say "potentially leads to better laws". It can go the other way.

All in all, the court may rule on some things and not others.... Leaving open some of these questions.... It happens from time to time

Agreed.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

States rights don't include deciding whether the rest of the country can elect or not elect a particular Presidential candidate.

Can you say ABDUL KARIM HASSAN, I doubt it, but he was an excluded Presidential candidate and it was
Neil M. Gorsuch who wrote the decision.

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-03116-MJW)​

(D. Colo.)​

Again,you should only comment once you get an education about said topics.

 

[ll74]

Doesn't necessarily make them correct, though. The existence of recognized authority doesn't confer infallibility when exercising it.

It doesn't need to be "correct" .. as they are the highest court.

Absolutely true, we're just throwing opinions around here.

I would only change this to say "potentially leads to better laws". It can go the other way.

No, always leads.... The courts rule and the laws are created accordingly. We should challenge laws more often.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

lol. Colorado Sec of State says SCOTUS not 'friendly' to democracy, voting rights ahead of Trump ballot ruling

https://www.foxnews.com/media/color...-friendly-democracy-ahead-trump-ballot-ruling

 

[Lazaran]

•
Anyone who doesn’t trash a decision that allows a corrupt, traitorous, orange POS who engaged in insurrection to be on the ballot is …trash.



BabyBoobs

 

[ll74]

lol. Colorado Sec of State says SCOTUS not 'friendly' to democracy, voting rights ahead of Trump ballot ruling

https://www.foxnews.com/media/color...-friendly-democracy-ahead-trump-ballot-ruling

Colorado's sec of state is defending her state. When Paxton does that shit, you guys cream your panties.

 

[PaxNurgle]

lol. Colorado Sec of State says SCOTUS not 'friendly' to democracy, voting rights ahead of Trump ballot ruling

https://www.foxnews.com/media/color...-friendly-democracy-ahead-trump-ballot-ruling

The whole problem is, Trump is not "friendly" to democracy either- as demonstrated on Jan 6, 2021.

Which is EXACTLY WHY he needs to be removed from the ballot- in every state. Full stop. If the Supreme Court does their due diligance he will be but I have lost faith in this current rogue court from ever upholding the Constitution. This is not about "Voting rights." Voters had the right to vote for him- twice, in fact. The most recent time, it did not end well.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The whole problem is, Trump is not "friendly" to democracy either- as demonstrated on Jan 6, 2021.

Which is EXACTLY WHY he needs to be removed from the ballot- in every state. Full stop.

States can and do remove candidates for Federal elections, this is a power granted by the Elections Clause. But to do so the removal must meet the definitions set out by the Federal government. Some familiar ones are the candidates country of birth or their age.

The legal argument is about if the 14th amendment is auto executing as a reason under the Elections Clause. To me it is not. I think the court will correctly agree.

This doesn't mean Trump is immune from the 14th, it just means he has to run, and be elected, before being denied office. If I was a Republican, I want to be his VP. Surest way to becoming President.

 

[HisArpy]

States can and do remove candidates for Federal elections, this is a power granted by the Elections Clause. But to do so the removal must meet the definitions set out by the Federal government. Some familiar ones are the candidates country of birth or their age.

The legal argument is about if the 14th amendment is auto executing as a reason under the Elections Clause. To me it is not. I think the court will correctly agree.

This doesn't mean Trump is immune from the 14th, it just means he has to run, and be elected, before being denied office. If I was a Republican, I want to be his VP. Surest way to becoming President.

This stops short of all of the facts.

It's clear that you've considered that the 14th isn't self executing. But, if it isn't, then what does trigger it?

Say Trump runs and gets elected, what triggers the 14th so he's "denied office"? Is something else required?

Then there's the fact that precedent says that the 14th doesn't apply to the President. How does this allow Trump, as President elect, to be denied the office under the 14th?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

This stops short of all of the facts.

The application of 14 has a history, it is not self executing, that has been shown. It is mechanism to prevent holding office, not an election to office.
The wording and history of how the wording has been legally interpreted is pretty clear.

It's clear that you've considered that the 14th isn't self executing. But, if it isn't, then what does trigger it?

I've considered that it is not self executing under the Elections Clause as well. IE a State doesn't have the legal authority to exclude a Candidate on the grounds of the 14 section 3.

Say Trump runs and gets elected, what triggers the 14th so he's "denied office"? Is something else required?

If you want the history of how the 14 works just look to Victor Berger.

Then there's the fact that precedent says that the 14th doesn't apply to the President. How does this allow Trump, as President elect, to be denied the office under the 14th?

The 14th 3 applies to all "offices" and the Office of the President is an office. However a Senator does not hold an office, he/she is a Senator, the same for a Member of the House. Which is why the document is written that way. Otherwise, every time an Administration created an new department, that Officer would have to be written into the 14th amendment.

 

[Bn2f]

This stops short of all of the facts.

It's clear that you've considered that the 14th isn't self executing. But, if it isn't, then what does trigger it?

Say Trump runs and gets elected, what triggers the 14th so he's "denied office"? Is something else required?

Then there's the fact that precedent says that the 14th doesn't apply to the President. How does this allow Trump, as President elect, to be denied the office under the 14th?

So here is what is stuck in my craw that's bugging me. If the 14th does not apply to the president (Ok, deep breath, trying to imagine a person espousing originalist text believing this ), then why is there even an inauguration? Why does the president even take an oath to uphold the constitution if it does not apply to him? And, what is fucking pissing me off about you and especially KBJ bringing this up, is the fact that I KNOW this to be a false and misleading thought process. Lemme take folks back in the wayback machine to 2009. Justice Roberts administered the oath to America's first black president and he stumbled in his speech. Chris Wallace, then happy to be handsomely paid to be a Fox News sycophant, railed on live television wondering (echoing birtherism and following the blue print to question the eligibility now of ANY democrat) if Obama was legitimately the president. This then forced Roberts and Obama to redo the oath privately in the White House.
So, I ask, tell me again how the 14th, or any part of the constitution, does not apply to the sole person deemed to honor and uphold for 4 years?

 

[HisArpy]

The 14th 3 applies to all "offices" and the Office of the President is an office.

Not according to Chief Justice Roberts.

 

[HisArpy]

So here is what is stuck in my craw that's bugging me. If the 14th does not apply to the president (Ok, deep breath, trying to imagine a person espousing originalist text believing this ), then why is there even an inauguration? Why does the president even take an oath to uphold the constitution if it does not apply to him? And, what is fucking pissing me off about you and especially KBJ bringing this up, is the fact that I KNOW this to be a false and misleading thought process. Lemme take folks back in the wayback machine to 2009. Justice Roberts administered the oath to America's first black president and he stumbled in his speech. Chris Wallace, then happy to be handsomely paid to be a Fox News sycophant, railed on live television wondering (echoing birtherism and following the blue print to question the eligibility now of ANY democrat) if Obama was legitimately the president. This then forced Roberts and Obama to redo the oath privately in the White House.
So, I ask, tell me again how the 14th, or any part of the constitution, does not apply to the sole person deemed to honor and uphold for 4 years?

Swearing to uphold the constitution doesn't mean that all the parts of it apply directly to the person so swearing.

For instance, the parts about electing Senators don't apply to the President's cabinet who are appointed and confirmed. The President swears to uphold those provisions but they don't affect him directly since he's neither a senator or cabinet appointee.

It is the same for the 14th Amendment, he swears to uphold it but it doesn't apply to him directly since it excludes him.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Not according to Chief Justice Roberts.

Well when Roberts can get four more people on the court to write/agree with that opinion, then it's law. Until then, it's not.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It is the same for the 14th Amendment, he swears to uphold it but it doesn't apply to him directly since it excludes him.

Where?

• 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 claim this, but if it was true, then the case wouldn't be before SCOTUS....