From Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog.
It is... imperative for the political stability of the U.S. to get a definitive judicial resolution of these questions as soon as possible. Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for President is eligible....
In the end the legal issues are close but the political ramifications of disqualification would be enormous....
Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for President is eligible.... and voters need to know if they need to fight for the candidate they are supporting on the substantive merits and not just rely on his opponent's being "disqualified" on some wild legal theory.
Posts
130 comments:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
·
Dec 19, 2023
@RobertKennedyJr
Trump blocked from the ballot in Colorado. When a court in another country disqualifies an opposition candidate from running, we say, “That’s not a real democracy.” Now it’s happening here.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
I’m not a Trump supporter (if I were, I wouldn’t be running against him!) But I want to beat him in a fair election, not because he was kicked off the ballot. Let the voters choose, not the courts! #Kennedy24
10:14 PM · Dec 19, 2023
In the end the legal issues are close but the political ramifications of disqualification would be enormous....
Try to imagine a Republican state, with nine Republicans on the state Supreme Court, kicking Barack Obama off the state ballot after making a 5 to 4 ruling that he's not a citizen of the United States.
The legal issues are not close. You are full of shit, Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog.
My bottom line is that the Colorado opinion is a serious and careful opinion that reaches a reasonable conclusion that Trump is disqualified.
It's not serious to say that January 6 was an "insurrection" and there's nothing careful in unelected Democrats trying to keep Colorado voters from being able to vote for a popular Republican.
Democrats love their one-party states and their facetious and dishonest pretense that they like free speech and the right to vote is disappearing before our eyes. We're seeing the snakes emerge.
The obvious plan is to play the Chiquita Banana jingle outside the Supreme Court.
I don’t see how a state court gets to decide a federal issue (insurrection). The violation the court is excluding Trump over has no nexus with Colorado.
The Democrats have opened a dangerous new front in election interference. Two things need to happen, and soon. The Supreme Court needs to smack this down under subject matter jurisdiction, and congress needs to set the contours for when the 14th Amendment applies. We can’t have just any court deciding something is an insurrection amd there needs to ve so e guidancecon what counts as “engaged in insurrection”
Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question.
I think based on the polls that a large number of voters know their candidate is eligible to be President. That 4 people aren’t sure does not make a democracy.
How eager will SCOTUS be to pick this up and execute the overturn most of us expect to see? Who can or will overrule the SCOTUS on this matter, either before or after the election takes place? What if they shock us and let it stand?
Just how far will the bubble within the bubble within the bubble go to make the orange monster go away? Unless you are inside at least one of those bubbles, this isn't a good look from Colorado. This helps Trump build his narrative, and it takes a narrative to beat a narrative.
That said, are more people paying attention to this or to the transfer portal right now? When Uncle Rodney is more interested in the SCOTUS than the QB prospects for his favorite squad, we'll know that the electorate is truly engaged, and probably enraged.
The legal issues are not close. You are full of shit, Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog.
We should just raid the Colorado court and round them all up but the shills are the worst actors in these scams. This is the correct response for the people who will be pearl clutching the gravity of the legal arguments. You are full of shit
…why no leak of the CO judges who voted for the scam? No former SCOTUS liberals there? They are all so full of shit…
"congress needs to"
Lol, good luck getting anything done in the GOP house. You guys can't even pass a clean budget, you expect to pass a clean bill here?
Rich said...
Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question.
They don't ask that question.
Trump removes Colorado from the Union.
Not a close legal question at all.
"rhhardin said...
The obvious plan is to play the Chiquita Banana jingle outside the Supreme Court."
Really.
Just one more step towards the ruin of a once great country.
Makes as much sense as anything a democrat...
Oops! I used sense and democrat in the same sentence.
Gotta try harder.
It seems that Democrats are unanimous in declaring that Trump was right on J6 and that the states have the final say, just like the SCOTUS said in Bush v Gore.
Boy those MAGA folk are sure a danger to democracy..... Colorado SC says hold my beer.
Has Trump been found guilty of insurrection? Nope.
Do we still believe in innocent until proven guilty? Boy I sure thought/hoped so... but, alas.
The Colorado SC is insane.
Voters and non-voters need to know whether that civil war the Dems want is starting. This is not a pretty thing.
...voters need to know if they need to fight for the candidate they are supporting on the substantive merits and not just rely on his opponent's being "disqualified" on some wild legal theory.
If they could they would have done so in 2016 and 2020, and would not need to resort to these tactics now.
In other news, NE and WY have removed Biden from the primary ballot.
I have read elsewhere that Colorado is even going to prevent his being a write-in candidate. Don't know if anyone else has, but that A) seems dubious and B) if it is real would be a massive constitutional and legal problem. How in the hell can not counting write-ins be legal? People write-in the devil and Santa and their brother doing 75 to life in supermax every election season.
That sounds like fake news, but of it's real it should serve as a warning to just how bad things have gotten.
It appears the Democrats are a “threat to our Democracy” and have been, all along.
Fascist sons of bitches that they are.
But, where's Obama's birth certificate? It's different when they try to get my guy disqualified on a loony Constitutional theory. 🤣😂🤣 (Because they are just better at is.)
Boo hoo hoo, fuckers. Reap the stupid politics you have sewn. 🥺 I've got my popcorn. If Rome is burning, fuck it, I'm making signature cocktails.
A question for lawyers. Let's suppose this ruling is allowed to stand. Trump wins Colorado with write-in votes. Does he get Colorado's electors?
The conscious and strategic effort to eliminate Trump dates back to the Pussy Hat protest after Jan 2017 inauguration at minimum. Also see the June 2017 NYC Shakespeare play with Julius Caesar changed to a simulated assassination of Trump. Don't forget Kathy Griffin and her pet bloody head. I wonder if she keeps the head on a pike or if sleeps with it?
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/trump-mock-assassination-shakespeare-in-the-park-new-york-city-controversy-kathy-griffin/164591/
The Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. Projection is not an effective coping strategy. Pride goes before destruction.
“Has Trump been found guilty of insurrection? Nope.”
As far as I know, he hasn’t even been charged. So the Colorado Supreme Court has put itself in the position of grand jury, judge and jury, all without hearing a word of testimony or allowing Trump to mount a defense.
"Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order",
This is from the abstract of the Baude/Paulsen law review article Dave Begley put up in the last thread.
Does this sound like the US Constitution? Like any concept of ordered liberty?
Maybe the Supremes simply declare Section Three unconstitutional.
Democrats started calling Trump's speech an "insurrection" at the Jan 6 hearings just for this purpose. It is part of their lawfare strategy to redefine words and destroy democracy. But, until Congress defines "insurrection," the only reasonable definition is what southerners did during the civil war - i.e., arm, equip, and mobilize an army of half a million men to eviscerate the Constitution - including laying waste to states in the Union and causing the deaths of 400,000 union solders. Protesters "trespassing" in the capitol does not seem to compare to that.
If Trump's speech on January 6 is considered "involvement in an insurrection" then any state can kick off any candidate with some equally ridiculous interpretation.
We've got a guy in office who has taken millions from foreign nationals. Everybody knows this. We have emails and the word of the partners of his son and brother. The FBI has sat on this, maneuvered it, and the media has ignored it for years now.
We've had Trump harassed and impeached for the Russia Collusion 'crime' that never happened, was a complete fiction run by the Clinton team and the FBI.
If they cannot remove him from a handful of ballots, what will they resort to next? Any guesses?
By any means necessary.
"Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for President is eligible"
Voters need to know if they are still voters.
If progs do away with mere voting, to "save our democracy," the former voters will have to consider alternatives, none very nice.
Several courts including other state supreme courts have come to the conclusion the 14th Amendment does not apply to the office of President. This one rogue court IMO is the exception that proves the rule and SCOTUS has to make the decision. It should also be a big hint to the high court that some states might not be fairly conducting their elections. Hmmm.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/vivek-ramaswamy-withdraws-colorado-primary-until-trump-is/
What a screwed up time we live in…
Colorado is ground zero for mob-democrat rule.
Denver's new Mayor is a grifter.
Mike Johnston(D) was working for a company that just purchased a vacant hotel for 20 million.
That same hotel was just sold again few days ago - sold to the state of CO for 30 million.
Nice little profit.
Mike Johnston will be our next governor. why? He makes a good money grubbing mobster(D)
agree with RFK jr.- of course.
Sadly - Trump would not win here even if he were on the ballot. Bad drama.
Dr. Unknowable said...
A question for lawyers. Let's suppose this ruling is allowed to stand. Trump wins Colorado with write-in votes. Does he get Colorado's electors?
I am not a lawyer but did do some digging for what happened with Colorado's faithless Clinton elector in 2016. The fundamental problem with Presidential write-ins is there would be no party structure to supply Electors needed to cast the EC votes, though I don't know if Colorado or any other state has procedures for that situation. Every party appearing on the ballot supplies a list of electors who will vote for their candidate, and at least in Colorado they are serious about the vote being cast *only* for that party's nominee. In 2016, one of Clinton's electors cast his vote for somebody else (apparently in an effort to encourage GOP electors in other states to vote against Trump) and the rest of the electors exercised the procedure to decertify that vote and appoint a different elector who did vote for Clinton. I suppose that if Trump were the official Republican nominee that the Republican electors could cast votes for him whether he appeared on the ballot or not but I don't know how a candidate with no party apparatus behind them would get Colorado's EC votes.
So let’s say Trump wins after the CO high court has disqualified him. Have they now given the CO governor legal grounds to secede from the United States? Sounds kinda insurrectionist to me!
Colorado.. What an Interesting state.
First 5 wolves reintroduced in Colorado under plan opposed by ranchers
this reintroduction of the species has been mandated by voters in a 2020 ballot initiative, which earned 50.91 percent of voter support
Now, THAT IS a mandate! nearly a majority of voters supported this "mandate"..
In other words, nearly HALF of voters opposed it, but TOO DAMN BAD for them!
Colorado's kangaroo courts continue to harass the anti-Woke Christian baker too:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-transgender-birthday-cake-00079823
Lawfare involves twisting the rules to your advantage, while assuming the other side will be forced to play by the rules and unable or unwilling to twist them too. It quickly turns to horror and collapse when these assumptions fail. I recall the French Maginot Line -- spend $9B (inflation adjusted) to keep the Germans out and refight WW1 trench warfare! Nope, the Germans simply went around the wall and destroyed France. I recall the aggressive "rule enforcement" of various athletes who cheated and tried very hard to prevent others from cheating too.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/maginot-line
I would imagine each state would have to make their own determination. Colorado can’t make that decision for Maryland or Florida. However, if SCOTUS upholds Colorado, it would give other states the green light to follow suit….
left out that the 30 million dollar hotel will be used for homeless and "migrants"
I it is an interesting exercise to try and define the term "insurrection" if Congress were to define it.
I would define insurrection as being "a planned and executed attempt to overthrow the United States Government, which must have had a reasonable chance to succeed."
But I am sure there are all kinds of pitfalls to that. The other definition could be "An insurrection is what the Confederacy tried to do from 1861 to 1865"
Look at Rich making the same argument that Trump made on January 6th. Who says he doesn’t have an open mind!
I suspect these efforts are less about ensuring Trump doesn't get the EC votes from deep blue states (which are likely the only ones that will try this) than making sure he loses the overall popular vote by not appearing on every state's ballot. That will do a lot to hide the fraud needed to get a terminally unpopular President re-elected in 2024 just as it did to get an unpopular nominee elected in 2020.
This is too easy
IANAL, But the opening sentence of the 14th amendment specifically excludes the President and Vice President. It enumerates those subject to the Amendment. POTUS and VPOTUS are excluded. Their ELECTORS are covered.
Go back to motivation for the Constitution, and its structure that always returns decisions to the People or the Peoples representatives. The 14th amendment follows that template.
Rich said...
I would imagine each state would have to make their own determination
Rich just came out in support of the new law in Texas, making border crossing a state crime.
Remember that in the final days of the Obama presidency, he created a government program to train sock puppets. So when you encounter a commenter who seems to have no interest in addressing obvious counter arguments, you can draw your own conclusions.
The “threat” in the Cyber Threat Intelligence League created by Obama is any threat to the grip on power of the Democratic Party and the inner circle of billionaires who fund the party.
Executive office holders were excluded from the list of Federal officials to whom Section 3 applies but State executives were included, indicating that the 14th Amendment expressly does not apply to the President. For the bandwagon new fanboys for “State’s Rights” you should read up on the 10th Amendment before getting giddy like those dumb MSNBC hosts and guests. You lefties sound like Atheists who seize on a single verse of the Bible taking it out of context to “prove” the whole Book is bogus. Context matters. Conservatives always view states’ rights through the language of the 10th Amendment, not as applying to the literally insurrectionist Democrats who used the term to justify their Democrat slavery support and their Democrat Jim Crow laws and their Democrat “separate but equal” schemes.
Nice to know that the Democrat tradition of twisting the clear language of the Constitution never goes out of style. Donkeys gotta bray. It’s what they do.
“ Blogger Mark said...
"congress needs to"
Lol, good luck getting anything done in the GOP house. You guys can't even pass a clean budget, you expect to pass a clean bill here?”
Isn’t this funny. I hen the dems had control the narrative was that the republicans were the “Dr No’s”. Now it’s not at all that the democrat party votes like a Stalinist and Chicom block that is a problem.
Ok. Without Trump on the ballot disgruntled, pissed, Trump supporters can throw their vote to Kennedy. Backfire. Biden loses Colorado.
Insurrection
What Trump said in his speech that day regarding Pence - was 100% stupid and incorrect.
The feds were waiting at the capitol to push some of Trump's angry supporters into a mob-frenzy.
no one was armed.
How do you have an insurrection without an armed mob?
The only person killed was a Trump female supporter.
They know it will be overturned. They are just trying to flush out the militias
He hasnt been charged with insurrrection, much less he hasnt been convicted this doesnt constitute an insurrection
Whats really gut churning about America 2023 is we can never count on the Republican Establishment to do the right thing. The SCOTUS should overturn this nonsense ASAP. But will they?
Who knows. My head says they have to. It would upend our political system and throw the election into chaos if they dont.
But will Kavanaugh or Roberts do the right thing? You cant count on them. WHere is the outrage from Romney, Bush, Christie, Haley, etc. Its not there.
So, God knows what will happen. All I know is that blandly assuming "everything will be alright" Or "They'll NEVER do that - that would be crazy", is wrong. very wrong.
Final comment. DeSantis once again screwed the pooch, and showed why he will never be POTUS. Here was his chance to show some honest outrage and follow Mr. V and withdraw from the Colorado primary in Protest. And show he had some fight by attacking this judicial tryanny.
Instead he waits 9 hours and issues a weak, short tweet, merely asking the SCOTUS to overturn the decision. He doesn't even use the words "Colorado " or "Trump".
I suspect other blue states will follow to keep Trump of the GOP primary ballot. I assume this means "all ballots". If this happens there will be a mass MAGA exodus from the GOP.
The silence from DeSantis and Haley lets us know this is a coordinated Uniparty effort. Our high courts are much to powerful and corrupt.
Whatever they decide, I will write in Donald J. Trump in the WI Primary and the general election. They can throw my vote in the garbage if they want. The 2020 election fraud was basically did the same thing.
If DeSantis stays silent on this he will lose MAGA support forever.
Has Trump even been charged with insurrection, much less convicted?
Wasn't he acquitted of inciting insurrection by the Senate?
Has anyone been convicted of insurrection over the Jan. 6th election fraud protests?
Maybe the conservative counties in CO should hold a vote on whether to succeed from the state and start their own state or join WY or something.
Scott Adams via XTwitter: “…this gives you permission to assume the 2020 election was rigged -- without proof -- because "stop Trump at any cost" is evident in this decision.”
But, where's Obama's birth certificate? It's different when they try to get my guy disqualified on a loony Constitutional theory.
"They" being Hillary Clinton's campaign, so failing to see the difference.
Poor Rick Hassen. He's bright enough to know the ruling is complete crap, but such a Dem Party hack that he can't tell the truth
The Supreme Court should have heard Texas vs. PA. It was a HUGE mistake to turn it down.
You can't have some states implementing voter integrity and following their voting laws, and others like WI, PA, GA, MI, and AZ going rogue. That's not equal protection. The WI election commission threw out WI voting laws in 2020, and completely ignored Madison's daylight ballot harvesting in the park.
Here we have a corrupt CO Supreme court trying to start a domino effect.
Even if the US Supreme court intervenes, the Roberts court will be slow about it.
"Sorry. Yes, the US Supreme Court said Donald J Trump is eligible, but we didn't have time to reprint all the ballots. But...feel free to write him in."
Viva Frei Canadian lawyer turned YouTuber:
1) Trump was never convicted of “insurrection”
2) No one involved in Jan. 6 was convicted of “insurrection”
3) Trump was never charged with “insurrection”
4) No one involved in Jan. 6 was charged with “insurrection”
5) Trump was acquitted on the 2nd impeachment on charges that related to the events of Jan. 6
6) The 14th Amendment Sec. 3 does not apply to the President.
And does Section 3 apply to the presidency
No, it doesn't.
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.
The 4 biggest political hacks on CO SC claimed that The president, Senators, and Representative in Congress ALL "hold a civil office under the United States". But then don't go on to explain why it is that the Constitution mentions them separately from such people.
To "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" is to hold an appointed, not an elected, office.
The 14th doesn't limit right to run for President because you couldn't win the presidency without significant victories in US States that fought the US Civil War from the Northern side, and therefore they had no worry that any of Robert E Lee or the rest would ever win there. All the jobs you're not allowed to have are jobs where either you could be voted in by Southern voters, or appointed by a future Democrat President.
I carefully searched their screed for any addressing of this, at all. There was none, because they KNOW their position is garbage, they just don't care.
SCOTUS is going to take this case, and Co is going to lose. What Roberts is going to try to put together is 9-0 ruling that the Presidency is not an "office, civil or military, under the United States", and that the ruling is thrown out on those grounds, thus everything else in the ruling below is ignored.
This would let the Left continue to wank that "Trump's been found to be an insurrectionist".
His argument to get the 3 Lefties to vote 9-0 is that otherwise the opinion will say a lot more than just that the Presidency is not an office under, and the Lefties won't like any of it.
"In the end the legal issues are close...."
Oh bullshit! Back when we had judges, not Democrats, on the bench this would never have happened.
If this became actual law, it would disenfranchise half the nation. We can be sure the framers had no such thing in mind. Nevertheless, shameless and/or stupid Democrats are jumping for joy.
The real insurrection is happening in our crooked courts.
Lots of pundits pointing out page 9 of Colorado's ruling:
Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until after January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary's
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court
Seems like the only action that needs be taken is for somebody to request a review to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court need not do anything for the stay to remain in effect throughout the election. Further, if the US Supreme Court decides at some other time after March 5th to not review, then Trump is on the Colorado Primary ballot and the Colorado Supreme Court would need to issue another ruling in regards to the 2024 Presidential General Election.
LLR-democratical Rich: "Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question."
LOL
Lies on top of lies on top of lies on top of lies.
Too funny, though in Rich's "defense" he doesnt have much to work with here.
Rich: "Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question."
Why can't we get lefties on here who aren't ignoramuses?
Oh. Never mind. The question answers itself.
Gusty Winds: "If DeSantis stays silent on this he will lose MAGA support forever."
Just as with the Mar A Lago raid, DeSantis is out, very late, with an astonishingly weak statement which doesnt even mention Trump's name.
Tells you all you need to know. Of course, what else can DeSantis do? The very reason for his campaign and their entire strategy depended on Trump being removed from the process and then DeSantis stepping in.
Its why DeSantis has been going on MSNBC and making it clear that Trump should be removed if he is "convicted" or even just with indictments from a New Soviet Democratical kangaroo "court".
I'm sure the four corrupt CO justices are being flooded with emails and messages of admiration from fellow TDS fans. They are now probably the toast of Denver.
One is an open Democrat who graduated from Yale. Another a former law professor from the University of Colorado. (Boulder is as insane as Madison, WI and Berkeley, CA). Third is the "first openly LGBTQ" justice appointed to the CO Court. Haven't figured out who the fourth is yet. But now they will get the national attention the desire.
All under that fake theme of "protecting democracy"...while working to destroy it.
Althouse wrote: “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for President is eligible.... and voters need to know if they need to fight for the candidate they are supporting on the substantive merits and not just rely on his opponent's being "disqualified" on some wild legal theory.”
If the "engage in insurrection" language in the 14th Amendment can be arbitrary or ignored then why would the "minimum 35 years old" language be any different? Give the Colorado Justices credit for ruling on the merits of the case.
This case is not about voters' (or voting) rights, but the simple requirement in Sect. 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, that no person shall seek civilian or military federal office after having taken an oath to protect the Constitution and then engaging in insurrection or rebellion. Period. It is the duty of all branches of government, including the courts, to enforce this law. No one has a right to be on a ballot just be virtue of polling well.
The asshole part of me hopes Trump will be legally cancelled so we can see you J6 supporting malcontents throw an apeshit temper tantrum full of fake bravado and reveal how pathetically impotent you spoiled rotten whiners actually are. The rational part of me recognizes that we need a second Trump term to unfuck the lefty libtard brain damage.
Judges have been fucking with us for decades.
It is virtually impossible to impeach a judge with a lifetime appointment.
There is nothing that keeps them from going rogue in the pursuit of their political agenda.
Ask a Hawaiian judge what he thinks about Trump's immigration policy.
It's none of his goddamn business, but he'll rule from Honolulu anyway.
According to the polls, Trump supporters outnumber Biden supporters. This sort of tactic is unlikely to persuade any of them, nor is name-calling.
Leland,
A possible trap. I can easily imagine the Colorado Supreme Court getting to January 5th, the day of ballot certification, and then suddenly lifting the stay whether or not an appeal has been filed. If I were worried my ruling might get slapped down quickly, I might issue exactly the kind of stay the Colorado court has in this case.
I don't think the legal issues are that close at all. This part of the 14th was intended for civil war combatants and could be extended to those took up arms against the USA in a declared conflict, but that's as far as emanations and penumbras go. None of which apply here.
I now know one thing for certain- Rich is not a Chuck sockpuppet- he is significantly dumber than Chuck.
As I suspect the RNC likes this ruling, I think they might not even go through the motions to appeal the decision, and might even file briefs opposing the sure to come Trump appeal. I think this might well be a uniparty effort, but letting the blue states do the disqualifying just to ensure Trump doesn't get a majority of the delegates in the primaries.
Just watch to see how hard the RNC fights this ruling.
@GustyWinds "Whatever they decide, I will write in Donald J. Trump".
So suppose that in each state, Democrats have one of their own legally change their name to "Donald John(?) Trump". Did you just vote for Orange Man Bad or for that guy? What about a vote for "Trump" or "Donald Trump". Are those votes for the same OMB? All sorts of shenanigans like this can occur, and will if there's any chance that Trump wins via write-in. I'm sure there are existing laws about this, but I have no idea what they are, and I'm sure most people don't.
(1) A primary is the activity of a private political association, namely, a party. It is not a state function or action, even if the machinery of government is used for convenience. The state has no business telling parties who they can or cannot nominate for office, regardless of the 14th Amendment issue.
(2) The issue is not ripe for adjudication, that is, it is premature, because this is a primary, not a general election.
(3) Even in a presidential general election, the individual nominated candidates are not really the ones who are running. The electors are the ones who are running and are elected. Any 14th Amendment prohibition does not apply to them.
(4) At no point has Trump actually been adjudicated as having been involved in insurrection, such that the Colorado Supreme Court's action is a gross violation of due process.
(5) The Insurrection Clause does not apply to the presidency since the president is not an officer of the United States, nor is it an office under the United States. Rather, the president is the chief executive, an embodiment of the Executive Branch of government.
(6) The states do not have jurisdiction to determine violations of the 14th Amendment insurrection clause with respect to the presidency even if it did apply. That function of judgment belongs solely to Congress in receiving the votes of the Electoral College.
Even if this were to be upheld (which is never going to happen), the Colorado GOP will simply take their primary ball and go home to hold a state convention to pick delegates to the national convention. And there is nothing that Colorado could do to stop them from sending Trump delegates to the national convention.
Four lawyers in black dresses (who wouldn't sign their names to the per curiam decision) have egos as big as Pike's Peak. And they will decide for the plebes who they can vote for.
Pitchfork, rail, tar, feathers--apply and repeat.
New: “Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is expected to rule on whether or not Donald Trump is allowed to be on Maine's primary ballot.”
I've taken the hint and am arming up.
Good point on X:
SCOTUS will knock down the CO ruling, and the left will use it as a weapon to call for court packing.
“I have read elsewhere that Colorado is even going to prevent his being a write-in candidate. Don't know if anyone else has, but that A) seems dubious and B) if it is real would be a massive constitutional and legal problem. How in the hell can not counting write-ins be legal? People write-in the devil and Santa and their brother doing 75 to life in supermax every election season.”
Apparently thrown in at the end of the decision as an afterthought, without much discussion.
It will be a caucus if need be, Colorado GOP says.
A smart move.
What Trump said in his speech that day regarding Pence - was 100% stupid and incorrect.
April, that is "100% stupid and incorrect." If your theory is true, why did Congress pass a new law expressly stating that the VP has no power? Why change it all, if you are correct?
They literally proved their argument was bogus and that John Eastman was correct by changing the law to prevent a future president from doing exactly what Pence shoulda woulda done. The Freedom Caucus has confirmed that they were ready to suspend counting if Pence referred just one set of electors back for a recount, again confirming that the Eastman theory was in fact correct and already in motion prior to the launching of the fake insurrection.
And you know it was launched right then in order to disrupt that plan. It has certainly served a "greater purpose" for Democrats ever since as last night's ruling illustrates but the immediate need was to stop any recount.
How do you have an insurrection without an armed mob?
They've showed you over and over: Bring in Antifa dressed in MAGA gear! Duh! Notice none of the identified Antifa members there on J6 has been indicted or prosecuted?
“The rational part of me…”
Filed under “things only seen under a microscope”.
Ah the good Mark showed up.
Good analysis "Greg the Class Traitor" at 9:52am.
Howard - I loved your note at 1027H! You have such a way with words! ("You People...") Could you point me to other postings where your rational side was evident?
Greg the Class Traitor said...
Good analysis that tracks with what Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman proposed almost three years ago regarding the impeachment articles that refrenced Section 3.
As to enforcement, I find it interesting that the 14th Amendment drafters went to the trouble of specifically including "Electors for President and Vice-President" (but not the President and Vice-President) in the list of affected individuals. I think this clearly points to the Electors themselves being responsible for making the determination if candidates for President met the various qualifications outlined in the Constitution. This would be in line with the original role of Electors in the Constitution. Not all Constitutional Questions are also Legal Questions, something that was better adhered to before Democrats started practicing lawfare.
US diplomats warned Pakistan that there would be severe consequences if they did not remove the most popular politician in the country, Imran Kahn, from office, arrest and imprison him, and bar the people of Pakistan from voting for him.
Spain just made a deal to pardon people who actually had attempted secession of a province, in order to prevent the candidate who got the most votes from becoming prime minister.
The Netherlands just froze out the largest vote getter from the government.
Poland did the same.
Germany is making plans to make the most popular political party in the country barred from any election there.
The Italian prime minister simply lied to get elected and changed her positions the day she took office.
This is just more post democratic lawfare. The people in power simply refuse the possibility of peaceful transition, which is why they accused Trump of that. Every accusation is a confession with these fascist Democrats.
The Democrats really jumped the shark on this one. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump, but the damage is already done. Trump will rise again in the polls.
Howard said...
"... The rational part of me..."
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
The courts are out of hand. Scott Walker's Act 10 will be challenged in the new four liberal witch WI Supreme Court.
Act 10 was the will of the people. Passed by the elected Legislature, and signed by the three time (counting recall survival) elected Governor. Libs back then placed all their hopes on a liberal cat owning woman to get on the Supreme Court to declare Act 10 "unconstitutional". She lost.
Now the court has flipped but NOT the legislature. When it comes to claims of "protecting" democracy liberals are full of shit. If the don't like the will of the people, they want the courts to nullify anything they don't like.
In this case, Donald Trump.
Blogger Dr. Unknowable said...
@GustyWinds "Whatever they decide, I will write in Donald J. Trump".
So suppose that in each state, Democrats have one of their own legally change their name to "Donald John(?) Trump". Did you just vote for Orange Man Bad or for that guy? What about a vote for "Trump" or "Donald Trump". Are those votes for the same OMB?
Good point. These assholes who refused to verify absentee ballot signatures in 2020 will of course be looking closely at Donald Trump write ins like it they're hanging chads or something.
The point is to sew uncertainty. By the time this is overturned, focus will be on the next lawfare.
Worst insurrection ever.
Yet Howie still has nightmares about J6.
Semper Fudd!
“some wild legal theory”
The only wild legal theory I see here is the Trump argument that the President of United States is not an officer of the United States, given Article II section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years ….” Anyone want to provide an explanation of Trump’s position that doesn’t sound fascist?
Well we certainly learn a lot about the way our Constitution is constructed and dissected in cases like these! I’m grateful for all the legal skills on display in these comments. Thank you.
I can’t imagine SCOTUS letting this stand. They have a legacy to consider, too. “Ya, we were the ones who decided The People were not actually in charge of who earns the right to be on the ballot for US President. It’s us, we’re actually the ones in charge of that. You’re welcome.”
"Whether the 14th Amendment applies or not, we’ll let the court make that decision,” Biden told reporters on the tarmac after stepping off Air Force One. “But he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero. And he seems to be doubling down on it.”
Biden is such a liar. And supported by his "Good Friends" Mitch McConnell, mitt romney, George Bush, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Paul Ryan. None of whom opposed Biden's election in 2020, or are opposing Biden's Re-election.
Boo hoo hoo, fuckers. Reap the stupid politics you have sewn. 🥺 I've got my popcorn. If Rome is burning, fuck it, I'm making signature cocktails.
Yeah. Because the fire's never going to reach your doorstep, is it?
Howard: "The asshole part of me hopes Trump will be legally cancelled so we can see you J6 supporting malcontents throw an apeshit temper tantrum full of fake bravado and reveal how pathetically impotent you spoiled rotten whiners actually are."
Its pretty amusing how much of yourself you expose through your projection.
The idea that the president is not an officer of the US is ludicrous. It's horseshit. Presidents take an oath of office. They are officers.
That's a very silly legalistic quibble.
The only question is whether he engaged in insurrection. I think he did, in a 2 month long plot to stay in office despite the election result, inept and disorganized though the plot may have been.
Up to Jan 6 he did everything he could think of short of direct force. It wasn't working, so on Jan 6 he sent a mob, the only force who would do his bidding. He wanted to lead them but was thwarted.
Howard said: "The asshole part of me hopes Trump will be legally cancelled so we can see you J6 supporting malcontents throw an apeshit temper tantrum full of fake bravado and reveal how pathetically impotent you spoiled rotten whiners actually are. The rational part of me recognizes that we need a second Trump term to unfuck the lefty libtard brain damage."
One butt cheek on the dock, one on the boat, sooner or later you're going to get an enema.
Even if this were to be upheld (which is never going to happen), the Colorado GOP will simply take their primary ball and go home to hold a state convention to pick delegates to the national convention. And there is nothing that Colorado could do to stop them from sending Trump delegates to the national convention.
Colorado GOP has announced that if this decision stands they will stop the primary and have a caucus instead.
Good for them! This pushback is good for free speech, good for free elections, good for democracy, good for our republic.
Fuck our unelected rulers, especially in one-party states.
Insurrection is what people do when there is no right to vote, no right to speak, and no right to dissent. Trying to suppress and criminalize speech as "insurrection" is what causes actual insurrections (i.e. violent revolts).
I have never been so ashamed of my country. Not just for Colorado. We have seen in the last three years the President and his supporters using endless lawfare to impede his likely opponent in the next election. Biden's opponent has to ask judges for permission to talk to the voters about his opponent's charges. And nobody is heard to say "That's not the way we conduct elections in this country." It IS NOT the way we conduct elections in this country -- or shouldn't be. No American who loves democracy should support or vote for Biden, until and unless he renounces and condemns these attacks on democracy.
I have never been so ashamed of my country. Not just for Colorado. We have seen in the last three years the President and his supporters using endless lawfare to impede his likely opponent in the next election. Biden's opponent has to ask judges for permission to talk to the voters about his opponent's charges. And nobody is heard to say "That's not the way we conduct elections in this country." It IS NOT the way we conduct elections in this country -- or shouldn't be. No American who loves democracy should support or vote for Biden, until and unless he renounces and condemns these attacks on democracy.
How to read or apply the 14th Amendment's third clause is a nice question but the Colorado court was quite foolish to try to resolve it. It's not hard to find conservative or libertarian legal scholars who accept the substantive constitutional argument adopted by the Colorado court (Ilya Somin, Will Baude and Michael Luttig come to mind). But other courts with a majority of justices appointed by the Dems, in Michigan, Minnesota and elsewhere, have wisely decided that the issue is not for them to decide. I expect that SCOTUS will adopt the same approach -- probably grant a stay of this decision, and then reverse with instructions to dismiss the case on any one of a number of available grounds (the clause is not self-executing and requires a federal statute to apply it, it needs a conviction or some equivalent to establish 'engaging' in insurrection, not ripe/not justiciable/political question, etc.). And I don't see how, as a practical matter, SCOTUS can duck the case. There are already calls in California (by the Lt Gov) to knock Trump off the ballot based on this decision, and in Texas there is a retaliatory call to knock Biden off the ballot for failure to enforce immigration laws. That will spread, as both sides play their lawfare games. Very foolish for the Colorado court to use this case to push the judiciary once again into the middle of a presidential election.
One thing that is clear is that nobody seems to know what "insurrection" actually means, other than "what the Confederates did" if you are a Republican, or "whatever Trump can be accused of doing" if you're a Democrat.
It seems like there is a vagueness argument to be made.
Has this provision ever been enforced against anyone since 1900? Is there any precedent?
It is amusing that Howard thinks he is only a partial anus.
So the Lefties crawled in here late after the adults had spoken to declare up is down, black is white and of course Trump is an appointed officer of the United States. Poor reading comprehension and a lot of slobber on your keyboard. Dudes, if the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to Presidents it would have said "the chief executive" but it did not and he is not an "appointed officer" because he is elected. It applies to Governors, because it includes "executives of the States" in the list of covered persons.
Not to mention you guys overlook the whole requirement that the officeholder be "convicted of insurrection...in a court of law" which, in case you are not to paying attention, has not happened to Trump. So even if you were correct on the office, which you are not, you missed the requirement of conviction.
He has not even been charged with insurrection. Strike three.
Up to Jan 6 he did everything he could think of short of direct force. It wasn't working, so on Jan 6 he sent a mob, the only force who would do his bidding. He wanted to lead them but was thwarted.
I rest my case. Jimmy knows exactly what "insurrection" means. It means "Bad Orange Man."
What voters (or perhaps "former voters") need to know is whether the Second Civil War has started. Could we get a ruling on that?
Good to see so many constitutional scholars in the Althouse comments. One thing you won't find here is a shortage of experts. Or old men yelling at their computers.....
Althouse while in Austin check out Franklin BBQ.
Jupiter said "What voters (or perhaps "former voters") need to know is whether the Second Civil War has started."
-------------------------------------------------------
Might be precisely what they want. 1st rule of civil war is central government must be the one who starts it. Don't fire on Fort Sumter. Dumbest thing you can do. You need to wait for fedcoats to shoot citizens on Boston common. 2nd rule of civil war is ensure overwhelming documentation and have your story out first because they will most definitely have a narrative before the event.
Keep your powder dry and build proscription lists, and you can start with the names and faces of the 4 judges who penned this affront to the constitution. All the cool kids are doing it.
I'll leave the interpretation of the Civil War amendments to the constitutional scholars and advocates. Assume this will reach the USSC soon enough. But I don't understand all the this-will-help-Trump takes. Is there anyone out there who was ready to vote for Haley or DeSantis or Christie or the other guy who is now going to change their vote to Trump in outrage against the Colorado Supreme Court? Really?
Simon Bolivar Buckner, a Confederate General, served as Governor of Kentucky in 1887, Gen Wheeler, a Confederate officer, served in the post war house and was made a Regular US Army Brig Gen after the Spanish War. The 14th amendment did not even apply to these Confederate Generals, who were explicitly denied the right to be in the US house of reps or state executive in the plain text of the 14 th Amdt.
The only question is whether he engaged in insurrection. I think he did, in a 2 month long plot to stay in office despite the election result, inept and disorganized though the plot may have been.
Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?
To re-phrase. Trump is responsible for a one man insurrection?
How does that even work? How can one person overthrow the Government of the United States?
Even rabid attack dog Jack Smith refused to consider such a charge.
Of Hundreds pleaded guilty, or convicted of Jan 6 actions, not a single charge of insurrection.
Shouldn't we need just maybe one or two facts supporting the accusation?
I hope they do ban Trump. He was a terrible president anyway but if they ban him whoever the Republicans nominate will win in a landslide.
I kind of agree with Blackbeard here. Anyway, it would be great to have some kind of rational choice.
Blogger Josephbleau said...
Buckner petitioned Congress to remove his Section 3 exclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bolivar_Buckner
The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals. In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States. Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 ". . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-1/ALDE_00000848/
"Is there anyone out there who was ready to vote for Haley or DeSantis or Christie or the other guy who is now going to change their vote to Trump in outrage against the Colorado Supreme Court? Really?"
Something that could only be written by someone who was just born yesterday, or has been asleep for the last year. Which is it, Readering?
Sure, the number of such people that might switch to Trump gets smaller with each new round of lawfare by the Democrats but, seriously, are you this misinformed?
Christopher B said...
Greg the Class Traitor said...
Good analysis that tracks with what Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman proposed almost three years ago regarding the impeachment articles that refrenced Section 3.
Thank you. I read those articles back then, and realized they were right after thinking about it a bit. Which is why I track what they wrote :-)
As to enforcement, I find it interesting that the 14th Amendment drafters went to the trouble of specifically including "Electors for President and Vice-President" (but not the President and Vice-President) in the list of affected individuals
It's simpler than what you wrote: the Georgia, for example, political parties get to pick their Presidential Electors. Congress didn't want to let them pick any former Confederates. So they were included in the exclusions.
They wanted to kick the Democrats when the Dems were down, so they did. They didn't include the Presidency, because they were convinced that none of the traitor Dems could win that
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“some wild legal theory”
The only wild legal theory I see here is the Trump argument that the President of United States is not an officer of the United States
That's because you're an ignoramus as well as a moron and a liar.
1:Start of 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
Look at that! You can NOT be a Senator or Representative, but CAN be elected President, even if you ARE an "insurrectionist"
2: The President is not an "Officer" in the meaning of teh 14th. here's why
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=457081120069125066121105004019122119000082066008011028071109118102082070094015108071029048028008114049015109099064115017111068040008075040031079098022064103116093051081091069069026070125067102027116099019082107105080126085029108016094125003005001004&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
iowan said, "Shouldn't we need just maybe one or two facts supporting the accusation?"
Why when you can convince 81 million brain dead morons to repeat it endlessly.
There is no requirement he be convicted or even indicted for insurrection elsewhere in section 3. There is no requirement for enacting legislation. His impeachment is an independent process and has no bearing on the rest of the eligibility requirements in the Constitution.
What is required is that if you want to be President you can't have tried to overthrow our government by having a violent mob attack the Congress to overturn an election you lost.
This is not hard.
Rich said...
"There is no requirement he be convicted or even indicted for insurrection elsewhere in section 3. There is no requirement for enacting legislation. His impeachment is an independent process and has no bearing on the rest of the eligibility requirements in the Constitution.
What is required is that if you want to be President you can't have tried to overthrow our government by having a violent mob attack the Congress to overturn an election you lost.
This is not hard."
There is no evidence that he tried to overthrow the government , Rich.
Try harder.
Post a Comment