Let's make something clear.

[berg80]

Nope

Very impressive rebuttal.

 

[berg80]

They have an insurrection disqualification in their state laws? Really?

CO has a process by which a challenge to qualification is adjudicated.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND11.

On September 6, 2023, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition under C.R.S. §§ 1-4-1204, 1-1-113, 13-51-105 and C.R.C.P. 57(a). Petitioners alleged two claims for relief. First, they asserted a claim against the Secretary pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 and § 1-1-113. Second, they requested declaratory relief against both the Secretary and Trump. The declaratory relief requested included a declaration that Trump was not constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.

2. On September 7, 2023, Trump filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 12, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado remanded the case, finding that the Secretary was not a nominal party whose consent to remove was permissive.3. CRSCC filed a motion to intervene on September 14, 2023. This Court granted that motion on September 18, 2023.4. On September 22, 2023, Trump filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-1101(3)(a) (“Trump Anti-SLAPP Motion”).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

 

[kaz]

They have an insurrection disqualification in their state laws? Really?

CO also has an innocent until proven guilty waiver and a due process waiver, right berg80 ?

 

[kaz]

CO has a process by which a challenge to qualification is adjudicated.

Colorado is also subject to the 14th amendment which says they are subject to innocent until proven guilty and due process. Sucks to be you, lying racist shit

 

[AntonToo]

Colorado is also subject to the 14th amendment which says they are subject to innocent until proven guilty and due process. Sucks to be you, lying racist shit

Qualifications for a job is NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.

 

[kaz]

Qualifications for a job is NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.

Due process and presumed to be innocent are job qualifications? What drugs are you on? Seriously, what? It's magic mushrooms, isn't it? Tell the truth, Dorothy

 

[BackAgain]

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. 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, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Keep trying.

Repeating your mistakes isn’t persuasive.

I’d dumb it down to your level for you, but unlike you I don’t speak retard.

But as simply put as it can be said, if a candidate for the Presidency has engaged in an insurrection, the 14th says he is disqualified. But no reasonable person can correctly claim that merely being accused of having engaged in an insurrection constitutes “having been engaged” in one.

The charge is a federal crime. Therefore a charge is required in a federal court, followed by an actual trial resulting in a conviction. Here we have none of the above.

A lower Colorado State Court held a mere civil matter “hearing.” That’s not a trial, much less a federal criminal trial. The judge’s ensuing bloviating about Trump supposedly having engaged in “an” insurrection was and is valueless.

The Colorado State Supreme Court read that so called “record” and agreed with the part of the lower court judge’s “finding” as determined that Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

Still no underlying conviction of the federal criminal charge (which has never been charged, by the way). So the Colorado Supreme Court decision is also lawless, lacking in actual jurisdiction over that required element and destined (I expect and hope) to be shit-canned by SCOTUS.

 

[BackAgain]

Qualifications for a job is NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.

Being labeled a criminal is a criminal matter.

 

[Batcat]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Good. You take Trump off the ballot claiming a riot was an insurrection and we will take Biden off our ballots as it is obvious that he has not enforced the existing laws on immigration .

The President as Law Enforcer​

By FindLaw Staff | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last reviewed July 15, 2022

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation16.html

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, the odds on are 60-3 or 5-4, either way, right now.

We can figure better after the appellate ruling.

If it is upheld, SCOTUS will not hear the subsequent MAGA appeal.

SCOTUS has primary jurisdiction.

.

 

[berg80]

But as simply out as it can be said, if a candidate for the Presidency has engaged in an insurrection the 14th says he is disqualified. But no reasonable person can correctly claim that merely being accused of having engaged in an insurrection constitutes “having been engaged” in one.

The charge is a federal crime. Therefore a charge is required in a federal court, followed by an actual trial resulting in a conviction. Here we have none of the above.

Wrong.

Repeating your mistakes isn’t persuasive.

I’d dumb it down to your level for you, but unlike you I don’t speak retard.

But as simply out as it can be said, if a candidate for the Presidency has engaged in an insurrection the 14th says he is disqualified. But no reasonable person can correctly claim that merely being accused of having engaged in an insurrection constitutes “having been engaged” in one.

The charge is a federal crime. Therefore a charge is required in a federal court, followed by an actual trial resulting in a conviction. Here we have none of the above.

A lower Colorado State Court held a mere civil matter “hearing.” That’s not a trial, much less a federal criminal trial. The judge’s ensuing bloviating about Trump supposedly having engaged in “an” insurrection was and is valueless.

The Colorado State Supreme Court read that so called “record” and agreed with the part of the lower court judge’s “finding” as determined that Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

Still no underlying conviction of the federal criminal charge (which has never been charged, by the way). So the Colorado Supreme Court decision is also lawless, lacking in actual jurisdiction over that required element and destined (I expect and hope) to be shit-canned by SCOTUS.

Wrong on all counts. See post #682.

 

[OKTexas]

You didn't make an argument. You posted an unattributed prediction by anonymous "experts." But then you're the guy who posted a link to an irrelevant article about a 9th circuit decision on standing based on venue and erroneously claimed it applied to this matter.

Remain willfully ignorant, there was a thread on this very board where an MSNBC contributor made that prediction. Feel free to go find it.

.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.

Wrong on all counts. See post #682.

Nah.

I’m entirely correct and your references to some other posts doesn’t change that fact.

You just cite to nonsense you happen to want to believe. You don’t give a damn about the actual legal analysis or logic. Or facts.

Guys like you don’t even stop to consider the kind of precedent your notions would establish. Your simply regret it all once those consequences land at the feet of your liberal Democrap buddies.

 

[BackAgain]

CO has a process by which a challenge to qualification is adjudicated.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND11.

On September 6, 2023, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition under C.R.S. §§ 1-4-1204, 1-1-113, 13-51-105 and C.R.C.P. 57(a). Petitioners alleged two claims for relief. First, they asserted a claim against the Secretary pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 and § 1-1-113. Second, they requested declaratory relief against both the Secretary and Trump. The declaratory relief requested included a declaration that Trump was not constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.

2. On September 7, 2023, Trump filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 12, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado remanded the case, finding that the Secretary was not a nominal party whose consent to remove was permissive.3. CRSCC filed a motion to intervene on September 14, 2023. This Court granted that motion on September 18, 2023.4. On September 22, 2023, Trump filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-1101(3)(a) (“Trump Anti-SLAPP Motion”).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Of course Colorado has a legal process.

The trouble with dolts like you is that you are unwilling to contemplate the limited scope of such state laws.

To say that they have a lawful mechanism to hear disputes doesn’t mean that they consequently can lay claim to jurisdiction over federal matters.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS has primary jurisdiction.

.

Yes, of course, thank you for letting us be aware that you know that.

And I repeat that "
Nope, the odds on are 6-3 or 5-4, either way, right now, if SCOTUS takes the case, which it may not. We can figure better after the appellate ruling.

If it is upheld on appeal, SCOTUS, I believe, will not hear the subsequent MAGA appeal."

 

[hadit]

The willfully ignorant right.

In addition to not requiring a criminal conviction, disqualification pursuant to Section 3 doesn’t require the disqualified individual to be afforded due process.

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

The disqualified individual doesn’t go to jail, isn’t executed, and doesn’t have his private property taken by government – he continues to live his private life absent seeking public office.

Minus any kind of legal guidelines, it becomes an act of partisan tomfoolery. IOW, expect a democrat to be kept off the ballot to the screams of discontent from other democrats.

 

[Nostra]

Even one of the witnesses called in Trump's defense had written...........

Murray pointed to a commentary written by Delahunty for The Federalist, a conservative website, in August. In that article, Delahunty wrote of Section 3: “Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to ‘officer(s)’ supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”
Testimony on 14th Amendment continues on final day of Colorado Trump trial - Colorado Newsline

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. 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, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three

What does SECTION 5 say, Simp?

 

[Nostra]

To be precise, in CO the courts ruled on ballot qualification which is covered by state law. You'd know that if you had read either of the published decisions.

Which state law did Trump violate? Quote the statute berg80

 

[Nostra]

Qualifications for a job is NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.

Insurrection is, Moron.

 

[BackAgain]

Please help me understand why you keep bringing this up since.........Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bug keeps repeating that silly claim.