Now Missouri

[kyzr]

Is this not due process playing out before our eyes?

There was a hearing with a judge in CO, for which lawyers from Trump and the side of the voters were a part of. This judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but was not covered by the 14th. Trump himself appealed this ruling and it went to the COSC, who then ruled he was covered by the 14th, and now it is going to SCOTUS. Seems an awful lot like due process to me

Nope. The (3) dissenting CO justices, including the Chief Justice, said that there was inadequate due process.

noun​

1. An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
2. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
3. The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, so you're allowing anyone to say who "engaged" in an insurrection without "due process"?

FPOTUS#45 got or is getting "due process". There was a 5-day bench trial in Colorado where FPOTUS#45 lawyers participated, there was an appeal to the CSC where again FPOTUS#45 lawyers participated. And yes there is a difference between substantive due process (criminal case) and procedural due process (civil actions). This was a civil action.

In Maine, the SOS of state made the call after submissions by both side, then stayed her own judgement pending court review. So due process is in the works.

The (3) CO dissenting justices in a 4-3 decision said that the Constitution always allows for "due process", so that insurrection point is actually moot.

And you will note that none of the dissenting judges on the CSC decision even tried to make a case that FPOTUS#45 didn't engage in insurrection. Their dissents were based on legal technicalities like "the President isn't really an Officer in the context of A14S3". Which saying the President occupying the Office of the President isn't an officer, seems kind of silly when you think about it.

WW

 

[postman]

I have little doubt it was meant for the Confederacy, but it is still there so....

I am sure SCOTUS will not allow this to happen, but I am really looking forward to their reasoning. I think the safest way is to rule that only Congress can remove someone based on the 14th.

I personally think it is wrong to try and remove him or anyone minus a conviction, let the people decide.

First off, you realize that the 14th amendment covers about 400,000 elected offices. If it required any action at all by congress, they wouldn't have time to hold 400,000 votes, so it's obvious that was never their intent. or requirement.

 

[berg80]

This is getting ridiculous.

Let the people decide. SCOTUS needs to address this

Missouri official threatens to remove Biden from 2024 presidential ballot if 'new legal standard' boots Trump

Missouri official threatens to remove Biden from 2024 presidential ballot if 'new legal standard' boots Trump

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft says he'll remove President Biden from the presidential ballot if Trump is disqualified to appear in other states.

www.foxnews.com

Trump was, in fact, defeated at the polls, and he attempted to overturn that result. There is no reason to believe that he will accept any democratic verdict that does not put him back into power. If that is not disqualifying, what is?"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nope. The (3) dissenting CO justices, including the Chief Justice, said that there was inadequate due process.

noun​

1. An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
2. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
3. The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.

and 4 said there was....again the very definition of due process.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was and still is a Civil War Amendment not intended for 150 years later. Also gave birthright citizenship for the Civil War also.

Only 12 cases of it in 150 years and now attempted abuse of it for TDS. Insurrection is a specific charge. The Bill of Rights requires Due Process. That hasnt happened. SCOTUS gonna throw this nonsense out.

Could you point to the sunset provision of A14S3 please? I didn't see an expiration date.

FPOTUS#45 did get due process, it is a civil matter and their was a 5-day bench trial where his lawyers participated.

Just because the ruling was against him doesn't mean they didn't follow the procedural due process required in civil action.

WW

 

[berg80]

If Trump qualified to be on the GOP ballot

But that's the question. Is he qualified to be on the ballot? Legalese aside, obviously not.

 

[postman]

It was and still is a Civil War Amendment not intended for 150 years later. Also gave birthright citizenship for the Civil War also.

Every amendment to the constitution if PERMANENT, unless another amendment repeals it. If they wanted it to be temporary, they would have included a time limit on it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There was a hearing with a judge in CO, for which lawyers from Trump and the side of the voters were a part of. This judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but was not covered by the 14th. Trump himself appealed this ruling and it went to the COSC, who then ruled he was covered by the 14th, and now it is going to SCOTUS.

Seems an awful lot like due process to me

Techical correction. The Trial judge did rule as part of the fact finding that FPOTUS#45 did engage in insurrection, however, he ruled that the Office of the President isn't an "officer" under the context of A14S3.

A fine distinction true, but an important one. The finding was yes on insurrection, and no on "officer" and BOTH qualification had to be met for him to rule that FPOTUS#45 could be barred from the ballot. The CSC agrees with the "engaged" portion, and reversed the "officer" portion.

WW

 

[SeaMajor7]

Trump was, in fact, defeated at the polls, and he attempted to overturn that result. There is no reason to believe that he will accept any democratic verdict that does not put him back into power. If that is not disqualifying, what is?"

There was no attempt to overturn any results, that is only your NARRATIVE that you are trying to force everyone to believe.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Techical correction. The Trial judge did rule as part of the fact finding that FPOTUS#45 did engage in insurrection, however, he ruled that the Office of the President isn't an "officer" under the context of A14S3.

A fine distinction true, but an important one. The finding was yes on insurrection, and no on "officer" and BOTH qualification had to be met for him to rule that FPOTUS#45 could be barred from the ballot. The CSC agrees with the "engaged" portion, and reversed the "officer" portion.

WW

yeah, that is what I just said

 

[WorldWatcher]

First off, you realize that the 14th amendment covers about 400,000 elected offices. If it required any action at all by congress, they wouldn't have time to hold 400,000 votes, so it's obvious that was never their intent. or requirement.

It's a lot more than that, because A14S3 bars holding any office (elected, appointed, or hired) in BOTH federal and state positions in positions of trust.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

yeah, that is what I just said

Upon re-reading, you are correct. My bad. Apologies.

WW

 

[postman]

And you will note that none of the dissenting judges on the CSC decision even tried to make a case that FPOTUS#45 didn't engage in insurrection. Their dissents were based on legal technicalities like "the President isn't really an Officer in the context of A14S3". Which saying the President occupying the Office of the President isn't an officer, seems kind of silly when you think about it.

WW

They are probably looking the meaning of officer in the appointments clause of the constitution. The federal government has only ONE elected office, executive or judicial, where the states can have hundreds or more.

To exempt elected officers means entire states could be given over to insurrectionist control. Which was never their intent.

 

[eagle1462010]

Could you point to the sunset provision of A14S3 please? I didn't see an expiration date.

FPOTUS#45 did get due process, it is a civil matter and their was a 5-day bench trial where his lawyers participated.

Just because the ruling was against him doesn't mean they didn't fallow the procedural due process required in civil action.

WW

It didnt have a subset but at the time of Faction they had no concern of the future where it is abused. Insurrection hasnt been used at all for the most part. 12 total.

This is TDS trying everything to destroy Trump and conservatives for power.

 

[postman]

But that's the question. Is he qualified to be on the ballot? Legalese aside, obviously not.

I've posted before and nobody dared try to answer.

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger applied for the 2024 republican presidential primary. What "due process" would be needed to keep him off the ballot? Who would have the legal authority to deny him, or remove him from the ballot.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I've posted before and nobody dared try to answer.

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger applied for the 2024 republican presidential primary. What "due process" would be needed to keep him off the ballot? Who would have the legal authority to deny him, or remove him from the ballot.

The Constitution forbids him from being president.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've posted before and nobody dared try to answer.

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger applied for the 2024 republican presidential primary. What "due process" would be needed to keep him off the ballot? Who would have the legal authority to deny him, or remove him from the ballot.

He would have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen in a criminal court before he could be kept off the ballot.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution forbids him from being president.

The Constitution forbids those that have engaged in insurrection from being president.

WW

 

[kyzr]

FPOTUS#45 got or is getting "due process". There was a 5-day bench trial in Colorado where FPOTUS#45 lawyers participated, there was an appeal to the CSC where again FPOTUS#45 lawyers participated. And yes there is a difference between substantive due process (criminal case) and procedural due process (civil actions). This was a civil action.
In Maine, the SOS of state made the call after submissions by both side, then stayed her own judgement pending court review. So due process is in the works.

And you will note that none of the dissenting judges on the CSC decision even tried to make a case that FPOTUS#45 didn't engage in insurrection. Their dissents were based on legal technicalities like "the President isn't really an Officer in the context of A14S3". Which saying the President occupying the Office of the President isn't an officer, seems kind of silly when you think about it.

WW

1. A 4-3 decision by a leftist court doesn't prove much. Same as a "conviction" in DC or Fulton County, just proves democrats convict Republicans. I'd prefer to see a real trial in a neutral location with a politically neutral jury, 4-dems, 4-Rs, 4-indys.

2. Which court is reviewing? ME? Appeals? Or is she waiting for the USSC opinion?

3. Correct, the question of insurrection was never determined via due process. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
The president and vice president are elected as the head of US Federal government. If there is an insurrection it would be against the president, there is no fucking way that the Founders thought that the president could revolt against his own government. Which is why the president is not called an "officer".