The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[BS Filter]

Maybe they can just judge someone as a murderer, on rumors and hearsay, without any due process.
Does that sound like something they can just do?

It's what they will do if this isn't reversed.

 

[forkup]

Ok, if all that is true, why are they reluctant to charge him with insurrection?

Again, nothing in trumps speech was insurrection, no actual insurrection took place that day, he didn’t order an attack on the capitol and he didn’t try to arbitrarily submit “his own” electors. He wanted pence to send them back to the states to recount. Is that not a power the vp has? A president can’t contest an election?

A president can contest an election... in court. Where judges adjudicate those challenges.

He can't just ignore those rulings. Try to get the DOJ to lie about the investigations into election fraud. Coordinate statements by people stating they are the duly elected electors within a state and that they elected him. Tell a Secretary of States he wants him to " find him votes." Try to get the VP to ignore the actual certified election results the States send. And finally instigate a mob to attack the Capitol.

All these things are not how you contest elections in a Constitutional Republic. It's how you do it in Zimbabwe.

 

[forkup]

True

“Pompous asshole” should be included in their job title also

I think if a lower court federal judge gets overturned 3 times he should be removed from the bench

I think judges should have term limits. It's not actual germane to the argument though.

 

[forkup]

Maybe they can just judge someone as a murderer, on rumors and hearsay, without any due process.
Does that sound like something they can just do?

What is due process in this case? A motion to remove Trump from the ballot was put into the court. Lawyers from both sides made their arguments. A ruling was issued. That ruling was appealed to a higher court, subsequently overturned, and is now on it's way to the Supreme Court.

That is due process.

The only problem you have is that you don't like what the process so far has produced. That is fine. But it is how the process is supposed to work.

 

[forkup]

You pulled that "fact" out of your ass.
Regardless, the law isn't a popularity contest, kid.
View attachment 877084

No it isn't. It's reading a (hopefully) precise piece of text, enshrined as a law, ratified by Congress. In this case, judges, the people that the Constitution empowered to read those texts and judge accordingly, have stated that Trump under the reading of that text is ineligible to run for president.


As my personal opinion, I think those judges are right. I also think SCOTUS is likely to overturn. Finding a way to interpret the text in another way than how it was set up. That's something I'm fine with. Because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of using a statute in the Constitution, put in in response to the Civil War to now prevent Trump from running. I have a problem with the amendment not the interpretation of those judges.


As a last aside I'm comfortable with Trump being indicted, because wether or not someone is running for president is irrelevant to wether or not he can be charged and convicted with a crime.

 

[Kilroy2]

Colorado Supreme Court has made the first move and remove Donald Trump from the ballot

Now a republican is trying to see if he can get enough votes to make a law that says that states cannot do this. He only pushing for the Supreme court to be able to remove someone from the ballots.

Yet they can appeal the verdict and it will go before the Supreme court. So why do they need a law.

Also it is clear that each state is responsible for it elections.

So it going to supreme court and congress needs to step back as it now a judicial matter

 

[OKTexas]

Colorado Supreme Court has made the first move and remove Donald Trump from the ballot

Now a republican is trying to see if he can get enough votes to make a law that says that states cannot do this. He only pushing for the Supreme court to be able to remove someone from the ballots.

Yet they can appeal the verdict and it will go before the Supreme court. So why do they need a law.

Also it is clear that each state is responsible for it elections.

So it going to supreme court and congress needs to step back as it now a judicial matter

They don't need any laws. The parties run their own primaries, they determine who is placed on the ballot. A State court doesn't have the authority to intervein. CO has no more authority to rule on federal law than they have the authority to deport illegals. You can bet the supreme court will rule in that manner.

.

 

[Kilroy2]

They don't need any laws. The parties run their own primaries, they determine who is placed on the ballot. A State court doesn't have the authority to intervene. CO has no more authority to rule on federal law than they have the authority to deport illegals. You can bet the supreme court will rule in that manner.

.

They don't because it is the state responsibility to hold state elections.

The state legal system did do it and yes it will go the supreme court. States can be controlled by one party but anyone can run in the primaries based on the rules of that state. So a state supreme court can make a ruling. It just depends on if they got the nerves to do the right thing.

The ball is in the big boys court, it will be intresting

The only advantage republicans have is in the make up of the Supreme Court. Still it will be interesting to see if they support Trump or decide that its time for him to disappear.

 

[OKTexas]

They don't because it is the state responsibility to hold state elections.

The state legal system did do it and yes it will go the supreme court. States can be controlled by one party but anyone can run in the primaries based on the rules of that state. So a state supreme court can make a ruling. It just depends on if they got the nerves to do the right thing.

The ball is in the big boys court, it will be intresting

The only advantage republicans have is in the make up of the Supreme Court. Still it will be interesting to see if they support Trump or decide that its time for him to disappear.

It's not a matter of nerve, it's a matter of authority, in this case, the States don't have it. CO is standing alone, other courts have said they don't have the authority to determine a federal violation.

.

 

[Mac-7]

I think judges should have term limits. It's not actual germane to the argument though.

I guess from your point of view the argument is or should be that the lib judges in colorado are infallible and if they remove trump from the ballot thats all there is to it

Maybe so since colorado is ruled by democrats

But we will see

 

[Mac1958]

Why 4 GOP voters filed the lawsuit that eventually disqualified Trump from the Colorado 2024 primary ballot

 

[Faun]

Blow it out your ass. It says no such thing you filthy psycho pathetic liar.

If it did, then any time there is a candidate on the ticket the other party doesn't like, they could just drum up baseless accusations to bump him off.

And it wouldn't take THREE YEARS of intense investigation and digging. It would be obvious and cut and dry and would be known immediately, not decided three years later.

Even Eugene V. Debbs, a determined true insurrectionist charged with acts against the United States wasn't excluded from office. To do that requires the highest standards of proof, not the rash baseless opinions of four hack leftwing judges in Denver. I mean, Debbs was in prison for sedition and he STILL was allowed to run for office!!!

Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/09/22/socialist-who-ran-president-prison-won-nearly-million-votes/

LOL

What a flaming idiot you are. Neither of your articles state he was convicted of insurrection or rebellion. Nor do they state his sedition was violent.

 

[Faun]

Laugh it off asshole but you know I'm right. The USA vs. Eugene Debbs sets case law as a precedent.

Dayum, you're fucking retarded. No one filed a lawsuit to keep him off a ballot. How the hell does no case set a legal precedent in your upside-down, con universe??

No one has determined that Trump engaged in insurrection.

More nonsense from you. Courts in Colorado determined he committed insurrection.

but it gives the power to exclude a candidate to CONGRESS you jackhole, not to a couple of bums in state office.

It gives Congress the power to enforce it through legislation. They did that. See 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Makes it clear that insurrectionists are ineligible for public office.

Not to mention, it's been used before to keep insurrectionists out of public office.

 

[Mac-7]

Why 4 GOP voters filed the lawsuit that eventually disqualified Trump from the Colorado 2024 primary ballot

This is hardly news

There have always been anti MAGA repubs who are loyal to the corrupt washington establishment

 

[Faun]

He is flatly wrong.

Unless and until Trump has been tried for and convicted of “insurrection,” nothing in the Constitution says that he is disqualified.

You can wish it otherwise. But your wishes won’t make it so.

Actually, nothing in the Constitution says he has to be convicted of insurrection for the 14th Amendment to apply. Which is why it's been used before to keep some insurrectionists out of public office even though they were never convicted of insurrection.

 

[forkup]

I guess from your point of view the argument is or should be that the lib judges in colorado are infallible and if they remove trump from the ballot thats all there is to it

Maybe so since colorado is ruled by democrats

But we will see

Now you're putting up a strawman. I neither claimed nor think ANYONE is infallible. Any law no matter how well crafted still needs to be interpreted. Interpretations vary.

My contention simply is that judges are the ones who do the interpreting.

Post 165 contains my actual opinion on the ruling.

 

[Mac-7]

Now you're putting up a strawman. I neither claimed nor think ANYONE is infallible. Any law no matter how well crafted still needs to be interpreted. Interpretations vary.

My contention simply is that judges are the ones who do the interpreting.

Post 165 contains my actual opinion on the ruling.

The judges are partisan libs and they are wrong

Colorado leans heavily democrat so I wonder what the left is afraid of?

Obviously they are afraid of a Trump victory

 

[forkup]

The judges are partisan libs and they are wrong

Colorado leans heavily democrat so I wonder what the left is afraid of?

Obviously they are afraid of a Trump victory

Let me point something out to you.

As my personal opinion, I think those judges are right.

The judges are partisan libs and they are wrong

You just put out the strawman that I think the judges are infallible. Yet I make it very clear I'm expressing an opinion and that I think they are right.

You on the other hand state, like it is a fact, that the judges are wrong. No attempt is made by you to distinguish between your opinion and fact. Do you think you're infallible?


As to the rest of your statement. You're factually wrong.

The plaintiffs include former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who now lives in Colorado; former Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, an unaffiliated voter who recently left the Republican party; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian. It aren't just Democrats, and 3 of the "partisan libs" judges actually voted in favor of Trump.

Now, I can't speak for all the left but I can speak for myself. I'm terrified of Trump winning. Why shouldn't I be? He already swore to exact vengeance. He already has said he will replace career civil servants with people loyal to him. He is arguing in court a president is above the law. He has said he has the power to pardon himself if convicted. And he already has been willing to use any and all means including ignoring the election results to remain in power. I'm not even considering the insurrection thing. I don't need it to know by Trump's statements, that he's willing to simply disregard the elections. He also has stated he wants to suspend the parts of the constitution that are bothersome.


Come to think of it. Why does Trump becoming president not scare you?

 

[ScorpioRising007]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Unfortunately many Trump supporters simply don't understand the constitution and so they just don't get why he can't run again.

 

[Arlette]

The judges are partisan libs and they are wrong

Colorado leans heavily democrat so I wonder what the left is afraid of?

Obviously they are afraid of a Trump victory

We are already past the "partisan lib" judges in Colorado. It's the SC that will end the debate. The SC is also tasked with resolving the immunity issue. I think they will rule in favor of Trump regarding his eligibility to be on the Colorado ballot, never mind that Trump clearly fomented an insurrection but reject Trump's claim of immunity cause that would just be too ridiculous.