Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A state court judge in Denver "concluded that former president Donald Trumpās name can be placed on Coloradoās Republican primary ballot next spring, ruling that, while he did engage in an insurrection, the constitution does not bar him from seeking the presidency again."Repeating your idiotic posts will not suffice.
Try again. Maybe get a nursemaid or an attendant to assist you.
It may be overturned, it depends on the trump legal team argument, as to why...So what? The R or the D isnāt the issue. Itās the lawlessness of the decision.
That means it is a relic of a different time and place. It was designed to prevent Confederates from regaining power.
14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact | HISTORY
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United Statesāincluding former slavesāand guaranteed all citizens āequal protection of the laws.āwww.history.com
snip
Section Three: 14th Amendment
Section Three of the amendment, gave Congress the authority to bar public officials, who took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution. The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon. It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.
supreme.justia.com
www.verifythis.com
It may be overturned, it depends on the trump legal team argument, as to why...
So you donāt like Turley. That doesnāt surprise me in the least.Leftover?Like all the amendments are leftovers?
Okay.
And Turley? Oh my! He's the last word on...Judge Gabriel Thomas Porteous
Some years ago, academics and legal and political commentators began joining in a lament that eventually became a kind of trope: āWhat the heck has happened to Jonathan Turley?ā The sad refrain recalled that George Washington University law professor Turley was once a serious and respected legal scholarāa civil libertarian who often constructively criticized liberal cant āand then observed that he had turned his energy into appearing all over the media, but especially welcomed the chance to be on Fox News. Turley, who acknowledges that he is a paid Fox News contributor, began to regularly pop up on the Fox shows that purport to be journalistic, but also the clownishly right-wing Fox & Friends in the morning and then the demagogic right-wing propaganda evening programming. He presented himself as a kind of Alan Dershowitz with table mannersāhis stance was that of one of the last remaining āprincipled liberalsā speaking truth to leftist power.
What Happened to Jonathan Turley, Really?
Turleyās midterm quandaryāhow to boost the poor performance by the party he has loyally served as academically-credentialed propagandistāis unenviable.slate.com
In 2010, Turley joined the impeachment club againāthis time, in defense of a United States District Court Judge in a Senate impeachment trial. Judge Gabriel Thomas Porteous had been impeached in the House on corruption and perjury charges, including for acts committed before entering office. As defense counsel, Turley went head-to-head against none other than Congressman Adam Schiff, who then served as house manager, or lead prosecutor, in the impeachment trial. Ultimately, Judge Porteous was convicted by the Senate and removed from the federal bench after a unanimous Senate vote. Turley had thrown out some arguments against impeachment on Porteousās behalf, but they simply didnāt stick.
Then, in August 2014, as Republican contemplated impeaching Barack Obama, Turley put his impeachment expert hat on once again. āWhile thereās a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment,ā he wrote in the Washington Post āan offense does not have to be indictable.ā He went on, āSerious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough,ā and noted that ā[James] Madison saw impeachment as ādefending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.āā Per Turley, the founders also emphasized that impeachment was āabout what happened in the political arena: involving āpolitical crimes and misdemeanorsā and resulting in āpolitical punishments.āā
What the Heck Happened to Jonathan Turley? | Washington Monthly
Twenty-five years ago, I sat in the front row of his law class. Now, heās someone I hardly recognize.washingtonmonthly.com
I realize that everything sails miles over the pinhead of the Dainty at Mach speeds. But, perhaps an adult will inform the Dainty about things like obiter dicta.A state court judge in Denver "concluded that former president Donald Trumpās name can be placed on Coloradoās Republican primary ballot next spring, ruling that, while he did engage in an insurrection, the constitution does not bar him from seeking the presidency again."
So, the Colorado Supreme Court relied on this.
You people are arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court ...
never mind.
stupid is as stupid does.
The links are from people that knew/know Turley.So you donāt like Turley. That doesnāt surprise me in the least.
That doesnāt mean you have more legal knowledge than he does unless you also teach law at a well known and respected college.
There you go again -- the Failed Liability Lawyer trying to show offI realize that everything sails miles over the pinhead of the Dainty at Mach speeds. But, perhaps an adult will inform the Dainty about things like obiter dicta.
The insertion of a belief or other statement in a court decision which isnāt necessary to resolve the dispute at bar is not a part of the formal decision and has no precedential effect.
It is also true that a judicial statement that is made absent an evidentiary foundation heard on the merits is of no value, either.
More lies from the Dainty: perfectlyThere you go again -- the Failed Liability Lawyer trying to show off
careful, we've all been down this road with you before ...
and it did not end as you expected -- like most of your options of court cases in recent memory
Without a conviction the supreme court is going to rain on your get orange man paradeColorado will not carry Trump on the 2024 election ballot.
He is an "insurrectionist" thus subject to the 14th Amendment
I am amazed.
- JUST IN: In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the stateās 2024 ballot, ruling that he isnāt an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendmentās āinsurrectionist ban.ā
Colorado Supreme Court rules on Trump 14th Amendment case
The Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn't an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban."www.cnn.com
www.theblaze.com
She wrote that Trumpās record of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name was well established, as was his cultivation of relationships with those at the political extreme.More lies from the Dainty: perfectly
plodding and predictable.
www.cpr.org
www.cpr.org
We can argue all day about if the 14th Amendment is a relic, but the fact remains that SOTUS will most likely rule that states can not use it to keep Trump off their state ballots.Relic?
2010?
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd.
In his majority opinion in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Roberts wrote: āThe diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the āofficers of the United States.āā
Kalir says that could be interpreted to mean that elected officials, like the president, are by definition not counted as āofficers.ā
āThere is very strong support to the hypothesis that Donald Trump is not included in the list of persons on whom this will apply,ā Kalir said.
But because Roberts didnāt explicitly state the clause could not be applied to a president, the question would likely have to be specifically addressed by the courts.
āThere is no certified answer by the United States Supreme Court for this question,ā said Kalir.
Could the 14th Amendment keep Trump out of office? Why itās unlikely
The Supreme Court would likely have to rule on two key questions before the āinsurrection clauseā could be invoked.
All 7 were appointed by Democrats.Source? Your word is not good enough.
I imagine you care a great deal about her extrajudicial readings. But there was no trial. No burden of proof ever met. No due process. No conviction.She wrote that Trumpās record of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name was well established, as was his cultivation of relationships with those at the political extreme.
āTrump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous,ā she wrote.
āFurther, the Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.ā
Wallace rejected the Trump campaignās argument that he only engaged in constitutionally protected political speech.āThe Court holds that even after the attack, Trumpās tweet justified violence by calling the attackers āpatriots,ā and continued to perpetuate the falsehood that justified the attack in the first place, his alleged āsacred landslide election victory.āā
This decision is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court last week said Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have sole choice over who appears, while a Michigan judge ruled that Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section 3 applies to Trump.
The Colorado case appears to be the first in which the underlying merits of the legal arguments were adjudicated.
Wallace diverged with the Minnesota and Michigan courts by concluding there are circumstances in which the Colorado Secretary of State can block a partyās candidate from the primary ballot, but said it had to be due to an unqualified āobjective, knowable fact.ā
But Wallace wrote that whether Trump should be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is ānot āan objective, knowable fact.āā
Judge rules Trump will appear on Coloradoās 2024 GOP primary ballot
A group of voters went to court to argue the former president has disqualified himself from holding office again.
... next
The ruling overturns the finding of a district court judge that the Disqualification Clause does not cover the office of the presidency. It also reaffirms that, under Colorado law, the court has jurisdiction to bar disqualified candidates from the Republican Partyās primary ballot. They also concluded that the judicial branch is empowered to apply the clause.
āCongress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Threeās disqualification provision to attach,ā the ruling states. āSection Three is, in that sense, self-executing.ā
Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from state's 2024 primary ballot
Justices find the Disqualification Clause does apply to the presidency, but their ruling is almost certain to be appealed.
Nuts! "The fact remains that SOTUS will most likely rule?" - making shit up again?We can argue all day about if the 14th Amendment is a relic, but the fact remains that SOTUS will most likely rule that states can not use it to keep Trump off their state ballots.
If SCOTUS allows such rulings it is possible that Florida may rule to keep Joe Biden off its ballots as he has sold us out to the Chinese for money. (The fact that Joe Biden has not been convicted of influence peddling is irrelevant as Trump has not been convicted of leading an insurrection.)
Time will tell. We live in interesting times.
View attachment 876128
Three members of the court ā Chief Justice Brian Boatright, and Justices Carlos Samour and Maria E. Berkenkotter ā filed dissents. All seven members of Coloradoās highest court were appointed by Democratic governors, though they first went through a bipartisan nomination processAll 7 were appointed by Democrats.
Evidently, the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with your supposedly legal argument. You're listening to imaginary sounds, while dancing alone, with no partner. You've become the Timothy Leary of USMB Legal Scholars.Accordingly, as I correctly noted, her insertion of mere opinion has the support of ZERO legal weight.
OK Kavanaugh went through a bipartisan nomination process too.Three members of the court ā Chief Justice Brian Boatright, and Justices Carlos Samour and Maria E. Berkenkotter ā filed dissents. All seven members of Coloradoās highest court were appointed by Democratic governors, though they first went through a bipartisan nomination process
Or he could have been listening the eight other courts, so far, that said 'Get this shit out of our court, are you nutz?'Evidently, the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with your supposedly legal argument. You're listening to imaginary sounds, while dancing alone, with no partner. You've become the Timothy Leary of USMB Legal Scholars.
