Jonathan Turley on the Unsigned 4-3 Colorado Decison Regarding President Trump.

[task0778]

WHich the courts have to interpret.



A couple of points.

First, if a DC Jury convicts him of charges related to 1/6, you would still oppose removing him from the ballot. He could still run for president even if convicted, as Eugene Debbs did in 1916 from prison.

Secondly, the clause in the 14th Amendment is meant to protect the country from EXACTLY this situation.



The man is channelling Hilter... we probably should be afraid.

The 14th Amendment specifies Insurrection or Rebellion, no other charges. Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison, not the same thing. And that clause in the 14th Amendment was meant to prevent former members of the Confederacy from serving in the US Gov't, which is nothing like the current situation.

Trump is entitled to due process before any adverse action is taken against him, and denying him the opportunity to run for office is an adverse action. To date that due process has not happened and continue to be amazed that anyone who purports to support democracy would deny him his day in court BEFORE being denied his rights.

What we should all be afraid of is when the rule of law is superseded by the rule of men. Should Trump be convicted of insurrection or rebellion and his appeals denied, then and only then should he be subject to removal from any and every state ballot. If that was the case, then I think the Colorado SC has a legal leg to stand on. Question: did the Colorado legislature attempt to pass such a law? If not, why not? Is this your idea of how a democracy should work? A small group of unelected individuals determine who can run for office rather than leave it to the voters to decide? That stinks, man.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Uh, whut? Are you are justifying the Colorado SC ruling based on it's own ruling? WTF? Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, THAT is a fact. Which means the Colorado SC has absolutely no basis for their ruling except accusations that are unproven in a court of law.

You can't read. The language of the 14th does not require a conviction, only a ruling. The accusations were proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Trump MAGA is a criminal.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

All this decision did was prove how insanely radical some of our "esteemed" members in our government are. They'll quickly sell out the Constitution in order to get the guy they hate.

 

[tahuyaman]

WHich the courts have to interpret. …

The judiciary doesn’t craft laws.

 

[task0778]

You can't read. The language of the 14th does not require a conviction, only a ruling. The accusations were proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Trump MAGA is a criminal.

I can read very well, thank you, but understanding what you wrote ain't so easy. You said: Sit on a tack, Task. The only fact is that a conviction (only a ruling) is required by the 14th.
Actually, the 14th doesn't require a ruling, where the hell did you find that? And it doesn't specifically require a conviction either, but it is common knowledge that in this country we require due process BEFORE to deny anyone their civil rights, which is exactly what the Colorado SC did. I think their decision is unconscionable and reeks of partisan politics rather than jurisprudence.

The accusations were proven beyond any shadow of a doubt."

This is an outright lie.

Trump MAGA is a criminal.

Since he has not been convicted of anything, this too is a lie.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

task0778 has his erroneous opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

The 14th Amendment specifies Insurrection or Rebellion, no other charges. Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison, not the same thing. And that clause in the 14th Amendment was meant to prevent former members of the Confederacy from serving in the US Gov't, which is nothing like the current situation.

You are kind of making my point. Resolution of the 14th Amendment issue is separate from the criminal cases Trump is facing in four jurisdictions. He could be convicted in all four of those jurisdictions and STILL run for president.

The Clause in the 14th Amendment was not meant to ONLY apply to Confederates, and it has been invoked in the past, specifically against Congressman Victor Berger was banned from taking his seat in Congress in 1919 due to his support for Germany in WWI.

 

[Meathead]

You are kind of making my point. Resolution of the 14th Amendment issue is separate from the criminal cases Trump is facing in four jurisdictions. He could be convicted in all four of those jurisdictions and STILL run for president.

The Clause in the 14th Amendment was not meant to ONLY apply to Confederates, and it has been invoked in the past, specifically against Congressman Victor Berger was banned from taking his seat in Congress in 1919 due to his support for Germany in WWI.

Nothing to do with Trump, and you're fucking nuts.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Not quite. If you were to charge, "Biden is in league with space aliens", that would be laughable.

But Trump led an insurrection on January 6th with the intent of overthrowing the government? Um... yeah, that's an established fact!

Then you can supply established links to the established insurrection charge and established evidence that the committee deleted (what a fucking useless tool)

 

[Lisa558]

task0778 has his erroneous opinion.

I was about to say the same of you.

 

[JoeB131]

Then you can supply established links to the established insurrection charge and established evidence that the committee deleted

Don't have to. All we have to do is show the video of trump inciting his followers to storm the Capitol, and video of his followers with their Trump Flags storming the capitol.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Don't have to. All we have to do is show the video of trump inciting his followers to storm the Capitol, and video of his followers with their Trump Flags storming the capitol.

Ah, the usual hot air baseless reply.

 

[task0778]

I'll just add this and move on. The US Constitution is not vague in Article II about what the criteria is for eligibility to be the President. The 14th Amendment is however somewhat vague in that it does not specify any limitation for who it applies to and it does not require a conviction. And so I can see the need to clarify some things, but my stance is that SCOTUS shouldn't have to. It is appalling to me that anyone would deny an otherwise qualified individual the right to run for office, even the presidency by citing the 14th Amendment without a conviction in a court of law. That is a presumption of guilt without a trial and that is flat out wrong. We just do not and should not do that in this country, no one should be declared guilty of anything ahead of a trial in a criminal court of law without due process. Even insurrection or rebellion; that is not justice, that is politics and it sucks. IMHO, if and when DJT has his day in court and is convicted of either of those 2 crimes, then and only then should he be pulled off the ballot. And I believe that is exactly what the SCOTUS will decide.

 

[Hollie]

Don't have to. All we have to do is show the video of trump inciting his followers to storm the Capitol, and video of his followers with their Trump Flags storming the capitol.

Since 'we' have such a video wherein Trump incited his followers to storm the Capitol, why don't 'we' show that video?

Or, are 'we' left to conclude your silly rant is just another of your tedious, bloviating tirades.

 

[JoeB131]

Since 'we' have such a video wherein Trump incited his followers to storm the Capitol, why don't 'we' show that video?

You've seen it dozens of times... so has the rest of the country.

I'll just add this and move on. The US Constitution is not vague in Article II about what the criteria is for eligibility to be the President. The 14th Amendment is however somewhat vague in that it does not specify any limitation for who it applies to and it does not require a conviction. And so I can see the need to clarify some things, but my stance is that SCOTUS shouldn't have to. It is appalling to me that anyone would deny an otherwise qualified individual the right to run for office, even the presidency by citing the 14th Amendment without a conviction in a court of law. That is a presumption of guilt without a trial and that is flat out wrong. We just do not and should not do that in this country, no one should be declared guilty of anything ahead of a trial in a criminal court of law without due process. Even insurrection or rebellion; that is not justice, that is politics and it sucks. IMHO, if and when DJT has his day in court and is convicted of either of those 2 crimes, then and only then should he be pulled off the ballot. And I believe that is exactly what the SCOTUS will decide.

That would be nice, if Trump weren't trying to delay his "day in court" until after the 2024 election.

This is an issue that should be adjudicated now.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nothing to do with Trump, and you're fucking nuts.

JoeB131 said:
You are kind of making my point. Resolution of the 14th Amendment issue is separate from the criminal cases Trump is facing in four jurisdictions. He could be convicted in all four of those jurisdictions and STILL run for president.

The Clause in the 14th Amendment was not meant to ONLY apply to Confederates, and it has been invoked in the past, specifically against Congressman Victor Berger was banned from taking his seat in Congress in 1919 due to his support for Germany in WWI.
Nothing to do with Trump, and you're fucking nuts.

JoeB131 said:
Crazy people don't think they are crazy.

Meathead proves Joe's point

 

[Hollie]

You've seen it dozens of times... so has the rest of the country.

Right on cue. You make these pompous claims you can't defend and then you stutter and mumble when called out for your dishonest tirades.

Where is the video you claim ''Trump incited his followers to storm the Capitol'.

Why is it 'we' can't produce that video?

 

[JoeB131]

Right on cue. You make these pompous claims you can't defend and then you stutter and mumble when called out for your dishonest tirades.

Where is the video you claim ''Trump incited his followers to storm the Capitol'.

Why is it 'we' can't produce that video?

Why, you'll just claim that it doesn't show what it clearly shows.

 

[Hollie]

Why, you'll just claim that it doesn't show what it clearly shows.

More dishonest spam. Where does Trump say "storm the Capitol"?

Correct. He doesn't.

Now would be the time you start waffling and weaseling about how you made claims that are dishonest and unsupportable.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump said march on the Capitol and egged the crowd on.