Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

[Freedomisneverfree]

These ASSWIPE Liberal Colorado judges are going to LOSE! This will go before the Supreme Court of the U.S.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

These ASSWIPE Liberal Colorado judges are going to LOSE! This will go before the Supreme Court of the U.S.

The Colorado Supreme Court - The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - The United States Supreme Court

Trump Ballot - Gay Marriage

 

[BackAgain]

The legal decision remains legally baseless. It is of course an expression of mere (almost purely political) opinion.

Thankfully, there is an excellent prospect that our SCOTUS will shred this lawless and disgraceful decision of the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment self-executing?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Who cares?

They'll be in a world of hurt as they're unfamiliar. Chaos will ensue. People like you keep assuming Mr. Trump will win no matter what. Guess what? 2020

Do you think the GOP is unfamiliar with the caucus process?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Punishing Trump with "insurrection" or "inciting a riot" without being a trial and conviction.

I don't know what kind of a shithole country you were raised in, but we have something called the "Fifth Amendment" here.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If you read any part of the dissent, the justices found that trial giving rise to this opinion was unfair and Trump was denied due process.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you think the GOP is unfamiliar with the caucus process?

The Colorado people used to do a caucus. They stopped. The current voters are unfamiliar with it. Chaos will ensue.

Happened when Bernie got many to attend caucuses.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Colorado people used to do a caucus. They stopped. The current voters are unfamiliar with it. Chaos will ensue.

Happened when Bernie got many to attend caucuses.

It is up to the GOP. They will handle a caucus just fine. Especially since no democrats will be involved.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is up to the GOP. They will handle a caucus just fine. Especially since no democrats will be involved.

It's the state GOP. Like the Bernie people, you just don't get it. Counties, locals officials. Chaos!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's the state GOP. Like the Bernie people, you just don't get it. Counties, locals officials. Chaos!

Bernie people are democrats. They can't manage a coffee shop.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bernie people are democrats. They can't manage a coffee shop.

And GOP rightwingers do so much better than Pelosi than managing the US House?

 

[Dadoalex]

Not subject to Section 3 for several reasons, here's one. He is not an officer.

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"​

​

Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."​

While serving as president Trump enjoyed Sovereign Immunity fir his legal actions in execution of his duties.

That makes him an officer.

 

[Dadoalex]

The FBI concluded there was no insurrection. I think the Colorado supreme court is aware of that. Secondly, states cannot remove a presidential candidate, I am sure the Colorado supreme court is aware of that also. But I am blown away at the level of incongruency of this situation, But here we are. Democrats do this and get away with it.

Oh NOOOOOOW
We trust the FBI?

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, the FBI doesn't make legal rulings.

 

[excalibur]

While serving as president Trump enjoyed Sovereign Immunity fir his legal actions in execution of his duties.

That makes him an officer.

Nope. Nope. And nope.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not subject to Section 3 for several reasons, here's one. He is not an officer.

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"​

​

Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."​

Roberts was not saying the President is not an officer. Please.

What CJ Roberts actually wrote: The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”

The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same).

That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).

By granting the Board executive power without the Executive’s oversight, this Act subverts the President’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed—as well as the public’s ability to pass judgment on his efforts. The Act’s restrictions are incompatible with the Constitution’s separation of powers.


Your understanding is a regurgitated opinion coming out of Reason Mag/Volkov Conspiracy (note: I use them as sources myself, but with context):

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that

"[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. Huh? It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States." Huh?

Calling BackAgain Dadoalex - All hands on deck!

-----------------------------------------------

What CJ Roberts actually wrote: The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”
a regurgitated opinion coming out of Reason Mag/Volkov Conspiracy:
[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. Huh? It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States." Huh?

 

[BackAgain]

Roberts was not saying the President is not an officer. Please.

What CJ Roberts actually wrote: The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”

The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same).

That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).

By granting the Board executive power without the Executive’s oversight, this Act subverts the President’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed—as well as the public’s ability to pass judgment on his efforts. The Act’s restrictions are incompatible with the Constitution’s separation of powers.


Your understanding is a regurgitated opinion coming out of Reason Mag/Volkov Conspiracy (note: I use them as sources myself, but with context):

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that

"[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. Huh? It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States." Huh?

Calling BackAgain Dadoalex - All hands on deck!

Officer is a term which is open to some debate and further discussion. In that context, it is quite uncertain that the 14th Amendment applies to the President.
Myiur surface level regurgitation of the snippets you quote isn’t exactly plumbing the depths, the Dainty.

In any event, that’s a secondary point. The primary point remains:

If it did apply to the President, it would still have to be triggered by more than some random idiot’s contention that he had somehow engaged in insurrection. Beyond the fact that you believe it and some other dopes may express the belief, is it your claim that nothing further is required?

Even you can’t be quite that absurd, the Dainty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Officer is a term which is open to some debate and further discussion. In that context, it is quite uncertain that the 14th Amendment applies to the President.
Myiur surface level regurgitation of the snippets you quote isn’t exactly plumbing the depths, the Dainty.

In any event, that’s a secondary point. The primary point remains:

If it did apply to the President, it would still have to be triggered by more than some random idiot’s contention that he had somehow engaged in insurrection. Beyond the fact that you believe it and some other dopes may express the belief, is it your claim that nothing further is required?

Even you can’t be quite that absurd, the Dainty.

Wrong again, Welcher.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong again, Welcher.

No. It’s correct and you’re far too retarded to grasp it, the dainty.

 

[BackAgain]

For the faggoty The Dainty, answer the question:

Beyond your mere assertion that bad man orange engaged in “insurrection,” what is required to invoke the 14th Amendment’s disqualification provision.

 

[MarathonMike]

Trump hasnt been charged with insurrection much less found guilty of it ... the vile, dishonest , baby killing, marxist , homosexual, perverts on the left are engaged in election interference again !

Funny how NONE of Trump's 91 indictments are for such a heinous crime as the GASP J6 INSURRECTION!!!