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

[Blackrook]

If Trump is guilty of insurrection, why isn't he in prison?

 

[Rigby5]

I liked this article. After reading the opinions the author decided the action was proper.

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

www.theatlantic.com

Sorry, but your link is for subscribers only.
So I could not read it.

But the CO ruling has to be wrong since interfering with an election is about the single most harmful thing anyone can do.
In fact, that is why they are claiming Trump is guilty of "insurrection".
But all Trump supporters tried to do was delay certification.
That harms no one.
But taking Trump off the ballot, harms not only Trump, but all those who wanted to vote for him.

It is truly odd that those claiming Trump committed insurrection without any proof, would then actually commit the worst case of insurrection ever.

 

[SavannahMann]

Sorry, but your link is for subscribers only.
So I could not read it.

But the CO ruling has to be wrong since interfering with an election is about the single most harmful thing anyone can do.
In fact, that is why they are claiming Trump is guilty of "insurrection".
But all Trump supporters tried to do was delay certification.
That harms no one.
But taking Trump off the ballot, harms not only Trump, but all those who wanted to vote for him.

It is truly odd that those claiming Trump committed insurrection without any proof, would then actually commit the worst case of insurrection ever.

First. Nonsense. The Colorado Ruling is applying established law to a question. The ruling explains not only the question but the legal precedent they used to reach their decision on every aspect of the decision.

The 14th says that those who violated their oath and engaged in insurrection are ineligible to serve in a position where such an oath is mandatory ever again. Ineligible. Not allowed. Prohibited.

There is a way to restore the honor of an individual who is disqualified. That is a two thirds majority vote in Congress.

Colorado law says that the Secretary of State shall remove any ineligible candidates.

So while you are, like so many other fanboys, trying to compare the two. Only Trump and his fanboys are violating the law.

 

[BackAgain]

First. Nonsense. The Colorado Ruling is applying established law to a question. The ruling explains not only the question but the legal precedent they used to reach their decision on every aspect of the decision.

The 14th says that those who violated their oath and engaged in insurrection are ineligible to serve in a position where such an oath is mandatory ever again. Ineligible. Not allowed. Prohibited.

There is a way to restore the honor of an individual who is disqualified. That is a two thirds majority vote in Congress.

Colorado law says that the Secretary of State shall remove any ineligible candidates.

So while you are, like so many other fanboys, trying to compare the two. Only Trump and his fanboys are violating the law.

Nope.

The lower court judge and the majority on the Colorado Supreme Court bench made decisions about matters over which they lacked jurisdiction.

Lawless nonsense.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nope.

The lower court judge and the majority on the Colorado Supreme Court bench made decisions about matters over which they lacked jurisdiction.

Lawless nonsense.

Determining the eligibility of candidates who appear on the ballot in Colorado is, according to Colorado law, exactly what they are supposed to do. Judge Gorsuch said it was proper and Constitutional.

 

[BackAgain]

Determining the eligibility of candidates who appear on the ballot in Colorado is, according to Colorado law, exactly what they are supposed to do. Judge Gorsuch said it was proper and Constitutional.

Determining eligibility is generally a state law matter. However, it is not such a bright one rule that it authorizes a state to determine a national office seeking candidate to be removed based entirely on an Amendment which itself invokes a crime that can only be determined by a federal court.

Gorsuch never made any such claim.

 

[SavannahMann]

Determining eligibility is generally a state law matter. However, it is not such a bright one rule that it authorizes a state to determine a national office seeking candidate to be removed based entirely on an Amendment which itself invokes a crime that can only be determined by a federal court.

Gorsuch never made any such claim.

I quoted part of Gorsuch’s opinion. That was also on a Presidential Candidate appearing on the ballot, who was ineligible to be President, in Colorado.

The lawsuit alleged that Trump engaged in insurrection. So the court held a five day trial. Evidence was presented, witnesses were presented. Cross examinations were conducted.

Trump’s lawyers were present. They asked questions and presented arguments. The judge issued a decision.

Now. In what is now one of the biggest blunders in legal history. The Trump team appealed the decision.

Why was that a Blunder? Because the Trial Judge found that there was an insurrection. Trump did participate. But since the office of President was not specifically mentioned it was not appropriate to remove Trump’s name from the ballot.

Trump won. He was on the ballot. But he didn’t want the touchdown. He wanted the two point conversion. So he appealed. He demanded that the State Supreme Court find there was no insurrection.

The State Supreme Court upheld the decisions that there was an insurrection. They upheld the decision that Trump participated. But they overturned the decision that Trump was immune and decided that the office of President was clearly implied by the mention of the Executive Branch.

We are discussing this now because Trump appealed the decision he didn’t like. He had won. He was on the ballot. But he wanted the total victory.

I wrote all that because it is important to understand how we got here. Where we are discussing the appeal to the USSC. It was another Trump blunder, and there have been so many, it’s hard to remember them all.

The 14th Amendment says that Congress can pass legislation to enforce. Can. They could have passed a law that said insurrection must be proven by criminal conviction. They didn’t. They could have passed legislation saying that only Federal Courts have the right to enforce this Amendment. Again. They did not.

Your rights are not defended or decided in Federal Court alone. They are defined and decided in State Court all the time. You write Fuck Biden on your rear window of your Truck. The cops cite you for foul language. The court you attend, not federal, decides that your freedom of speech rights apply and dismiss the charges. The court doesn’t say your rights and Constitutional Law is only considered in Federal Court.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. State Courts must obey Constitutional Guidelines and mandates.

There have been a thousand cases where state courts were told to obey the Constitution. Miranda is one example.

Now. We are told that those decisions can only be made in Federal Court. If so why do the cops have to read the Miranda Warning? That’s a Federal Court problem isn’t it? I’ve seen cases thrown out because the cop screwed up Miranda. Small town traffic courts.

One example. The cop caught a juvenile driving under the influence of Marijuana. The cop arrested the kid and processed him. But he read the adult Miranda warning, not the juvenile one. And the case was thrown out. Not by Federal Court. But by small town Georgia magistrate court.

Federal Constitution Law is enforced in state and even the lowest level of courts every day.

 

[BackAgain]

I quoted part of Gorsuch’s opinion. That was also on a Presidential Candidate appearing on the ballot, who was ineligible to be President, in Colorado.

The lawsuit alleged that Trump engaged in insurrection. So the court held a five day trial. Evidence was presented, witnesses were presented. Cross examinations were conducted.

Trump’s lawyers were present. They asked questions and presented arguments. The judge issued a decision.

Now. In what is now one of the biggest blunders in legal history. The Trump team appealed the decision.

Why was that a Blunder? Because the Trial Judge found that there was an insurrection. Trump did participate. But since the office of President was not specifically mentioned it was not appropriate to remove Trump’s name from the ballot.

Trump won. He was on the ballot. But he didn’t want the touchdown. He wanted the two point conversion. So he appealed. He demanded that the State Supreme Court find there was no insurrection.

The State Supreme Court upheld the decisions that there was an insurrection. They upheld the decision that Trump participated. But they overturned the decision that Trump was immune and decided that the office of President was clearly implied by the mention of the Executive Branch.

We are discussing this now because Trump appealed the decision he didn’t like. He had won. He was on the ballot. But he wanted the total victory.

I wrote all that because it is important to understand how we got here. Where we are discussing the appeal to the USSC. It was another Trump blunder, and there have been so many, it’s hard to remember them all.

The 14th Amendment says that Congress can pass legislation to enforce. Can. They could have passed a law that said insurrection must be proven by criminal conviction. They didn’t. They could have passed legislation saying that only Federal Courts have the right to enforce this Amendment. Again. They did not.

Your rights are not defended or decided in Federal Court alone. They are defined and decided in State Court all the time. You write Fuck Biden on your rear window of your Truck. The cops cite you for foul language. The court you attend, not federal, decides that your freedom of speech rights apply and dismiss the charges. The court doesn’t say your rights and Constitutional Law is only considered in Federal Court.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. State Courts must obey Constitutional Guidelines and mandates.

There have been a thousand cases where state courts were told to obey the Constitution. Miranda is one example.

Now. We are told that those decisions can only be made in Federal Court. If so why do the cops have to read the Miranda Warning? That’s a Federal Court problem isn’t it? I’ve seen cases thrown out because the cop screwed up Miranda. Small town traffic courts.

One example. The cop caught a juvenile driving under the influence of Marijuana. The cop arrested the kid and processed him. But he read the adult Miranda warning, not the juvenile one. And the case was thrown out. Not by Federal Court. But by small town Georgia magistrate court.

Federal Constitution Law is enforced in state and even the lowest level of courts every day.

Gorsuch never said that a state court authority to determine candidate eligibility also encompasses authority to determine if an underlying federal crime had taken place or been committed by the candidate.

That would require a very different jurisdiction. It is a federal crime requiring adjudication at a federal criminal court trial and a conviction.

 

[Care4all]

So said SCOTUS in 2010. The President is not an officer.

FYI
The writers of the 14th amendment and section three, SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS AN OFFICER AND WAS INCLUDED IN SECTION 3....

They have the notes of the discussion and arguments at the time.

 

[Care4all]

If Trump is guilty of insurrection, why isn't he in prison?

OJ was found to be the one responsible for killing his wife and Ron Goldman in a Civil court suit...but was found Not Guilty in a criminal court.

In Civil Court, Trump was found to be engaged in aiding and abetting, the enemy insurrectionists, and inciting the insurrection, therefore disqualified....

Not in criminal court, but in Civil Court....