A state court judge in Denver "concluded that former president Donald Trump’s name can be placed on Colorado’s 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."
It may be overturned, it depends on the trump legal team argument, as to why...
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...www.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
So you don’t like Turley. That doesn’t 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: “What the heck has happened to Jonathan Turley?” The sad refrain recalled that George Washington University law professor Turley was once a serious and respected legal scholar—a civil libertarian who often constructively criticized liberal cant –and 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 manners—his stance was that of one of the last remaining “principled liberals” speaking truth to leftist power.
What Happened to Jonathan Turley, Really?
Turley’s midterm quandary—how to boost the poor performance by the party he has loyally served as academically-credentialed propagandist—is unenviable.slate.com
In 2010, Turley joined the impeachment club again—this 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 Porteous’s behalf, but they simply didn’t stick.
Then, in August 2014, as Republican contemplated impeaching Barack Obama, Turley put his impeachment expert hat on once again. “While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment,” he wrote in the Washington Post “an offense does not have to be indictable.” He went on, “Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough,” and noted that “[James] Madison saw impeachment as ‘defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.”’ Per Turley, the founders also emphasized that impeachment was “about what happened in the political arena: involving ‘political crimes and misdemeanors’ and resulting in ‘political punishments.’”
What the Heck Happened to Jonathan Turley?
Twenty-five years ago, I sat in the front row of his law class. Now, he’s 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.
The links are from people that knew/know Turley.
There you go again -- the Failed Liability Lawyer trying to show off
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 state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
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 Trump’s 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.
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: “The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the ‘officers of the United States.’”
Kalir says that could be interpreted to mean that elected officials, like the president, are by definition not counted as “officers.”
“There is very strong support to the hypothesis that Donald Trump is not included in the list of persons on whom this will apply,” Kalir said.
But because Roberts didn’t explicitly state the clause could not be applied to a president, the question would likely have to be specifically addressed by the courts.
“There is no certified answer by the United States Supreme Court for this question,” said Kalir.
Brands - TEGNA
All 7 were appointed by Democrats.
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 Trump’s 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.
“Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous,” she wrote.
“Further, 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.”
Wallace rejected the Trump campaign’s argument that he only engaged in constitutionally protected political speech.“The Court holds that even after the attack, Trump’s tweet justified violence by calling the attackers ‘patriots,’ and continued to perpetuate the falsehood that justified the attack in the first place, his alleged ‘sacred landslide election victory.’”
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 party’s candidate from the primary ballot, but said it had to be due to an unqualified “objective, knowable fact.”
But Wallace wrote that whether Trump should be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is “not ‘an objective, knowable fact.’”
Judge rules Trump will appear on Colorado’s 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 Party’s primary ballot. They also concluded that the judicial branch is empowered to apply the clause.
“Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach,” the ruling states. “Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.”
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?
Three members of the court — Chief Justice Brian Boatright, and Justices Carlos Samour and Maria E. Berkenkotter — filed dissents. All seven members of Colorado’s 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.
OK Kavanaugh went through a bipartisan nomination process too.
Or he could have been listening the eight other courts, so far, that said 'Get this shit out of our court, are you nutz?'
