The Colorado Supreme Court made a historic ruling against former President Trump using a Civil War era constitutional amendment, but that isn't stopping his 2024 momentum.
It’s being cheered by Democrats, who bill themselves as the pro-democracy party, yet are supporting an anti-democratic act that deprives voters of the right to choose.
It’s anti-democratic…because it “deprives voters of the right to choose”?! Ahahahaha!
Imagine the reaction if a state court had barred President Biden from the ballot based on some legal theory about his conduct in office.
What if Trump wasn’t barred because of some legal theory about his conduct, but-and this is crucial-because of his actual conduct? The theory came before Trump’s conduct. Colorado justices are merely applying the theory to it. That’s basically it.
“Unsurprisingly,” a campaign spokesman said, “the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
Unsurprisingly, it’s potentially the 14th Amendment that removes voters rights to vote for a traitor. A slap to in the face to tens of millions of Trump supporters that maybe, no one should have the right to vote for an insurrectionist. That’s literally why the 14th Amendment was passed.
One thing I’m curious about: If Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was going to run for president, but states ruled he was ineligible because of the rules in the constitution, would that also be depriving voters of the right to choose? What if a 20 year old wanted to run?
The constitution says you have to be born in the United States to be president, but the constitution does not specifically preclude those who are born again in Christ while present in the United States from holding the office. As for the 20 year old, I’m sure that if they identify as a 35 year old it would be wrong to not accept them on their own terms.
Still, I agree with the assertion that it’s not up to states.
Seeing as the constitution doesn’t mention Christianity, you can be reborn in my ass and still can’t run for office. Also, if being reborn to a religion offers citizenship, let’s just start a line at the door, lay a Bible on the table, and have the entire world walk in.
Article II, Section 1 (Presidential Eligibility):
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Ok, so the meaning of “natural born citizen” and “age of 35 years” are very clear. My answer was somewhat facetious, but the issue is this: insurrection is not explicitly defined by federal law. So if one defines insurrection in a very narrow and specific way it could be said that president Trump didn’t engage in it.
I think trying to submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and telling Pence to accept them may count as both insurrection and sedition, but I can also see why someone would disagree with that. I don’t believe any reasonable person can argue in good faith that such a plan wasn’t a subversion of the established electoral process and a violation of the electoral count act.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law.
This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
14th Amendment, Section 3 (Disqualification for Rebellion or Insurrection):
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Article III, Section 3 (Definition of Treason):
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
I very curious. Not just on the decision but what path they use.
I’ve seen presidents were intentionally excluded. I’ve seen states don’t have the authority, only congress. I’ve seen Trump didn’t violate the 14th. Etc etc.
It’s anti-democratic…because it “deprives voters of the right to choose”?! Ahahahaha!
What if Trump wasn’t barred because of some legal theory about his conduct, but-and this is crucial-because of his actual conduct? The theory came before Trump’s conduct. Colorado justices are merely applying the theory to it. That’s basically it.
Unsurprisingly, it’s potentially the 14th Amendment that removes voters rights to vote for a traitor. A slap to in the face to tens of millions of Trump supporters that maybe, no one should have the right to vote for an insurrectionist. That’s literally why the 14th Amendment was passed.
One thing I’m curious about: If Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was going to run for president, but states ruled he was ineligible because of the rules in the constitution, would that also be depriving voters of the right to choose? What if a 20 year old wanted to run?
The constitution says you have to be born in the United States to be president, but the constitution does not specifically preclude those who are born again in Christ while present in the United States from holding the office. As for the 20 year old, I’m sure that if they identify as a 35 year old it would be wrong to not accept them on their own terms.
Still, I agree with the assertion that it’s not up to states.
Seeing as the constitution doesn’t mention Christianity, you can be reborn in my ass and still can’t run for office. Also, if being reborn to a religion offers citizenship, let’s just start a line at the door, lay a Bible on the table, and have the entire world walk in.
Article II, Section 1 (Presidential Eligibility):
Ok, so the meaning of “natural born citizen” and “age of 35 years” are very clear. My answer was somewhat facetious, but the issue is this: insurrection is not explicitly defined by federal law. So if one defines insurrection in a very narrow and specific way it could be said that president Trump didn’t engage in it.
I think trying to submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and telling Pence to accept them may count as both insurrection and sedition, but I can also see why someone would disagree with that. I don’t believe any reasonable person can argue in good faith that such a plan wasn’t a subversion of the established electoral process and a violation of the electoral count act.
It is defined by law and Trump didn’t commit the elements of the crime.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection#:~:text=18 U.S.C.,-2383 - Explained&text=Rebellion or insurrection is a,violent resistance to government authority.
It seems you didn’t read the text that you posted a link to. Maybe you should read it.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law. This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
14th Amendment, Section 3 (Disqualification for Rebellion or Insurrection):
Article III, Section 3 (Definition of Treason):
I wonder how the SCOTUS will rule on it…
I very curious. Not just on the decision but what path they use. I’ve seen presidents were intentionally excluded. I’ve seen states don’t have the authority, only congress. I’ve seen Trump didn’t violate the 14th. Etc etc.