14th Amendment case in Colorado

[mister_coffee]

More states that do this, the better.

Actually, if only two or three states do this (as long as they are the right states) he is cold meat.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada all seem doable. Arizona and North Carolina might be a stretch. Wisconsin and Georgia, probably not. The Michigan case has been rejected, pending appeal. I suspect that if the Supreme Court green lights this (not guaranteed, but not guaranteed not to happen either) the appeal will be successful.

Also, its not anti-democratic to bar the jerk that tried to overthrow our democracy from running for office again. That's just common sense. And its in the constitution.

Arnold Schwarzenegger can't be president. That's because he was born in Austria as an Austrian citizen. It isn't anti-democratic that he can't be president, its the rules.

Billie Eilish can't be president. That's because she is 22. It isn't anti-democratic that she can't be president, its the rules.

A pig can't be president. That's because it is a pig. It isn't anti-democratic that a pig can't be president, its the rules.

[PAL]

More states that do this, the better.

[Rideback]

The ramifications are intriguing.
Working its way into the SCOTUS is also the question of Presidential immunity which the lower courts have ruled against already. This case will also have an impact on that decision making process.

Also, if the MAGA crowd decides in CO (or by primary time maybe other states as well) that they don't accept the court's ruling and decide to write Trump in (that's of course if this decision is upheld) they would be depriving any other Rep candidate from getting their vote. In other words, the Rep party would lose. Even worse, the MAGA crowd could decide to walk away from voting in CO alltogether, leaving the down ballot races up for grabs.

Pretty certain that the SCOTUS really doesn't want to accept this case but ultimately there's just no way around it.

News this morning, with another shoe dropping, that the people who applied for the permit for the J6 'rally' knew from the getgo that violence was the goal. Their text messages buried any defense they may have thought they had. It's not that far a step to now add those messages as proof that Trump et al planned for the insurrection to play out. The CO court just upheld that he played a role in the insurrection.

[just-jim]

.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -amendment

One down…in a State not in play for tiny donnie, anyway.
.

[mister_coffee]

Apparently there is going to be a 14th amendment case filed in Oregon to compel the Secretary of State to keep Trump off the ballot.

[Fun CH]

If your assumption is that the Supreme Court is in the tank for Trump and will intervene on his behalf, then explain to me why they didn't intervene on his behalf when cases were before them in December of 2020? What exactly is different about 2024?

that's not the basis for my speculative opinion.

Chris is correct that this will likely inflame Trump supporters and might well encourage acts of violence on their part.

That's not what I stated.

I said, "David you talk about civil unrest if Trump is reelected. What about if Trump is kicked off Ballets in Blue States? He won't win in those States anyway, so what's the point? Is it to purposely make him stronger by supporting his claim that he's a victim?"

It's a question? What will happen if Trump is kicked off Ballots in blue States? You say civil unrest. Surly possible a small minority may engage in civil unrest.

I think his base will become even more energized and Trump will gain political strength.

[mister_coffee]

If your assumption is that the Supreme Court is in the tank for Trump and will intervene on his behalf, then explain to me why they didn't intervene on his behalf when cases were before them in December of 2020? What exactly is different about 2024?

[Rideback]

Ironically you're getting it exactly wrong Chris. Of the 7 states that are reviewing and/or appealing Sec 3 the 3 court case decisions have focused on differing premies for the suits so each case could be said to be a stand alone.

In the CO case the judge specifically ruled that Trump had a role in the insurrection which then established that as a decision from the bench. There was no more supposition. Her ruling then based itself on the finest strand of interpretation when she allowed that the President's oath is not the same as oaths taken by other civil servants and thus a President is not qualified by Sec 3 because he is not an 'officer'.

Her ruling sets up the facts, which if you read earlier links, that are then not considered by appeals courts. So, the appeals judges in this case will not be looking to overrule the (now) adjudicated fact that Trump participated in the insurrection. Instead, they will be looking at the technical wording she hid behind that Presidents take a different oath and are not an 'officer'. Now, Trump's team has decided to jump in and want the insurrection judgment overturned, but that is a major uphill battle.

Fortunately, the appeals court has decided to fast track this case so we'll see how they navigate this and set the case up for SCOTUS.

[Fun CH]

Ray, it's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn any decision in the lower Court decisions to keep Trump on the ballot in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota.

When and if that happens Trump will gain more power as he'll use all of these judgments to confirm that he's the victim of a witch hunt.

Ironically you guys are going to get Trump reelected. Is better to ignore a cut that will in time heal on its own or continuously pick at it?

[pasayten]

The Hill
The Disqualification Clause is clear — let’s use it
Opinion by William S. Becker, opinion contributor
17h

With less than a year to go, the 2024 election cycle is already filled with intrigue — third parties, voter suppression laws, simultaneous felony prosecutions and more. Now consider this scenario:

The U.S. Supreme Court rules Donald Trump cannot be president again because he broke his first oath of office when he rebelled against the Constitution. Meantime, a 125-year-old clause in the Constitution purges Congress of more than half of its Republicans. Democrats and Independents use the opportunity for a historic collaboration to restore the people’s confidence in democracy.

A purge on this historic scale may be implausible, but it’s theoretically possible because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the Disqualification Clause. It says public officials who aid or take part in an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution violate the oaths they took to support it. Section 3 disqualifies them from serving in state or federal government again.
Taken literally, the clause applies not only to Trump but to scores and even hundreds of people in Congress, state legislatures and other public offices who aided or participated in his plot to defy the Constitution and remain in power after losing the 2020 election. Many plan to run for reelection next year.

Voters and voter organizations have filed lawsuits in more than half the states to enforce the Disqualification Clause. The news media have faithfully reported on lower-court rulings so far, so I won’t rehash the details. But a few points deserve more attention:

* On Jan. 6, 2021, 147 incumbent Republicans voted against certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Following last year’s midterm election, 126 are still there. None have been held accountable for violating their oaths by participating in Trump’s efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

Last December, a bipartisan group of 36 former House members called on the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate members who allegedly played roles in Trump’s scheme. It hasn’t happened. Instead, several insurrectionists have risen to even more powerful positions in Congress, including Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson, the former and current Speakers of the House.

* Judges in Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado have decided Trump can appear on their ballots next year, but they didn’t rule on whether to disqualify him from regaining the presidency. Parts of their rulings strain common sense and credulity and should not stand on appeal.

For example, Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that Section 3 might not apply to Trump; although it applies to “any officer” of the United States, it doesn’t specifically mention the president of the United States. She also noted that the clause applies to oaths to “support” the Constitution, but the presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” it.

In Michigan, the judge tried to toss the hot potato back to Congress. He said Trump’s eligibility to recapture the presidency is a political rather than legal question. But Section 3 presumably became “settled politics” 125 years ago when Congress added it to the Constitution. The ball is in the courts’ court now.

* Courts have invoked Section 3 only eight times since 1868 and only once in the modern era. In September 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered a county commissioner removed from office for helping mobilize the mob that attacked the Capitol. Now, the Disqualification Clause should apply to traitors and miscreants at all levels of government. All legislators, judges and government executives take and are bound by oaths to support the U.S. Constitution. The Authors anticipated the need for antibodies in the document.

We have rarely needed antibodies more than now. Elections are supposed to flush toxins out of the body politic, but the ability to vote is under attack, authoritarianism is rising, and over 1,200 hate and anti-government groups are active in the United States. And Donald Trump is not the kind of guy who will disappear to write his memoirs and build a library when he loses the election next year.

With everybody accusing everybody else of weaponizing government, we don’t have to weaponize the Constitution. Section 3 is already there, apparently ready to be locked and loaded in democracy’s defense. We should dust it off and use it.

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and contributor to the just-published book, Democracy in a Hotter Time. He has served in several state and federal government roles, including executive assistant to the attorney general of Wisconsin. He is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a nonpartisan climate policy think tank unaffiliated with the White House.

[mister_coffee]

This whole thing is no doubt going to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. So if or when a decision is made it will likely apply to all states, not just "blue states". There is also the possibility that if it were not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, certain states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin may still bar Trump from the ballot. Which would make a Trump victory impossible. But I find that extremely unlikely.

Credible legal experts have argued that Section 3 is self-executing (although to be fair the precedent on that is a bit murky and quite frankly weird) so it wouldn't require either a criminal conviction or a civil case brought by federal prosecutors.

Chris is correct that this will likely inflame Trump supporters and might well encourage acts of violence on their part. My own opinion is that we are on that track right now anyhow and a 14th amendment case is unlikely to make the situation worse and might well make it less bad. We are inevitably going to have some ugly civil unrest in relation to the 2024 election no matter who wins or how it plays out. I'd rather that be less extreme than January 6th (more like the Malheur Wildlife Refuge craziness of past years). I'd much rather it not involve a full-on insurrection with multiple armed groups on either side attacking one another and innocent bystanders. I imagine the Iraq insurgency but with the level of organization and cleverness that the Ukrainians have shown, and rather than that violence being in a far-off place with names we can't even pronounce the violence is in Wenatchee or Tonasket. Or Twisp.

Also, Trump is defending himself in multiple criminal and civil cases at the same time while running for President. All of which place enormous demands on his time. Adding one more complication to his dilemmas can't hurt and might well help. He is obviously feeling the strain and I doubt the 14th amendment case is going to be the trigger for an insane cascade of violence. More likely his continuous attacks on the court, prosecutors, and witnesses across multiple court cases is going to either (1) trigger one of his not-too-tightly-wrapped followers to do something Really Stupid, or (2) one of the many courts that he is before is going to throw him in jail. Then, as the song says, "everything exploded and the blood began to spill."

Even if that doesn't happen, defending yourself in multiple court cases is a complicated, expensive, and risky endeavor. Anything that might help you in one case might well hurt you in others. So navigating all of that with your personal hide intact is never simple, and for someone who doesn't like to listen to lawyers in the first place and has such poor impulse control it is harder still.

Also, Trump supporters aren't monolithic and while many of them will likely double down on their support, these legal complications do have an important impact on some of his supporters. For the grey eminences who financially back Republican causes (you can call them the "donor class" or "billionaire class", but neither are 100 percent accurate), this makes any investment in Trump or the Republican party more risky. And the riskier the bet is the less these guys (and they are nearly all guys) will support it -- nobody likes to throw away their money. Also, all of the legal troubles are alienating the evangelicals, a group that is known for having excellent moral gyroscopes but poor compasses. So more legal complications can't hurt in peeling away his support in one form or another. And any money he takes away from his political activities to keep himself out of prison won't help him get elected.

[Rideback]

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[Fun CH]

David brings up the bottom line here and that is the 14th Amendment that is being applied to these cases does not require that the candidate be found guilty of insurrection.

it sure would help.

Also, if you want to go back to civil war era, weren't those insurrection cases bought to court by federal prosecutors and not de facto political action committees which is the case in Michigan, Colorado and Minnesota?

[Fun CH]

Trump has not been criminally charged with insurrection...

Help me out here. The 14th amendment was used during reconstruction multiple times to remove unrepentant rebels from the ballot and from public office in a few cases. None of them had a criminal conviction. As far as I know none of them brought a case arguing that the 14th amendment should not apply to them because they had not been convicted of insurrection or any similar charge.

Am I wrong? Or are different rules supposed to apply today in 2023? And why should different rules apply today?

as I said;

"Spin it any way you want, the fact is, these civil cases are helping Trump." I.e the Republican front-runner PRESIDENTAL candidate, who a judge in Colorado has determined, as POTUS, is not subject to the 14th amendment.

When Trump wins one of these cases (3 do far) that just supports his narrative that he's the subject of a "Witch Hunt".

David you talk about civil unrest if Trump is reelected. What about if Trump is kicked off Ballets in Blue States? He won't win in those States anyway, so what's the point? Is it to purposely make him stronger by supporting his claim that he's a victim?

Let the people decide who the next president is, and pray we have the wisdom not to reelected Trump.

[Rideback]

David brings up the bottom line here and that is the 14th Amendment that is being applied to these cases does not require that the candidate be found guilty of insurrection.

[mister_coffee]

Trump has not been criminally charged with insurrection...

Help me out here. The 14th amendment was used during reconstruction multiple times to remove unrepentant rebels from the ballot and from public office in a few cases. None of them had a criminal conviction. As far as I know none of them brought a case arguing that the 14th amendment should not apply to them because they had not been convicted of insurrection or any similar charge.

Am I wrong? Or are different rules supposed to apply today in 2023? And why should different rules apply today?

[Fun CH]

Chris, are you thinking that your whataboutism is supposed to dismiss the violence? That it's all good because mankind has always chosen violence so what's one more act of violence?

I can't debate your Strawman argument.

Thing is, this thread is about a judicial process that is working its way to find a solution that will deter violence and that's important because we all hail this country as a country of laws, where no person is above the law.

Trump has not been criminally charged with insurrection. A civil trial that seeks to interfere with a political process ie an election, is not a good optic and only puts money in Trump's pocket as he declares victory in these civil cases.

Spin it any way you want, the fact is, these civil cases are helping Trump.

[mister_coffee]

It is refreshing when even right-wingers acknowledge TDS. We've all known there is something seriously wrong with that guy since the 1980s.

[PAL]

We need a true leader. No drama.
Project 2025. Read the 925 pages. Hardly anyone will and that is what they are counting on.

[Chrys]

I am watching this political drama unfold and am not convinced that either party/candidate truly represents the American people. It has become more and more obvious to me that the people have far more common sense than any government or politician. If you are banking on a political savior, I am afraid you will be sadly disappointed. The fact is it takes commitment and action on the part of citizens to make change happen.

But as citizens we need to demand the truth. We have been treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed poop) for decades if not centuries, and we need to know the truth--we CAN handle it.

[Jingles]

TDS resurges,was first identified 2016 before he actually got elected, saw a surge for 4 years during his Presidency and has almost become an epidemic because he could run again. Some people need to go get vaccinated and get a life

[PAL]

Well, I will say Trump actually causes a visceral reaction for me. I figured you were ticked about him. Splitting wood has never been so easy. Ha.

[SharonLaVonne]

Pearl, I think you are right, I didn't mean to misunderstand you. I'm sorry. I let my my disgust, anger and fear over Republican Trumpian behavior overcome me.

[Rideback]

Chris, are you thinking that your whataboutism is supposed to dismiss the violence? That it's all good because mankind has always chosen violence so what's one more act of violence?

Thing is, this thread is about a judicial process that is working its way to find a solution that will deter violence and that's important because we all hail this country as a country of laws, where no person is above the law.

[mister_coffee]

There is a heck of a difference between when it is happening in a far away place like Thailand or Egypt (two places where I have been way too close for comfort to sectarian violence) and when it might happen in Twisp. Or Chelan. Or Seattle.

I am not naive and know that what I saw go down in Thailand is 1% of what goes on in Lebanon or Yemen.

The bombing I was near to in Sharm el Sheik spilled my beer, but I was able to order another one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Shar ... h_bombings