Effort in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot fails

[x65943]

A judge in Colorado struck down an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot next year in Colorado.

Challengers attempted to convince the court that Trump had caused or participated in insurrection and thus would be unqualified to run for federal office according to the constitution.

The judge affirmed Trump's participation but ultimately ruled as president the amendment in question did not apply to him. Experts say the case may be appealed to the state supreme Court and ultimately the SCOTUS which currently has a conservative majority and 3 of 9 justices were personally appointed by former president Trump.

Such challenges were always a long shot, but this current ruling seems to confirm that legal challenges to his appearance on state ballots will not be successful.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/color...-delays-decision-general-election-2023-11-18/

 

[Veho]

The judge affirmed Trump's participation but ultimately ruled as president the amendment in question did not apply to him.

Some are more equal than others?

 

[x65943]

Some are more equal than others?

The issue is the wording

14rh amendment
"Section 3. 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."

It applies to
1. An officer of the US or member of Congress
2. Member of state legislature
3. Executive or judicial officer of any state

It seems to purposefully exclude the president - it only mentions executive leaders of states but fails to mention executive leaders of the federal government

It was written specifically to keep confederates out of office in the late 1800s and was not forward thinking unfortunately - at the time there was no reason to include the president

 

[Hanafuda]

This effort was already shot down in Michigan and Minnesota too.

I keep hearing about "our democracy" (it's a republic, but whatever), from the same people who want to limit the peoples' choices.

 

[x65943]

This effort was already shot down in Michigan and Minnesota too.

I keep hearing about "our democracy" (it's a republic, but whatever), from the same people who want to limit the peoples' choices.

It's a representative democracy

I always think it's silly when people try to pretend Republics aren't a form of democracy

The word for Republic in Greek is Democratia (rule of the people) - Republic being a Latin word deriving from Res Publica (matters of the people)

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay... I didn't expect this part to succeed. But absolutely not on this merit...

The judge affirmed Trump's participation but ultimately ruled as president the amendment in question did not apply to him.

Sorry, but proving Trump incited the insurrection is the hard part. Yes , Trump's defend went around this in a very weird matter (I can't even repeat the defense. It was something in the line of 'he might've incited the insurrection, but even if he did that doesn't disqualify him'), but that doesn't mean the pain obvious should be forgotten somehow, right?

Look... From what I gathered the piece this trial's built upon was a relic of times past. Only used on a handful occasions after the Civil War, hundred years ago last time... I get it. I don't blame anyone for not being able to remove him from the ballot...

... But this piece sounds like it's just telling. It's 'yeah, we acknowledge he' s guilty as soon, but the law only scraps balloting up to presidential elect office... It doesn't say anything of the presidency'. It's straight up bullshit. A piss poor excuse.

Like... If i rob a bank and then claim that because I'm blonde, I can't be convicted. Why? Because the law on bank robberies doesn't specify that it applies to blondes,and therefore doesn't apply to me.

What's that? Oh, right... You claim that scrapping menaces to society from the ballot box diminishes democracy. Congratulations: you've found a valid argument...

... To disagree with your constitution. But ey: at least we can both agree that this taking of an oath to uphold the constitution isn't worth a damn.

 

[x65943]

Okay... I didn't expect this part to succeed. But absolutely not on this merit...


Sorry, but proving Trump incited the insurrection is the hard part. Yes , Trump's defend went around this in a very weird matter (I can't even repeat the defense. It was something in the line of 'he might've incited the insurrection, but even if he did that doesn't disqualify him'), but that doesn't mean the pain obvious should be forgotten somehow, right?

Look... From what I gathered the piece this trial's built upon was a relic of times past. Only used on a handful occasions after the Civil War, hundred years ago last time... I get it. I don't blame anyone for not being able to remove him from the ballot...

... But this piece sounds like it's just telling. It's 'yeah, we acknowledge he' s guilty as soon, but the law only scraps balloting up to presidential elect office... It doesn't say anything of the presidency'. It's straight up bullshit. A piss poor excuse.

Like... If i rob a bank and then claim that because I'm blonde, I can't be convicted. Why? Because the law on bank robberies doesn't specify that it applies to blondes,and therefore doesn't apply to me.

What's that? Oh, right... You claim that scrapping menaces to society from the ballot box diminishes democracy. Congratulations: you've found a valid argument...

... To disagree with your constitution. But ey: at least we can both agree that this taking of an oath to uphold the constitution isn't worth a damn.

It's not about whether or not he participated in an insurrection as a crime - because crimes in and of themselves do not bar someone from running for public office

It's about whether the clause of the 14th amendment put in place to keep confederates out of Congress applies to someone who participated in such acts as a sitting president

The way the law reads it was made to purposefully not pertain to the president

There is a surefire way to keep him out of the big seat and that's impeachment - which purposefully has a high barrier so as to make sure it's not abused

And the Senate didn't convict so there you have it - on that he is allowed to run for president again

 

[Taleweaver]

It's not about whether or not he participated in an insurrection as a crime - because crimes in and of themselves do not bar someone from running for public office

Erm... It's about "crimes against the united states of America" , right?

It's about whether the clause of the 14th amendment put in place to keep confederates out of Congress applies to someone who participated in such acts as a sitting president

I'm sure it was written with confederates in mind, but unless you didn't quote the full text earlier, it was written more broad to deal with any acts against the usa in mind.

The way the law reads it was made to purposefully not pertain to the president

Can't argue with that one. Well... I can voice my opinion of it being bullshit (oh boy... Donald better not run for voice president because in THAT case...), but can't argue with the text.

There is a surefire way to keep him out of the big seat and that's impeachment - which purposefully has a high barrier so as to make sure it's not abused

Yeah, that really worked wonders...in some parallel universe where Republicans minded being assaulted on January 6th.

 

[x65943]

Erm... It's about "crimes against the united states of America" , right?

I'm sure it was written with confederates in mind, but unless you didn't quote the full text earlier, it was written more broad to deal with any acts against the usa in mind.


Can't argue with that one. Well... I can voice my opinion of it being bullshit (oh boy... Donald better not run for voice president because in THAT case...), but can't argue with the text.

Yeah, that really worked wonders...in some parallel universe where Republicans minded being assaulted on January 6th.

Our constitution is very outdated, but changing it is extremely difficult. I think it's gonna take the dissolution of the USA (probably from some future war or revolution) and a completely new constitutional structure to ever change things here.

 

[AncientBoi]

I'll just Simply PEE- =tRuMp on my ballot, an turn it in that way.

 

[x65943]

I'll just Simply PEE- =tRuMp on my ballot, an turn it in that way.

wouldn't be shocked if they counted that as a vote for Trump, be careful

 

[TraderPatTX]

Democracy survives another day against the constant lawfare being waged against it.

 

[Xzi]

This was more like a punt to the Colorado Supreme Court. The ruling that Trump did engage in insurrection will be used as precedent in his other criminal cases, and nobody really cares if he's allowed to stay on the primary ballot. Suggesting that the president is "not an officer of the United States" is obviously ridiculous and leaves the door wide open for appeal.

 

[x65943]

This was more like a punt to the Colorado Supreme Court. The ruling that Trump did engage in insurrection will be used as precedent in his other criminal cases, and nobody really cares if he's allowed to stay on the primary ballot. Suggesting that the president is "not an officer of the United States" is obviously ridiculous and leaves the door wide open for appeal.

That's not how being a judge works

If the judge felt Trump was acting as an officer of the US government under the definition in the 14th amendment then Trump would have been barred

The judge made clear the reasoning that is does not appear to apply to Trump

No reason to punt a case, it is not like lower courts can't make these rulings

Fact is it's gonna be difficult to try and prove this law was meant to apply to Trump when it doesn't mention his office by name but does mention specifically - congress, state executive office, state legislature and state judicial appointees

I am no judge so I will leave it to the judge, who literally said it doesn't apply to Trump

 

[Xzi]

No reason to punt a case, it is not like lower courts can't make these rulings

A district judge doesn't want the heat that comes with making a definitive ruling in a case that may well end up at the US Supreme Court. So it's not that they can't, but that they generally don't want to in cases that will obviously be appealed either way. Moreover, she wasn't required to discuss the right to appeal in her written decision, but she spent quite a bit of time on that topic anyway.

Commander-in-chief is objectively the highest ranked officer in the land. We're getting into some awfully murky waters if the justice system is allowing the definition of words to be warped for the benefit of one criminal conman.

 

[x65943]

A district judge doesn't want the heat that comes with making a definitive ruling in a case that may well end up at the US Supreme Court. So it's not that they can't, but that they generally don't want to in cases that will obviously be appealed either way. Moreover, she wasn't required to discuss the right to appeal in her written decision, but she spent quite a bit of time on that topic anyway.

Commander-in-chief is objectively the highest ranked officer in the land. We're getting into some awfully murky waters if the justice system is allowing the definition of words to be warped for the benefit of one criminal conman.

I don't think judges make false rulings on purpose - is that a joke? That would be a gross lack of fulfillment of their oath

Can you, like, back that up in any way at all?

The judge said it doesn't apply to Trump and that's it, can you imagine if the other side was trying to read into something that simple?

The amendment was made specifically for Confederates after the civil war, and since the presidents at the time were on the right side of history it made sense to not include them

Since every other high office is named precisely it makes it an extremely hard sell to say this amendment applies to Trump (which is exactly what a skilled and experienced judge said - who unlike us - went to law school)

 

[Sir Tortoise]

As a member of the deep state currently planning the insurrection in the event of Biden losing the next election, this is fantastic news. Before we were having serious debate over if we should try to cling to power or just run for re-election, now we can always do both without fear of Biden being disqualified just because of a small attempt to overthrow the government.

 

[leon315]

A judge in Colorado struck down an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot next year in Colorado.

I believe judging the current US' situation the Sleepy Joe could never wake up from one of those nights cauz of Dementia or old age, US really needs someone with better judgement and clear sight, do you ALL know that Trump is the only US president who never started a war?

This point alone makes him a definitely better President, than those Palestinian killers' Sponsors.

 

[x65943]

I believe judging the current US' situation the Sleepy Joe could never wake up from one of those nights cauz of Dementia or old age, US really needs someone with better judgement and clear sight, do you ALL know that Trump is the only US president who never started a war?

This point alone makes him a definitely better President, than those Palestinian killers' Sponsors.

Not true and provably false

That list since WW2 involves Carter, Trump and Ford

And you know what they all have in common? One term presidents. It's easy to not get involved in a war when you aren't in office as long

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-modern-us-presidents-new-wa-idUSKBN2A22SN/

 

[Viri]

This point alone makes him a definitely better President, than those Palestinian killers' Sponsors.

Wait, you mean Israel isn't going to use that 14.3 billion dollars aid money for humanitarian purposes?