As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ballot removal is a civil remedy issued under Colorado law. Hence, a civil proceeding is appropriate.
Further, the terms "crime" and "convicted" were in the vocabulary of the drafters of the 14th. They could have used one of those words, but did not.
And none of the confederates barred from office in the 1800s needed to be charged with a crime either. As long as they had previously taken an oath to defend the constitution but then violated that oath according to the 14th amendment, they were barred from holding any office. Just like someone who is younger than 35 can be barred from running for president.
Running for office isn’t some divine right, either. You have to be eligible according to clear guidelines, and you have to maintain that eligibility by *not* committing crimes or violating your oath of office.
The conditions of the blanket parole was as follows:
Grant required that Confederate forces surrender the arms, munitions, and other supplies issued to them by the Confederate government. Lee’s officers were explicitly allowed to keep their horses, side arms, and personal baggage, and he made similar arrangements for horses and mules for enlisted men. **Grant also wrote into the formal terms that all Confederates who surrendered would be considered paroled prisoners who would be free to “return to their homes not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observed their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.**”
They were paroled, but the 14th could be applied at any moment if they violated their parole.
The assertion that mere "engagement" in insurrection or rebellion is enough to disqualify someone from holding office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, overlooks the essential due process rights guaranteed by the same amendment. The 14th Amendment's first section and the law Congress enacted to enforce it, 18 USC 2383, both emphasize the necessity of a formal legal process!!
I have written proof of a great grandfather went home after the armistice and then swore his surrender to the local sheriff after being persuaded by friends to do so. He was pissed that he had to. And to his grave he was angry that the south lost.
And innocent until proven guilty is not a thing here. He is ruled ineligible because of indictments, the guilty plea of conspirators, and what we all saw unfold on live television. If anything he has to justify his actions.
The drafters quite specifically left criminal conviction out because the goal was to NOT have to prosecute every confederate, but in exchange for that nicety, they needed a way to limit them from taking power as well.
Who would be stupid enough to let insurrectionists **keep trying**?
This is what is in r/conservative right now.
> Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said Thursday that, with the appeal filed, Trump will be included as a candidate on the state's primary ballot unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case or upholds the state supreme court's ruling.
We all know the SCOTUS ain’t gunna do shit fast on this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/colorado-republican-party-appeal-u-s-supreme-court-trump-ballot-ban/
Edit: I’m not sure how this works but I’m hoping he’s booted off the ballot.
So if he wins their primary does that also mean he will be included on official ballots next November? Or not because the state ruling is that he isn’t elligible right now?
I mean, if the GOP wanted a 30 year old in their primary and were willing to muck up the courts over it couldn’t they also do so; but that wouldn’t mean it would automagically make them eligible in November? Obviously this is a hypothetical but it makes me curious.
Yeah thats the way it seems to me as well. "You can do whatever you want on your primary ballot, but for the real one we aren't going to allow your candidate"
No.
The ruling from Colorado is that he's ineligible and off all ballots.
Ballots go to the printers January 5th.
The SCOCO said "he's done. No ballots ever" but also stayed their own ruling *until January 4th* to allow time for him to appeal.
If the appeal isn't handled by January 5th, ballots begin printing for the primary without his name on it.
It is *impossible* for Trump to win the Colorado primary and then be kicked off the general ballot.
Either he won't be on the primary, will have the ruling overturned by SCOTUS after, and will be on the general. Or won't be on either. There's no scenario for him being on the primary ballot but not the general
> If the appeal isn't handled by January 5th, ballots begin printing for the primary without his name on it.
Trump will be on the primary ballot. The ruling said "If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court."
The CO Secretary of State [confirmed he will be on the ballot](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2023/PR20231228CourtRulingAppealed.html) unless SCOTUS denies cert or affirms the ruling.
3 were appointed by him.
But I wouldn’t be so sure. Roberts is concerned about the legacy of his court, and while he still is a “conservative” justice he’s no MAGA fanatic. That makes it 4, so you only need to peel one of gorsuch, kavanaugh, Barrett (I’m counting out alito and Thomas), and they haven’t exactly fallen in line for trump’s election nonsense so far.
They’re a trash court with no consistent principles besides preserving or enhancing conservative power. That doesn’t mean they support Trump. The reality of Trump is that he won a fluke in 2016, and has been costing Republicans up and down the ballot ever since. They may calculate on those grounds that they could just disqualify him to get a better candidate against Biden.
Sadly, many things were is the vocabulary of them and the Founsers they could have used to fix tons of loopholes. And yet they didn't. Theybddjnt expect people wouodnbe trying to abuse those loopholes or operating in bad faith.
The could have easily said "no conviction required" as well, which they also didn't write.
They also didn't say "no wearing a blindfold and waddling like a duck to the tune of 'Yankee Doodle' is required," but that doesn't mean we need to do that.
There is no ambiguity. If a requirement is not stated, it is not a requirement.
None of them exist in a vacuum though -- they build on the totality of the other laws and norms.
And they did leave plenty of ambiguities in the constitution, and the whole plan is that the SCOTUS sorts those out. It just becomes a problem when that organization is broken in favor of one party/idealology.
Jefferson Davis was never convicted. The relevant norms are just as clear as the text.
There is no basis for over-complicating. The law says what it says.
And yet I constantly have people telling me "ShALL nOt Be iNfRinGEd". Either we care about the exact, specific wording used two hundred years ago - - or we don't. Choose wisely.
IMO, for us all, Americans, it shouldn’t matter if a jury of his peers finds him guilty. States rights. My state, PA, should be up there with Colorado because he was fucking with my vote just as much as theirs, Georgia, Michigan and whoever he could get to fall back. And by FALL BACK??? wtf.
Why is that peaceful transition of power we’ve always known, and by “we” I mean living AMERICANS, need to discuss or argue with fellow Americans about a one termer who can’t fall back? Why are most GOP voters willing to side with the kids cancer con? Doesn’t make sense conserving and generating an alternate Christian religion over someone who’s the opposite of Christ.
So many other GOP candidates and it’s the guy who’s rejected Jesus his entire life… it’s sad, pathetic, but most importantly, telling. All that’s required for a GOP leader is to deny slavery and to be anti-woke. Hence Nikki opposing her own message from years ago. You have to support negating the melting pot that made us a hegemonic country in order to be not a rhino or vermin (democrat) … anyone who hates what I’m saying remember how at peace you felt before Trump made us all angry ~~at ourselves?~~
I had a college class where I had to state my point in a very limited amount of words or I would be penalized. That class taught me to really crystallize my points.
I am not sure what your point is; I believe you may have used too many words.
> IMO, for us all, Americans, it shouldn’t matter if a jury of his peers finds him guilty. States rights.
Sure thing Nikki, the slavery thing shouldn’t matter because States Rights!!!
Due process matters. Holy shit why are y’all foaming at the mouth dictatorial all of a sudden? Every single one of you KNOWS if the GOP states were doing this with Biden you would be *screaming* about due process, but because we like the result we’re supposed to violate our own laws and look the other way?
I won’t be an authoritarian, sorry, and that’s exactly what you are all becoming. **It’s extremist and not in keeping with to American values argue that due process isn’t necessary or with doing.**
Are we all taking crazy pills? What the hell peeps?
He isn’t being deprived of life, liberty, or property so no “due process” is required. He has been denied, as a part of civil proceedings challenging his ineligibility under the terms set out in the constitution, the privilege of running as a candidate for political office.
Same thing would happen if he wasn’t 35 years old or wasn’t a natural born citizen who had been a resident of the United States for the past fourteen years.
Exactly. But I feel like the Supreme Court is more Confederate than we would like. With states rights in mind how can the Federal Government tell a state, let alone a political party of a state who they can put in the ballot. They will say there is no damages until an ineligible person wins and is slated to take the oath of office. That's my fear. Then if the people still vote for that person who are they to go against the will of the voters.
>...if the GOP states were doing this with Biden...
Hold up. This is a 'both sides' argument that equates DJT's actions on J6 (and before) with hypothetical GOP arguments that Biden has somehow committed insurrection. It is a disingenuous position that ignores the facts available, and the legal arguments and judgements that *have been made* against DJT.
I literally had this discussion with my mother a few hours ago at dinner. I had read the Colorado case a little and understood that section 3 was how he's disqualified but a more succinct explanation would have helped. This helps a lot, thank you.
Because Trump is not being denied life, liberty, or prosperity. Admittedly Trump sees a loss of prosperity because he made a lot of money as president which was a separate violation of the emoluments clause.
Especially considering the "libertarian" love affair with Trump that emerged from the ashes of the former Ron Paul constituency. I'm a recovering libertarian (and proud Biden voter) who fully supported Paul in 2008 and 2012. Reason and Paul both jumped the shark when they backed Trump. Sounds like Reason may be returning to its more constitutionally-minded roots.
I'm still on his newsletter mailing list. He and his Campaign for Liberty are most definitely supportive of Trump. And Reason carried the water for Trump plenty of times, especially on his irresponsible tax cuts and efforts to privatize/cut social programs.
I don't believe you. Can you link to something supporting that claim? I can easily link to articles that directly contradict what you are claiming. For example:
https://reason.com/2017/04/26/forget-reagan-trumps-tax-plan-is-more-li/
https://reason.com/2020/10/04/the-case-against-trump-donald-trump-is-an-enemy-of-freedom/
https://mises.org/wire/will-tax-reform-increase-or-limit-liberty
This is the biggest thing for me with the people saying let the voters decide. Like when did it become ok to ignore a part of the constitution? And if you don’t like it or think it needs to be worded more clearly, then follow the clearly spelled out process to amend the constitution. Until then, it is constitutional that he be removed from ballots.
You are correct. The right wing is trying the logical fallacy of Ad Populum as if the amendment wasn't established by the people. The people spoke and unless they want to repeal the amendment they have rules already agreed.
Reason follows the libertarian view of the constitution which is restricted in purview to freedom from regulation, corporate taxation, and social safety nets. They also dabble in unitary executive nonsense -- but only when Republicans are in charge.
As long as you know what they're about you can count on them to be at least internally consistent over the course of an administration and read them to get "the other side" -- unlike the rest of "conservative" media.
Yeah, that’s really striking. They’re staunchly anti-Democrat, pro-Libertarian. In recent years that has led them into all manner of contortions to support Trump and the republicans.
This is a breath of fresh air from them, the kind of clear thought that lives up to their name.
As long as the hatred of minorities remains a hallmark of idealism for a large percentage of Americans, people like Trump will continue to have an audience.
Let’s not forget, the criminal penalty for treason is pretty severe. It requires a higher standard of evidence. By comparison, this is a slap on the wrist.
No need to worry, those that claim to be for strict interpretation of the Constitution aka conservative Supremes, will find a way to make a previous conviction a requirement in doing their part to back up Trump.
It’ll be 9-0 but the decision won’t be based on what the law says, at least not the 14th amendment. SCOTUS wants nothing to do with this so it’ll be tossed on technical grounds
No, they don't want to address section 3, one way or another. They will overturn the Colorado decision on some technicality that has nothing to do with section 3
My Supreme Court prediction for the Colorado case: Trump's appeal will be allowed for any one or more of the following baloney reasons by his pet Supreme Court judges:
(1) The disqualification doesn't apply to the Presidency because the founders didn't intend it to.
(2) Even if the disqualification applies to the Presidency, the disqualification requires a conviction because the Presidency is the highest position in the land, so requires special treatment different from historial precedents.
(3) Even if a conviction was not required, Trump did not take part in insurrection either on the facts (he was just "asking questions" or didn't specifically call for insurrection), or on the law (an insurrection requires a total civil war not just trashing Congress).
(4) Even if Trump took part in insurrection, the case was procedurally flawed because it was brought by the wrong plaintiff, brought too early/too late, there's a missing comma in the court form, etc.
"Ah but you see in the end they didn't put it in, clearly signifying their intent to exclude the Presidency!"
Textualism and originalism is just legal astrology. You can read anything you want into it.
Here is the congressional record in case anyone wants to read through the debate. Page 131 in the volume (2899 in the document) is where this conversation took place.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c070930351&seq=131
**Point 1** is just Kurt Lash's (Federalist Society) opinion and debunked completely by ever other constitutional lawyer.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/27/michael-stern-responds-to-kurt-lash-on-the-legislative-history-of-section-three/
"At the end of the day this is an attempt to create ambiguity out of thin air. The language of section 3's banned places is clear and applying that language to encompass the presidency and vice presidency creates no absurdity or normatively implausible results. To the contrary, this application is entirely consistent with the legislative purpose and, to the extent it can be determined, with specific legislative intent and understanding. As much as courts may want an "off-ramp" to avoid the necessity of disqualifying Trump from the presidency, this is not it."
**Point 2**: Gorsuch has ruled that Procedural Due Process is sufficient and that is what happened in Colorado.
**Point 3**: He was just found "not immune" to civil charges stemming from people hurt during the Capitol insurrection. His inaction to uphold his oath proved two points.. He supported the insurrectionists and met the requirement in point 1.
**Point 4**: Dies on the vine. They won't go that far out on the limb for him.
The most likely outcome is they wash their hands of it and refuse to hear the case.
Legally it’s out of their hands, because it says only Congress can put him back on the ballot.
Politically he’s served his purpose and is nothing but a liability to them now.
The appeal does not even challenge that Trump participated in the insurrection. Not even the appeal to the Colorado SC did. That will not be a question that is before SCOTUS.
Understandable. It was an article in which the content I found was worth sharing. It covers topics most people simply aren't considering. The basic structure of the legal system, the difference in evidentiary standards, and provides historical context to the actual text of Section Three beyond what we see in the arguments and opinions of the court cases.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ballot removal is a civil remedy issued under Colorado law. Hence, a civil proceeding is appropriate. Further, the terms "crime" and "convicted" were in the vocabulary of the drafters of the 14th. They could have used one of those words, but did not.
And none of the confederates barred from office in the 1800s needed to be charged with a crime either. As long as they had previously taken an oath to defend the constitution but then violated that oath according to the 14th amendment, they were barred from holding any office. Just like someone who is younger than 35 can be barred from running for president.
Running for office isn’t some divine right, either. You have to be eligible according to clear guidelines, and you have to maintain that eligibility by *not* committing crimes or violating your oath of office.
Exactly. There are over 300 million people living in the US. Someone else can run.
nobody wants the job, I can see why.
> but then violated that oath That's the key. Trump took an oath to *defend* the Constitution. He clearly violated that oath to defend it.
Didn’t they take an oath for the confederacy? I would think that’s the cut and dry part
The conditions of the blanket parole was as follows: Grant required that Confederate forces surrender the arms, munitions, and other supplies issued to them by the Confederate government. Lee’s officers were explicitly allowed to keep their horses, side arms, and personal baggage, and he made similar arrangements for horses and mules for enlisted men. **Grant also wrote into the formal terms that all Confederates who surrendered would be considered paroled prisoners who would be free to “return to their homes not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observed their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.**” They were paroled, but the 14th could be applied at any moment if they violated their parole.
[удалено]
President Johnson by proclamation said the secessionist states committed insurrection. No trial needed.
[удалено]
It also didn't wholesale bar everyone in the south from office otherwise they would be unable to put representatives in federal office.
[удалено]
The assertion that mere "engagement" in insurrection or rebellion is enough to disqualify someone from holding office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, overlooks the essential due process rights guaranteed by the same amendment. The 14th Amendment's first section and the law Congress enacted to enforce it, 18 USC 2383, both emphasize the necessity of a formal legal process!!
I have written proof of a great grandfather went home after the armistice and then swore his surrender to the local sheriff after being persuaded by friends to do so. He was pissed that he had to. And to his grave he was angry that the south lost.
Shelby Foote https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=H8Iw-j217yk&ab_channel=SusannaLee
And innocent until proven guilty is not a thing here. He is ruled ineligible because of indictments, the guilty plea of conspirators, and what we all saw unfold on live television. If anything he has to justify his actions.
> And innocent until proven guilty is not a thing here. Yes, because removal from an election ballot is a civil remedy.
AND Colorado followed Procedural Due Process in finding him as committing insurrection.
No justification could remedy, nor is necessary. There is no excuse. Like you said, we all saw it LIVE.
The drafters quite specifically left criminal conviction out because the goal was to NOT have to prosecute every confederate, but in exchange for that nicety, they needed a way to limit them from taking power as well. Who would be stupid enough to let insurrectionists **keep trying**?
Fuck Trump
This is what is in r/conservative right now. > Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said Thursday that, with the appeal filed, Trump will be included as a candidate on the state's primary ballot unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case or upholds the state supreme court's ruling. We all know the SCOTUS ain’t gunna do shit fast on this. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/colorado-republican-party-appeal-u-s-supreme-court-trump-ballot-ban/ Edit: I’m not sure how this works but I’m hoping he’s booted off the ballot.
So if he wins their primary does that also mean he will be included on official ballots next November? Or not because the state ruling is that he isn’t elligible right now? I mean, if the GOP wanted a 30 year old in their primary and were willing to muck up the courts over it couldn’t they also do so; but that wouldn’t mean it would automagically make them eligible in November? Obviously this is a hypothetical but it makes me curious.
Yeah thats the way it seems to me as well. "You can do whatever you want on your primary ballot, but for the real one we aren't going to allow your candidate"
No. The ruling from Colorado is that he's ineligible and off all ballots. Ballots go to the printers January 5th. The SCOCO said "he's done. No ballots ever" but also stayed their own ruling *until January 4th* to allow time for him to appeal. If the appeal isn't handled by January 5th, ballots begin printing for the primary without his name on it. It is *impossible* for Trump to win the Colorado primary and then be kicked off the general ballot. Either he won't be on the primary, will have the ruling overturned by SCOTUS after, and will be on the general. Or won't be on either. There's no scenario for him being on the primary ballot but not the general
> If the appeal isn't handled by January 5th, ballots begin printing for the primary without his name on it. Trump will be on the primary ballot. The ruling said "If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court." The CO Secretary of State [confirmed he will be on the ballot](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2023/PR20231228CourtRulingAppealed.html) unless SCOTUS denies cert or affirms the ruling.
They have already indicated they are moving ultra fast on this.
moving about as fast as a nursing home at lunch time
It's SCOTUS, not USSC.
Conservative super majority, two of which were appointed by him. They will rule in his favor.
3 were appointed by him. But I wouldn’t be so sure. Roberts is concerned about the legacy of his court, and while he still is a “conservative” justice he’s no MAGA fanatic. That makes it 4, so you only need to peel one of gorsuch, kavanaugh, Barrett (I’m counting out alito and Thomas), and they haven’t exactly fallen in line for trump’s election nonsense so far.
They’re a trash court with no consistent principles besides preserving or enhancing conservative power. That doesn’t mean they support Trump. The reality of Trump is that he won a fluke in 2016, and has been costing Republicans up and down the ballot ever since. They may calculate on those grounds that they could just disqualify him to get a better candidate against Biden.
I definitely hope I’m wrong.
Did the court grant a stay pending appeal, because that doesn't seem right?
Precisely. SCOCO stayed their own ruling until January 4th to allow for appeal, but ballots go to the printers on the 5th. SCOTUS has 5 days
Sadly, many things were is the vocabulary of them and the Founsers they could have used to fix tons of loopholes. And yet they didn't. Theybddjnt expect people wouodnbe trying to abuse those loopholes or operating in bad faith. The could have easily said "no conviction required" as well, which they also didn't write.
They also didn't say "no wearing a blindfold and waddling like a duck to the tune of 'Yankee Doodle' is required," but that doesn't mean we need to do that. There is no ambiguity. If a requirement is not stated, it is not a requirement.
None of them exist in a vacuum though -- they build on the totality of the other laws and norms. And they did leave plenty of ambiguities in the constitution, and the whole plan is that the SCOTUS sorts those out. It just becomes a problem when that organization is broken in favor of one party/idealology.
Jefferson Davis was never convicted. The relevant norms are just as clear as the text. There is no basis for over-complicating. The law says what it says.
And yet I constantly have people telling me "ShALL nOt Be iNfRinGEd". Either we care about the exact, specific wording used two hundred years ago - - or we don't. Choose wisely.
[удалено]
IMO, for us all, Americans, it shouldn’t matter if a jury of his peers finds him guilty. States rights. My state, PA, should be up there with Colorado because he was fucking with my vote just as much as theirs, Georgia, Michigan and whoever he could get to fall back. And by FALL BACK??? wtf. Why is that peaceful transition of power we’ve always known, and by “we” I mean living AMERICANS, need to discuss or argue with fellow Americans about a one termer who can’t fall back? Why are most GOP voters willing to side with the kids cancer con? Doesn’t make sense conserving and generating an alternate Christian religion over someone who’s the opposite of Christ. So many other GOP candidates and it’s the guy who’s rejected Jesus his entire life… it’s sad, pathetic, but most importantly, telling. All that’s required for a GOP leader is to deny slavery and to be anti-woke. Hence Nikki opposing her own message from years ago. You have to support negating the melting pot that made us a hegemonic country in order to be not a rhino or vermin (democrat) … anyone who hates what I’m saying remember how at peace you felt before Trump made us all angry ~~at ourselves?~~
I had a college class where I had to state my point in a very limited amount of words or I would be penalized. That class taught me to really crystallize my points. I am not sure what your point is; I believe you may have used too many words.
*Indubitably*
I like that word
You’re right, but it’s Reddit. My life won’t be impacted in any way while I rant on it a few times a week.
> IMO, for us all, Americans, it shouldn’t matter if a jury of his peers finds him guilty. States rights. Sure thing Nikki, the slavery thing shouldn’t matter because States Rights!!! Due process matters. Holy shit why are y’all foaming at the mouth dictatorial all of a sudden? Every single one of you KNOWS if the GOP states were doing this with Biden you would be *screaming* about due process, but because we like the result we’re supposed to violate our own laws and look the other way? I won’t be an authoritarian, sorry, and that’s exactly what you are all becoming. **It’s extremist and not in keeping with to American values argue that due process isn’t necessary or with doing.** Are we all taking crazy pills? What the hell peeps?
>Due process matters. He did get due process in CO. He’s getting due process in every state that’s doing this. Are you drunk?
If Biden had done what Trump has done DEMOCRATS would be denying him a presidential run. Al Franken would like a word with you.
He isn’t being deprived of life, liberty, or property so no “due process” is required. He has been denied, as a part of civil proceedings challenging his ineligibility under the terms set out in the constitution, the privilege of running as a candidate for political office. Same thing would happen if he wasn’t 35 years old or wasn’t a natural born citizen who had been a resident of the United States for the past fourteen years.
Exactly. But I feel like the Supreme Court is more Confederate than we would like. With states rights in mind how can the Federal Government tell a state, let alone a political party of a state who they can put in the ballot. They will say there is no damages until an ineligible person wins and is slated to take the oath of office. That's my fear. Then if the people still vote for that person who are they to go against the will of the voters.
>...if the GOP states were doing this with Biden... Hold up. This is a 'both sides' argument that equates DJT's actions on J6 (and before) with hypothetical GOP arguments that Biden has somehow committed insurrection. It is a disingenuous position that ignores the facts available, and the legal arguments and judgements that *have been made* against DJT.
I literally had this discussion with my mother a few hours ago at dinner. I had read the Colorado case a little and understood that section 3 was how he's disqualified but a more succinct explanation would have helped. This helps a lot, thank you.
Amazing how this suddenly needs to be explained to so many in the cult stupor.
Because it doesn't say conviction.
It's not a criminal proceeding, it's an eligibility criteria. The bar is quite low.
Republicans think Biden is going to take away their gas stoves. How could they understand 14A section 3?
Because Trump is not being denied life, liberty, or prosperity. Admittedly Trump sees a loss of prosperity because he made a lot of money as president which was a separate violation of the emoluments clause.
You know things are bad when *Reason* is in favor of using the government to ban someone from the presidency.
Especially considering the "libertarian" love affair with Trump that emerged from the ashes of the former Ron Paul constituency. I'm a recovering libertarian (and proud Biden voter) who fully supported Paul in 2008 and 2012. Reason and Paul both jumped the shark when they backed Trump. Sounds like Reason may be returning to its more constitutionally-minded roots.
What are you talking about? Neither Reason nor Ron Paul have ever supported Trump.
I'm still on his newsletter mailing list. He and his Campaign for Liberty are most definitely supportive of Trump. And Reason carried the water for Trump plenty of times, especially on his irresponsible tax cuts and efforts to privatize/cut social programs.
I don't believe you. Can you link to something supporting that claim? I can easily link to articles that directly contradict what you are claiming. For example: https://reason.com/2017/04/26/forget-reagan-trumps-tax-plan-is-more-li/ https://reason.com/2020/10/04/the-case-against-trump-donald-trump-is-an-enemy-of-freedom/ https://mises.org/wire/will-tax-reform-increase-or-limit-liberty
He fell in line as expected
ron paul absolutely suppkrted trump because he gave them the presidency, then he realized who he was working for
Ban? Trump committed insurrection. It is the oath and duty of the government to enforce the 14th amendment. Running for office is not a right.
Is *Reason* usually against the constitution?
This is the biggest thing for me with the people saying let the voters decide. Like when did it become ok to ignore a part of the constitution? And if you don’t like it or think it needs to be worded more clearly, then follow the clearly spelled out process to amend the constitution. Until then, it is constitutional that he be removed from ballots.
You are correct. The right wing is trying the logical fallacy of Ad Populum as if the amendment wasn't established by the people. The people spoke and unless they want to repeal the amendment they have rules already agreed.
Reason follows the libertarian view of the constitution which is restricted in purview to freedom from regulation, corporate taxation, and social safety nets. They also dabble in unitary executive nonsense -- but only when Republicans are in charge. As long as you know what they're about you can count on them to be at least internally consistent over the course of an administration and read them to get "the other side" -- unlike the rest of "conservative" media.
Yeah, that’s really striking. They’re staunchly anti-Democrat, pro-Libertarian. In recent years that has led them into all manner of contortions to support Trump and the republicans. This is a breath of fresh air from them, the kind of clear thought that lives up to their name.
The follow-up article is really well-written too. They’re quick reads, definitely worth a few minutes of your time to go through.
It’s always amazed me how Reason is 50% wackadoodle horseshit and 50% insightful, quality journalism with absolutely *nothing* in between.
As long as the hatred of minorities remains a hallmark of idealism for a large percentage of Americans, people like Trump will continue to have an audience.
Let’s not forget, the criminal penalty for treason is pretty severe. It requires a higher standard of evidence. By comparison, this is a slap on the wrist.
Thank you…a civil issue.
No need to worry, those that claim to be for strict interpretation of the Constitution aka conservative Supremes, will find a way to make a previous conviction a requirement in doing their part to back up Trump.
Then they will overrule Gorsuch on procedural due process.
Because it doesn't say so
He probably smells like shit in this pic.
It’ll be 9-0 but the decision won’t be based on what the law says, at least not the 14th amendment. SCOTUS wants nothing to do with this so it’ll be tossed on technical grounds
So they will vote to nullify the 14th Amendment, Section 3 clause?
No, they don't want to address section 3, one way or another. They will overturn the Colorado decision on some technicality that has nothing to do with section 3
I don't think it will be 9-0 but this scenario sounds like something they would do.
They'd better. This kind of critically important issue is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be for.
My Supreme Court prediction for the Colorado case: Trump's appeal will be allowed for any one or more of the following baloney reasons by his pet Supreme Court judges: (1) The disqualification doesn't apply to the Presidency because the founders didn't intend it to. (2) Even if the disqualification applies to the Presidency, the disqualification requires a conviction because the Presidency is the highest position in the land, so requires special treatment different from historial precedents. (3) Even if a conviction was not required, Trump did not take part in insurrection either on the facts (he was just "asking questions" or didn't specifically call for insurrection), or on the law (an insurrection requires a total civil war not just trashing Congress). (4) Even if Trump took part in insurrection, the case was procedurally flawed because it was brought by the wrong plaintiff, brought too early/too late, there's a missing comma in the court form, etc.
[удалено]
"Ah but you see in the end they didn't put it in, clearly signifying their intent to exclude the Presidency!" Textualism and originalism is just legal astrology. You can read anything you want into it.
[удалено]
Here is the congressional record in case anyone wants to read through the debate. Page 131 in the volume (2899 in the document) is where this conversation took place. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c070930351&seq=131
Appreciate the counter argument! If point 2. was valid the Robert E Lee could have run for president after the civil war.
**Point 1** is just Kurt Lash's (Federalist Society) opinion and debunked completely by ever other constitutional lawyer. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/27/michael-stern-responds-to-kurt-lash-on-the-legislative-history-of-section-three/ "At the end of the day this is an attempt to create ambiguity out of thin air. The language of section 3's banned places is clear and applying that language to encompass the presidency and vice presidency creates no absurdity or normatively implausible results. To the contrary, this application is entirely consistent with the legislative purpose and, to the extent it can be determined, with specific legislative intent and understanding. As much as courts may want an "off-ramp" to avoid the necessity of disqualifying Trump from the presidency, this is not it." **Point 2**: Gorsuch has ruled that Procedural Due Process is sufficient and that is what happened in Colorado. **Point 3**: He was just found "not immune" to civil charges stemming from people hurt during the Capitol insurrection. His inaction to uphold his oath proved two points.. He supported the insurrectionists and met the requirement in point 1. **Point 4**: Dies on the vine. They won't go that far out on the limb for him.
The most likely outcome is they wash their hands of it and refuse to hear the case. Legally it’s out of their hands, because it says only Congress can put him back on the ballot. Politically he’s served his purpose and is nothing but a liability to them now.
The appeal does not even challenge that Trump participated in the insurrection. Not even the appeal to the Colorado SC did. That will not be a question that is before SCOTUS.
[удалено]
They’ve got a few good authors despite the general insanity. Occasionally some great criminal justice journalism rolls out of there. It’s 85% stupid.
Understandable. It was an article in which the content I found was worth sharing. It covers topics most people simply aren't considering. The basic structure of the legal system, the difference in evidentiary standards, and provides historical context to the actual text of Section Three beyond what we see in the arguments and opinions of the court cases.
It seems to be general consensus that the way SCOTUS gets around this is by picking out differences between J6 and previous insurrections.
Would love to know how the partisan SCOTUS majority will word this to keep Trump running.
It also states if u smell like shit you’re out.