Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

No, I’m saying that both section two and section three lists insurrection as a reason to be ineligible for something. One also lists a crime.

you say that there is nothing in section two that says he has to be convicted of an insurrection. Therefore the ruling is just.

I’m saying that in section two it likewise doesn’t mention a conviction is needed for an insurrection or a crime. Therefore we could ban anyone with a driving violation from voting on the same premise that has now been used against Trump.

the argument of no conviction is flawed and if flawed then it definitely opens a door that will be fun to play with

 

The 3 dissenting judges require a conviction for the crime. Is it your contention that only what you agree with is true?

 

Russian candidate barred from standing against Putin | DW News | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

Obviously, my opinion matches the majority thought. I’m comfortable with that…

 

You’re confusing your 2s and 3s again…

 

Then answer me this. If section three does not need a conviction then why would section 2?

 

You think your position matches the majority?? Really? How many other judges have dismissed cases for disqualifying Trump?? Do you even know?

 

Because your question referred specifically to THIS case…

Now, please excuse me. It’s already Christmas here and I have to sneak some gifts under a tree…

 

Why do you disagree with the need for a conviction to disqualify a candidate using A14S3?

 

I remember the push to corrupt the electoral college in 2016. Electors were getting death threats.

 

It would be a criminal act to violate the constitution.

If the constitution says you are not qualified, then the voters will have to find a qualified candidate to vote for.

 

I think the SC knows this and for this reason will rule on it.

IF they uphold the Colorado ruling then what happens is that Trump is barred from holding office and states will not put him on the ballot. If he wins by write in he cannot hold office.

Section three is not an accusation of a criminal act. It is a disqualification by way of a disqualifying act.

 

Section three is not a criminal sanction. It is triggered for disqualifying acts.

BARD is not required, it is a civil action. Noone's liberty is at stake.

If it were treated as a crime, then BARD becomes the metric, and one's liberty would be at stake.

That being said, I would assume state's constitutions have in place a protocol by which to determine a qualification was achieved in a just and fair manner. In Colorado that protocol is a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The person disqualified can appeal to SCOTUS, if he or she feels the ruling was in error.

 

Yet your position is in the minority with only 4 rogue judges
3 dissenting judges stated there must be a conviction
94 judges in 13 other states refused to even hear this
And the SCOTUS already kicked this identical claim to the curb last October

Whats going to be your position when the SCOTUS rules 9-0 for even attempting to bring this back in front of them for a second pass?

 

That's categorically false. Smith made no such determination.

Prosecutorial discretion, if it excludes a crime from prosecution, does not mean a crime wasn't committed, it could have been excluded for a couple of reasons I can think of (and no doubt there are more).

1. They deemed it too difficult to prosecute and went for the lower hanging fruit. Given there is a time consideration (getting a trial done by the election), this is a strong possibility.
2. They believe a crime was committed by a ponderance of evidence, but that evidence does rise to 'beyond a reasonable doubt" which is required for a criminal sanction. In other words, the evidence is strong enough for a civil liability tort but not a criminal sanction. If it is strong enough for a civil liability tort, it is strong enough for section three disqualification.

It's quite possible Smith might charge for insurrection or sedition if Trump is ruled ineligible for the ballot or loses the election, thus lifting the time constraint.

Nonsense.

With 1200 cases in the DOJ, they are going for the quick convictions, that makes sense. A handful have been charged with sedition, which is the flip side of insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme Court weighed all the evidence for some 5 days, and concluded there was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.

I doubt judges care much about what Musk thinks.

 

No one has been charged with insurrection. If anyone is so charged, prosecutorial discretion will factor the weight of the act. It will not be applied to lesser acts. Blocking a street or refusing to disperse hardly rises to any reasonable determination of insurrection.

 

I'm not going to defend anyone's inability to accurately articulate ideas with precision.

I would never claim that the government can hold you accountable for fraud without proving you committed fraud. The way you have worded it, appears to be a contradiction of terms.

If some one articulated something in a fashion which gives rise to your rebuttal, perhaps what you rebutted wasn't articulated with precision.

In Tort liability, a jury or judge can hold you liable without proving it was a crime 'beyond a reasonable doubt, but was tort liable based on a 'preponderance of the evidence'. I think whoever said what you responded to was trying to say this.

Similarly, in section three, someone (probably a court, depending on state constitution protocols) can determined you engaged in insurrection based on a preponderance of the evidence and thus disqualify you without determining you committed a crime (because that would require BARD and you liberty would be at stake, and in section three, or tort liability, your liberty is not at stake.)

"IANAL" but this is my lay understanding of the law and section three.

 

You Posted a meme having to do with dems and repubs of the antebellum era that wasn't flattering to dems, ostensibly for the purpose of proving something about Dems of today..

I explained to you the logical fallacy that your meme represents, that dems and repubs of antebellum era did not exist then, not even remotely, as they are today, as liberals and conservatives. And so, the comparison is a logical fallacy, you can't represent that todays dems and repubs are the moral, political and philosophical descendants of dems and repubs of the antebellum era. There is no pattern and your meme is wholly immaterial to Trump's engaging in a massive conspiracy to subvert an election, commit insurrection against the constitution, and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

Then you reply with link about someone removed who opposing Putin as if, in your bizarro logic, dems are Putin? The irony of that is no one is a Putin puppet more than Trump is.

You are way way way way off the mark, point wise.

 

Well, not my theory.

Also, I'd point out that the House Speaker worked hard against the Constitution on the election - and he swore an oath to defend the constitution, too. And, he is relatively young!

 

CO REPUBLICANS moved on Section 3.

So, apologize any time you want.

 

The decision that the Republicans in CO made came from their assessment of the copious body of evidence that Trump moved in several different ways to overturn the election.

They are chartered with determining who may be on their primary ballot - just like other states must make that decision.

 

This issue is not about arson. It is about assaulting our democracy.

https://www.politico.com/interactiv...l-investigations-cases-tracker-list/#election

 

Section 3 is much broader than that.

It's basically anyone who swears an oath to uphold the constitution as a requirement of their position in government. It includes those elected.

 

Sigh…as I said to the other poster, I was responding to his analysis OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE…FFS!

 

When election boards were determining whether Obama was qualified to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate, there wasn't any trial to see if he was misrepresenting himself or whether his papers were in order. The determination was made entirely outside of court, as specified by our constitution.

I'm NOT suggesting that was offensive. I'm pointing out that our system applies these criteria without resort to trial.

Also, our Constitution has requirements for federal office. It has age limits and citizenship limits. The Constitution does not bar criminals from elective office.

EXCEPT, Section 3 adds a limit that says those who have sworn to defend the Constitution and who have then attacked the Constitution may not hold office where they would need to swear to uphold the Constitution!

>> What would the oath mean if they have already violated that oath?



I suspect Section 3 is a mistake made by its authors and the congress and states that ratified it.

It was an attempt to preserve our democracy. But, we the people have to defend our democracy.

If we don't care, if we're fine with elections being decided by coercion, bribes and insurrection instead of by the vote of the people, then Section 3 isn't going to save us.

If we want democracy, then WE have to stand up and defend it.