Of the arguments brought up in the Colorado case, there is one I like...

You didn't make it "in a sense". You just made the claim.

So you made a claim but never did any research. And now you demand that I do your research for you. Next time my sig might provide a hint as to how to make a point properly. That way we won't waste our time.

Thanks for playing...

 

As a resident of Colorado, I agree that the Colorado Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in our state, and, that Colorado was not (NOT) trying to make determinations for any other state! That said, unfortunately for Colorado and every other state, the 10th-Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was permanently crippled and broken by Abraham Lincoln well over 160 years ago.

Whatever else might be said about whether what Trump did was to lead an "insurrection" against the Federal Government becomes mere conjecture. "States Rights" count for little when confronted by the power of the central government -- period!

. "I'll show you schmucks what the 10th Amendment means!"

 

The 14th A says nothing about "leading". It says he just needs to have participated in it.

 

Again neither you nor I nor anyone else can penalize some one simply because they did something we didn't like that is constitutionally fundamental.

 

i heard two legal analysts at cnn discuss this and of course , they couldn’t stay away from showing bias, blinded by trump hatred. Both are always hating on trump. One of them was trump hater in chief, lawrence tribe.

He pointed out that the justices were being biased when questioning whether a state can have this much power yet he asked if justice had forgotten about electoral college where states can determine outcome.

i can’t help but marvel at how such distinguished legal scholars can themselves be blinded by hate to the point where they undermine their own credentials. Lawrence tribe should know better. Via electoral college, the people vote and if colorado ends up swinging election via electoral college vote process, so be it. This is vastly different than a few individuals, like prosecutors, lawyers, politicians and judges take trump off ballot. Imagine what chaos and constitutional crisis this precedent would set in motion where state prosecutors, lawyers and judges could just remove candidates from presidential ballots based on arguments which at best are questionable and politically motivated.

lawrence tribe shows his undeniable bias when he goes after justice roberts but it was justice kagan, a liberal. who expressed concerns with colorado’s attempts to remove trump from ballot.

Pathetic mr. Tribe.


Lastly, i’m also amazed how anyone truly thinks this was an insurrection. There is a reason trump wasn’t charged with it and trust me, prosecutors wanted to. An insurrection would’ve been if trump had secretly met with insurrectionsits to plan an elaborate attempt to take over the government by force. This means getting military, heads of cabinets on board, arresting opposition, using overwhelming force and power. Facts clearly show he wanted a delayed process to allow courts to review election irregularities he claimed. There is no evidence he wanted to do anything other than this. What we had was a speech where he claimed there was fraud, asked for his supporters to ‘fight’ but explicitly stated ‘peacefully protest’. That’s it, now think how many leaders have used ‘fight for freedom’, ‘fight for justice’, ‘fight for xyz’ in speeches. How people basically are using this word to claim he orchestrated an insurrection is truly mind spinning. This is all they have.. this was nothing more than a riot and yes trump should be held accountable for being irresponsible but not committing a crime. The way to do that is let the american’s decide, at the ballot box. Why are so many afraid of letting the people decide? All these people trying to silence voters, put trump in jail..They will get trump elected, even people who otherwise wouldn’t have voted for him, will.

 

I don't think the electoral college equivalence has merit, but the Colorado attorney (Murray) responded to this properly. States can't just remove candidates based on questionable arguments. That's why we have courts... As he said, this is like claiming that you can't accuse anybody of anything because somebody might be falsely accused. The court system deals with questionable arguments almost on a daily basis. The accused simply gets exonerated. Easy as that... It's an idiotic argument. And Roberts, who brought it up, ended up looking ridiculous when he asked WHO ultimately would decide and Murray basically answered "You, of course!"

No. They didn't want to. Demonstrating that Trump participated in it was easy (Actus Reus). But the requirements to prove criminal intent (mens rea) are much higher than simply charging him with sedition. The trial would take much more time. And the latter puts him in prison for the rest of his life anyway so... why bother? At 77 a couple of 20 year sentences for sedition is no different than a life sentence for insurrection.

The 14th, on the other hand, doesn't require criminal intent. Just the act.

 

That sounds like a claim.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

State courts, not federal courts, not the U.S. Supreme Court.


Now, when it comes to state candidates, that's a different issue.
Because of Article IV, Section 4 in the U.S. Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

But this wouldn't apply to election for U.S. President, since that is not part of the state government.

I emphasize again that the election held for U.S. President within each state is not a federal (U.S.) function.
(This may sound paradoxical but it is due to the way the selection of President is set up in the Constitution)

 

You shouldn't bother with this anymore. You already made it clear that you made a claim and are not able to support it. Even the most rookie posters in this forum understand that it's not reasonable to demand proof of a negative.

You still have much to learn.

You go ahead and tell Roberts that the Supreme Court cannot rule that an argument is trivial.

You are not helping yourself, you know....

 

I've read your signature, which is why it's baffling to me that you created this thread with the false statement that "Trumpist justices" [sic] had only one argument, and Kagan, not the conservative justices, made that argument. If you had researched the hearing before making this thread, you probably wouldn't have created one based on false information. You still haven't admitted that the thesis that started this thread is based on a blatant lie.

Your primary claim in the first post: Trumpist justices [sic] only have one argument, which is that one state should not decide for others. But that argument was made by Kagan and Jackson, not the conservative justices. This thread was made based on a false claim due to not properly researching the topic at hand. The thesis of this thread was based on personal bias and sources that spread misinformation. It has no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

You make a fair point! And as one who adheres to the exact, in-context wording with which the Constitution was written, I have to agree with you. The 14th may have been included by the victorious Northern forces in order to sabotage the future political ambitions of those in the post-Civl War South, but, "to the victors go the spoils" -- and since the 14th was never superseded or thrown out, it stands as written!

But, with 'tongue-in-cheek', I notice that you completely avoided the point I made about the 10th-Amendment. I congratulate you on skilful navigating! Thus, we see that no matter 'whose ox is being gored', the 10th-Amendment is just so much blah-blah at any point that the smothering, über-powerful, central Federal Government wants to overrule anything arrived at on the 'lowly' state level....

. "And don't forget it!"

 

I'm aware of that. I am arguing for something that will not help my side in this case.

That should help convince you that maybe there might be something to what I am saying.

A conservative supporting something based on principle even though it will hurt them politically in the immediate situation. I know that is hard for the other side to fathom.

 

Even with the 14th Amendment, it's hard to argue Trump actually engaged in an insurrection, hard as the media tried to push that perspective.

It is a huge huge stretch, like some sort of extremely convoluted legal logic a lawyer might try to use in court to win one side.

Never mind it being very unlikely the 14th Amendment was ever intended to be used that way. When the amendment was passed, it was obvious to everyone at the time exactly what it was referring to.

 

Something about Lincoln? This thread is about the 14th, not the 10th....

But feel free to open a thread if you have some other topic you wish to discuss.

 

I'd love to try to assume that there is something in what you say. But your inability to support your claim and, instead, demanding that I prove a negative, makes it very difficult.

I can't think of anything more comfortable (and less useful) than making a claim, and then just demand that everybody else proves you wrong, instead of you proving yourself right. But it doesn't exactly promote the feeling that you know what you're talking about.

With that mindset I could just sit here and say "I was visited by extraterrestrials. Prove me wrong!"

 

I fully understand the logical debate issue with trying to prove a negative, and how that is impractical and unfair.

But which side is it that actually has the original claim? Think about that.

If my claim is that your claim is wrong and not proven...

 

If you don't understand that YOU made the claim, then you don't understand the logical issue.

 

The original claim is that some legal logic exists why individual states cannot do this.

That claim seems to be on you. Is that not correct?

My claim is really only a counter-claim, that your argument is not really supported.

 

That's not even a claim. That's a meaningless hodge-podge of words that don't mean anything. For it to be a claim you would have to say WHAT "legal logic"? And what is "this" that the states cannot do?

What argument? Speaking in riddles is not helping much.

 

Let me just try to go back to your argument, below...

I don't believe that is true. Why would that be true?
Why do you think one state could end up deciding the election?

What this seems to go back to is that you are not actually aware of how the Presidential election system in the U.S. works.

It's a winner-take-all system in all states. (Well most of them, there do exist just two exceptions)

If a state like New York or California decides to suppress all the votes for the Republican Presidential candidate, it's probably not going to make any difference in deciding who the President is.

Colorado is only an issue because there is a chance it could go either way.
But based on recent election history, it is more likely than not Trump does not have a chance of winning there.
The 9 electoral votes from Colorado will either go to the Democrat or the Republican candidate. One of the candidates will get all of those 9 votes.

But one of the big reasons Democrats care is because this can be used to make it look like the Republican candidate got fewer votes, to make them appear less popular.

 

It's not! At no point did I say it was MY argument. I have said a dozen times in this thread that, given that it's a given that Colorado will lose the case (unlikely not to, given the abundance of MAGA justices), I hope they'll use an argument that does the least damage. And this is the one I LIKE.

Was that what all this was about? That you just didn't read the title?

 

Ooh... that was awkward. In your thread's OP, I saw that you opined, "BUT... .before you jump up and down in joy. Consider this: the precedent would take away from the States quite a bit of power. Gorsuch's decision by which states could basically ascribed absolute power to the states about who can be on the ballot will be gone. Poof!!"

I agreed with you! And buttressed my agreement with you by pointing out that when Abraham Lincoln unilaterally crippled and gutted the 10th Amendment, he created the precedent for the 'almighty-god' Federal Government to destroy an individual sovereign state's right to apply its own election-eligibility criteria, based as you pointed out -- ON the 14th Amendment.

Holy cow... even when you're right you won't accept that agreement, presumably because it calls out Lincoln for the despotic tyrant that he was? I agreed with you, Golem! Colorado SHOULD have the right for our Supreme Court to apply the 14th Amendment... but... it can't... because of what Lincoln did to the 10th Amendment! You with me now...?

 

If I was the judge, I would rule that the state has to hold TWO elections, one with Trump on the ballot and one without. (Or they could just hold one election with Trump on the ballot, of course) Either that or the state would have to actually pass a law specifically banning Trump from the ballot. (Something that has not happened, so far it has only been a ruling from the state's Supreme Court)
Then the state would have to pass another law specifically saying the names of the electors it has decided to send to the Electoral College, otherwise its votes would not count. (Something that normally does not happen)

This would still theoretically allow the state to take Trump off the ballot, but would create a higher burden.

 

The law already exists. It's the 14th A Section 3. I would repeal this section of the amendment. Never mind Trump. This requirement is obsolete and antidemocratic. But it would have to be done the way the constitution prescribes. Not by a court. Not even by the Supreme Court. However, if I were judge, I would have to uphold the Colorado ruling. In fact, if I were a Supreme Court Justice I would vote against SCOTUS even reviewing this case.

 

Nope. You can't just "repeal" parts of the Constitution, Golem. In order to change the Constitution, it must be amended -- just as it has been amended 27 times in the past. Moreover, a president cannot repeal part of the Constitution by executive order, and Congress cannot repeal it by simply passing a new bill.

But, using the example that Abraham Lincoln gave us, it is possible for the central Federal Government to simply trample over any part of it that is undesired, and then threaten anyone who opposes such action with military destruction! Where there's a will, there's a way!

 

Go try that argument in court. State certified electors would be really hard to reject if all the procedures are without defect. I suppose you could try it in the SCOTUS, but the bar you would have to meet would be very high.