Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[mtrycrafts]

Personally I agree with Luttig, but that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado decision.

Having said that, if they do strike down the Colorado decision I doubt that it would be on the basis that the 14th Amendment requires a separate criminal conviction. The Supreme Court normally avoids ruling on a legal issue that is not necessary to reach a given result and I suspect they’d prefer to avoid the criminal conviction issue if they do strike down the Colorado decision. This is of course just a best guess.

If they uphold the Colorado decision they would need to conclude that a separate criminal conviction for insurrection is not required.

People forget that 14-3 is a qualification issue, nothing more or less. No different from the age requirement.

 

[cpp]

I'm not Black, but I was surprised when there was no big response to him saying "If you don't vote for me, then you ain't Black" during the 2020 election.

Give him time. Give him time


And Regarding the US Supreme Court. We have to remember there are Trump 3 appointees on that US Supreme court. And the Supreme Court is stacked in favor of the Repub's

 

[Mr._Clark]

And Regarding the US Supreme Court. We have to remember there are Trump 3 appointees on that US Supreme court. And the Supreme Court is stacked in favor of the Repub's

So far it hasn't helped Trump.

The court is conservative, but Trump is a CINO (Conservative In Name Only).

>>>A fundamentally conservative court, with a six-justice majority of Republican appointees that includes three named by Mr. Trump himself, has not been particularly receptive to his arguments.

Indeed, the Trump administration had the worst Supreme Court record of any since at least the Roosevelt administration, according to data developed by Lee Epstein and Rebecca L. Brown, law professors at the University of Southern California, for an article in Presidential Studies Quarterly.
“Whether Trump’s poor performance speaks to the court’s view of him and his administration or to the justices’ increasing willingness to check executive authority, we can’t say,” the two professors wrote in an email. “Either way, though, the data suggest a bumpy road for Trump in cases implicating presidential power.”<<<

New Trump Cases Shadowed by Rocky Relationship With Supreme Court

Though he appointed three justices, his administration had the worst track record before the justices since at least the 1930s.

www.nytimes.com

 

[cpp]

So far it hasn't helped Trump.

The court is conservative, but Trump is a CINO (Conservative In Name Only).

>>>A fundamentally conservative court, with a six-justice majority of Republican appointees that includes three named by Mr. Trump himself, has not been particularly receptive to his arguments.

Indeed, the Trump administration had the worst Supreme Court record of any since at least the Roosevelt administration, according to data developed by Lee Epstein and Rebecca L. Brown, law professors at the University of Southern California, for an article in Presidential Studies Quarterly.
“Whether Trump’s poor performance speaks to the court’s view of him and his administration or to the justices’ increasing willingness to check executive authority, we can’t say,” the two professors wrote in an email. “Either way, though, the data suggest a bumpy road for Trump in cases implicating presidential power.”<<<

New Trump Cases Shadowed by Rocky Relationship With Supreme Court

Though he appointed three justices, his administration had the worst track record before the justices since at least the 1930s.

www.nytimes.com

Agree, but maybe we see the real colors of this Rupub stacked court when and if this even gets to the US Court. Like it notes from those law professors " we can’t say,” . So far its just people writing their opinions. If this US court lets Trump slide, its puts this US court in that doldrums of all legal systems.

 

[highfigh]

Give him time. Give him time


And Regarding the US Supreme Court. We have to remember there are Trump 3 appointees on that US Supreme court. And the Supreme Court is stacked in favor of the Repub's

Both parties (really not a great word for what they are) want to stack the deck in their favor and block the other party's nominations- it's what they do. Used to be, they would do this if the appointee was seen as bad, but now, it's just a matter of which party has the majority and the fact that the appointee is from the other.

 

[isolar8001]

 

[Mr._Clark]

This is old news by now, but the Supreme Court Ruled unanimously to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot.

>>>A five-member majority from the court said in Monday's ruling that Congress would need to pass an enforcement mechanism before states could remove federal candidates from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” Four members of the court – the three liberals, plus Justice Amy Coney Barrett – disagreed.<<<

Supreme Court opinion on the Trump 14th Amendment ballot case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado.

www.cnn.com

Based on an initial review of the decision, the CNN blurb seems to overstate the differences between the majority and concurring opinions. All 9 justices agreed that the 14th Amendment does not authorize states to keep federal candidates off the ballot. The majority went beyond that and said that congress needs to pass a law if the 14th amendment is to be enforced against federal candidates.* The concurring opinions said that it was not necessary for the court to hold that congress must pass a law.

In other words, the concurring opinions didn't actually say they "disagreed" that congress would need to pass a law, they just said that this issue did not need to be decided.

*The court said that states can pass laws to keep candidates for state office off a ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

 

[jinjuku]

Just wanted to swing by and give some people that are ideologically blinded a solid "I told you so".

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes, but, 14th and sec 5 doesn't state "only" congress has that power, just congress can do that, no?

 

[isolar8001]

This is old news by now, but the Supreme Court Ruled unanimously to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot.

>>>A five-member majority from the court said in Monday's ruling that Congress would need to pass an enforcement mechanism before states could remove federal candidates from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” Four members of the court – the three liberals, plus Justice Amy Coney Barrett – disagreed.<<<

Supreme Court opinion on the Trump 14th Amendment ballot case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado.

www.cnn.com

Based on an initial review of the decision, the CNN blurb seems to overstate the differences between the majority and concurring opinions. All 9 justices agreed that the 14th Amendment does not authorize states to keep federal candidates off the ballot. The majority went beyond that and said that congress needs to pass a law if the 14th amendment is to be enforced against federal candidates.* The concurring opinions said that it was not necessary for the court to hold that congress must pass a law.

In other words, the concurring opinions didn't actually say they "disagreed" that congress would need to pass a law, they just said that this issue did not need to be decided.

*The court said that states can pass laws to keep candidates for state office off a ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

Well, we all knew this would happen.
What we never knew was that somehow a man like Trump would become a power player and put every blue law ever made come up in casual conversation.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Yes, but, 14th and sec 5 doesn't state "only" congress has that power, just congress can do that, no?

No. That's what got the 4 concurring justices riled up.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court did not hold that an insurrectionist presidential candidate cannot be disqualified if congress passes legislation (as I read it, the opinion strongly implies that congress can pass a law barring an insurrectionist presidential candidate, but the opinion doesn't go quite that far in terms of the literal holding). It also held that states can disqualify candidates for state office. In other words, the court did not say that "voting works" but rather said that both the state and federal governments can bar insurrectionist candidates from state and federal office, respectively.

One congressman is reportedly working on a bill in response to the Supreme Court ruling, but there is realistically no chance that it will be enacted any time soon.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/04/jamie-raskin-trump-ballot-ruling-supreme-court

 

[Dude#1279435]

No. That's what got the 4 concurring justices riled up.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court did not hold that an insurrectionist presidential candidate cannot be disqualified if congress passes legislation (as I read it, the opinion strongly implies that congress can pass a law barring an insurrectionist presidential candidate, but the opinion doesn't go quite that far in terms of the literal holding). It also held that states can disqualify candidates for state office. In other words, the court did not say that "voting works" but rather said that both the state and federal governments can bar insurrectionist candidates from state and federal office, respectively.

One congressman is reportedly working on a bill in response to the Supreme Court ruling, but there is realistically no chance that it will be enacted any time soon.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/04/jamie-raskin-trump-ballot-ruling-supreme-court

Was it because the insurrectionist law in place only applied to specific situations many years back. Trump didn't have a guilty verdict for Jan 6th etc?

 

[jinjuku]

Give him time. Give him time


And Regarding the US Supreme Court. We have to remember there are Trump 3 appointees on that US Supreme court. And the Supreme Court is stacked in favor of the Repub's

Apparently it's stacked 9-0 imma right? Or was there an obvious problem with what CO did?

This democratic delusion is what I'm personally upset over. That some are so unhinged they've lost grip with reality.

It was a unanimous decision. I'm centrist Democrat. I think the far left is just as out of touch as the far right. This should be your wake up call to walk back to the center.

 

[jinjuku]

On the other hand, the Supreme Court did not hold that an insurrectionist presidential candidate

What 'insurrectionist presidential candidate'. I don't remember his conviction on this in congress.

 

[highfigh]

No president will ever be perfect, but I really don't understand how Biden can be so unpopular.
Joe Biden's underrated presidency - by davidrlurie (publicnotice.co)

The first requirement of a government is to keep its citizens safe and that's not happening. It may be safe from outside military attack, but the border is far from secure. Look at who's entering and the number- he reversed efforts to decrease entries and it reached new highs.

Like it or not, he's not mentally fit enough to be POTUS, but people continue to ignore his episodes and they're frequent. He seems fine at times, but when he's off, he's really off. His grasp of facts is loosening, too.

He's losing his own party- don't point fingers at conservatives for that.

Every POTUS is a kick in the 'nads. Congress just makes it worse.

 

[highfigh]

One young voter was asked if he will vote for Biden in 2024. He did in 2020 but not now as he didn't or is not stopping Israel from the present conflict there.
Wow, cutting off the nose to spite face. No realization of consequences if Trump is back in office for the rest of our lives.

How can any POTUS stay in office for the rest of our lives, assuming we aren't nuked into oblivion? He can't repeal an Amendment on his own.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Was it because the insurrectionist law in place only applied to specific situations many years back. Trump didn't have a guilty verdict for Jan 6th etc?

The court said that 18 U.S.C. 2383 is the only federal law on the books right now and Trump was not convicted under that law. The court left the door open for congress to pass additional laws in the future that could bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist. Here's a snip from the case:

>>>Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding non legislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383. . . .
Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the means adopted to that end.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at
520. Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 123.<<<

This implies that a civil action to remove an an oathbreaking insurrectionist from office or to prevent an oathbreaking insurrectionist is authorized by the 14th Amendment, provided it reflects “congruence and proportionality.”

 

[John Parks]

Awesome! Next time there is an actual "oath breaking insurrectionist" they'll be ready!

 

[GO-NAD!]

The first requirement of a government is to keep its citizens safe and that's not happening. It may be safe from outside military attack, but the border is far from secure. Look at who's entering and the number- he reversed efforts to decrease entries and it reached new highs.

Like it or not, he's not mentally fit enough to be POTUS, but people continue to ignore his episodes and they're frequent. He seems fine at times, but when he's off, he's really off. His grasp of facts is loosening, too.

He's losing his own party- don't point fingers at conservatives for that.

Every POTUS is a kick in the 'nads. Congress just makes it worse.

Well, there was a bi-partisan bill to address border and immigration concerns, but the GOP voted against it because Trump wants chaos at the border.
Failure of border bill creates a political opening for Biden | CNN Politics

 

[Mr._Clark]

What 'insurrectionist presidential candidate'. I don't remember his conviction on this in congress.

Trump argued that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidents or presidential candidates. If the Supreme Court had agreed with this argument, congress could not pass a law to bar insurrectionist presidential candidates from office, and the existing law (18 U. S. C. §2383) could not be applied to bar Trump or any other presidential candidates.

Congress does not have power to impose qualifications in presidential candidates in addition to the qualifications in the Constitution. However, based on this Supreme Court decision, congress does have power to bar an "oathbreaking insurrectionist." The opinion implies that it could be a civil action having a much lower burden of proof than required for a criminal conviction (in court) under section 2383.

In terms of him having a "conviction on this in congress," the Senate has the power impeach a president and disqualify him from future office.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

If this had happened, the 14th Amendment issues would have been moot.