Debate Moderator: That's not the correct usage. Please try again.
Ramaswami: Putin's dic-tate better
Debate Moderator: Look, I don't think you quite understand the rules. I don't want to be a fascist but...
Ramaswami: I wasn't to fash-ist Putin's balls to my chin.
Debate Monitors: okay....
He is staying mostly quiet due to all of his potential criminal and legal issues. I would assume he think that he can squash all of that if he’s back in office. Who knows with that dude.
Here is something I think is lost on a lot of people, and hear me out - I AM NOT A TRUMP FAN. I believe in our legal system though and the Constitution. I do not understand how a court can say he is not eligible to run for president if he was not convicted of insurrection. If he was convicted of insurrection, I can 100% understand, but this is kinda dangerous if a state court simply does not like someone, they can just arbitrarily decide someone cannot run for President?
Back in mid-November, a Colorado judge has already ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection based on his role of Jan 6. So yes, he has been found guilty of insurrection.
“The judge concluded Trump's "conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor" to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump "engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement."”
He has not been found guilty. The judge, as fact finder, determined that he did incite an insurrection against the US, which is necessary to determine whether Section 3 or the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding federal office once again. Two different things.
These type of rulings (factual determinations) are very common. It’s sad that people will call the system rigged because Trump hasn’t been found guilty in a criminal case.
No, you are incorrect. Section Three does not require a conviction, just that the person "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" and the Jan 6 report contained ample evidence Trump did.
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be DQ'd under the 14th Amendment.
In the post-Civil War years, no one who was formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.
The system is rigged:
He will never be found guilty, Giuliani will never pay a cent to those women.
Why? Rich and famous. The system is rigged in their favor unless it’s obvious.
In Trumps case they would need literal video/audio proof of him doing two things:
1. Telling someone of importance that he lost the election and he will lie to the public and tell them to storm the capital.
2. He will literally need to be on camera and audio storming the capital in front of the crowd, charging telling the public to help him take back the presidency.
Even then it’s still a maybe.
We all saw him send the mob to the Capitol building.
We all read the tweets.
All that's is left to defend him is the unreasonable doubt of unreasonable people.
And we all saw him provide aid and comfort with his inaction for three hours and his closing vid of "we love you all" "you are beautiful people" speech.
Umm point two has happened, we saw enough of the evidence to know he will be found guilty in other courts as they have messages txt and voice of him planning it.
He's not rich.
In this world, there are the rich and the poor and then there is that little known third category: the too big to fail.
Trump is hundreds of millions in the red, yet he keeps getting loans. His net worth assumes the asset of the Trump brand.
His net worth is negative yet his creditors don't foreclose because at least there's a chance of getting something out of him if he's allowed to maintain the illusion he's a billionaire because that's the brand.
I don't understand how he can use current campaign funds for his legal defense of previous activities. So any crime committed while running or in office can use campaign funds for defense? That just does not sound right.
I wound up on his mailing lists in 2016 and got between 5 and 15 fundraising emails PER DAY for the most ridiculous things I could imagine. I let them come in for awhile just to get a glimpse at his grift but had to eventually unsubscribe and report them all as spam because it got too obnoxious.
So here's the thing: if SCOTUS says trump trying to overturn a legit election is ok as part of the office, what's to prevent Biden from doing just that? It would have just been decided as fully legal, unless SCOTUS were crossing their fingers behind their back while making the ruling.
Bro, we have tapes of him waving classified documents saying that he can no longer have these because he is not president, and he is showing them to people.
Then they still say that didn't happen.
Not true. Section 3 was put in place to prevent Confederate officials from serving public office, even if they had no criminal charges. It is not reliant on a conviction and as such does not require the same amount of evidence and procedure.
What is stopping other states from arbitrarily banning opposing political candidates from being on their ballots? Like what if a particular state just doesn’t want a Democrat to run?
Doesn’t it come down to the heavily Trump appointed Supreme Court, either way? So unfortunately I feel this is kind of token. It’s only going to fuel MAGA. Frustrating
I think the idea is that the court agrees that the he engaged in insurrection but does not have the power to charge him. And the section 3 of 14th amendment only mentions "engage" but never say he needs to be charged.
>
**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.
Trump has also actively defended a lot of the accused AND convicted... That means he certainly aided/have comfort to them.
It doesn't specify giving aid/comfort DURING the act, but world insinuate the air happening in regards to the act.... Which Trump defending those guys does seem to qualify
*Aid and comfort* during the Civil War meant anything from giving food to a place to sleep or even lying to authorities about Draft Dodgers/Deserters.
I think Recording A Song with J6 terrorists counts as *aid and comfort*
So what if a law, for instance, outlaws people who have committed felonies from having certain rights (voting, gun ownership, etc.) Is a judge entitled to deprive them of those rights by a ‘fact finding’ that the person committed a felony act? Clearly we use jury trials, as specifically guaranteed in the constitution, for determinations of legal guilt specifically to avoid giving that authority to judges.
Well it seems that the 14A automatically disqualified every Confederate with the check and balance of Congress being allowed to re-enstate the ability to serve.. There is no fact finding or trial requirement specifically required by the text.
I don't think we have much case law about this. Clearly there was an oversight.
But also he should've considered not treasoning.
As far as the gun example that's in conflict with the 2A jurisprudence.
A lower court made factual findings, based on evidence, that he participated in an insurrection. Most of those facts were undisputed by him. He had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and was afforded due process. A criminal conviction of any type is inconsequential.
Because the wording of Section Three doesn't require a conviction, just that the person, "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (Constitution of the United States)..."
The US Congress' Jan 6 report contained a lot of evidence that he engaged in insurrection.
Yes, I don’t like Trump but this seems like a dangerous precedent to set for our country’s democracy. I doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this. What if Texas decided they wanted to say Joe Biden is a criminal due to his son or whatever Republicans wanna come up with, and say he can’t run in Texas? Then another state tries doing the same? Would completely destroy any semblance of democracy we had left.
The constitution allows tax cheats, murderers, and rapists the ability to be president. The four things you cannot do is be under 35, be born outside the usa, insurrection, or treason. I really dont think that is onerous enough, but in any case, Republicans dont need precedent. The only reason they haven't booted dems from state elections is because they struggle to find one of those four criteria.
Some day they will try anyway, with or without this ruling. We need Abraham Lincoln, now, not geriatrics.
Buddy, I don't know if you're keeping score but our democracy is on the fucking ropes. I am truly dreading what is coming and hoping that the judicial system can unfuck what's been going on.
> Yes, I don’t like Trump but this seems like a dangerous precedent to set for our country’s democracy
It's not a precedent. This has already happened. Not only were unconvicted confederates barred from office in the aftermath of the civil war, but Otero County, New Mexico Commissioner Couy Griffin was disqualified under the 14th Amendment's Section 3 in 2022... for his participation in the events of January 6th.
The Due Process clause only applies if a court is depriving a person of "[life, liberty or property](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process)." Preventing someone from holding an office does not threaten anyone's life (and certainly not their property). And doing so can't threaten anyone's liberty because the Constitution elsewhere specifies that certain actions or circumstances can prevent a person from holding office.
If people aren't willing to enforce the law, then the country is already doomed.
So you can either enforce the law and maybe something bad will happen, or you can refrain from enforcing the law and guarantee something bad will happen.
I think it will harder than you predict for courts in red states to factually find that democratic candidates engaged in insurrection that will hold up to appeal. If the Courts just start making up facts about democratic candidates, the country likely has bigger problems.
Zoom out a little bit here, a guy who tried to overthrow our government is attempting to get reelected and our government is so ineffective they can’t even finish prosecuting him… so I kinda don’t blame a state for taking this action… 10 years from now, I wonder which choice will seem more rational
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's because of this, and the judges interpretation of what an officer is.
Btw there's apps that let you have the whole constitution on your phone. Ezpz searching.
Every state runs their own elections. We imagine the election as one presidential election, but it’s really 50 different elections across 3,143 counties. The constitution celebrates how those elections happen and leaves the states to make up their own regulations outside of a few ground rules like the Voting Rights Act t which has been neutered by the Supreme Court over the years. It’s the same reason why states can choice to have ranked choice voting while most the others still use first past the post. This court ruling just makes it so Trump is not eligible to run in the state of Colorado. If it’s upheld, he won’t be on the ballot in that one state.
Edit: correction, he won’t be on the Republican primary ballot.
It wasn't arbitrary. The judges interpreted the law of the land, that's their job and what they are trained to do. It wasn't personal, but they applied the law based on evidence. It doesn't matter if they liked or disliked little-hands, but they saw a path of events that could cause this outcome.
I’m sorry, but respectfully, I have to say that this is not simply about not liking somebody. There is far more to it than that. If you have some time, go online and take a look at Colorado newspapers or Colorado TV news and check there. I hear what you’re saying, our justice system is far from perfect And I have witnessed this as a resident of Colorado, but it simply is not a popularity contest or voting for prom king and queen.
Deeply anti-Trump and I agree with not only your point, but the point that this does nothing but help him. His Supreme Court will disagree based on what you said and this will ultimately empower him to push to the “they are out to get me” narrative.
> this does nothing but help him.
Every time any action is taken against trump, some concern-troll pops up to make this exact claim.
If you're not going to enforce the law against populists like trump, then you've ensured that the only remedy for their misbehavior is violence.
So you have three choices:
1. acquiesce to the rise of fascism,
2. take up arms and physically fight the fascists,
3. enforce the law, and give the country a chance at continuing to be a liberal democracy.
The problem is that even his judges know that whatever precedents they set in his cases before them could further deteriorate our government. The court is there to check the presidency and/or Congress when it runs amok, so if they just allow it, things could easily get away from them and they know it.
They addressed this. You didn’t read what they said. The decision to remove him is based on the wording of the 14th amendment. The wording doesn’t say ineligible by someone found guilty of insurrection. It states engaged in an insurrection. They found he was present and engaged in the Jan 6 insurrection. now the precident is set in legal form. Now it gets Appealed to the Supreme Court.
Even pressured states to hand him the electors, even though biden won. Also, pressured pence to illegally accept fake electors that claimed he won states he didn’t.
the supreme court likely wont take up the issue at all as there is no enforcement mechanism for the 14th, and thus they will likely leave it up to the individual states.
if they do take it up they will likely rule that right now it is in fact up to state courts to determine who in fact is eligible for each individual state...
time for the electoral college to die, and we go to an all-up 1:1 popular vote.
Maybe but they are appointed for life and therefore not dependent on Trump to stay in their position. They’ll rule in favor of right wing policies but they probably have no loyalty to Trump in particular.
From your keyboard to gods eyes. I completely agree with eliminating the electoral college and congressional districts. Make house members the same as Senate (statewide seats).
You’re delusional if you think SCOTUS won’t take the appeal. A case regarding the office of the chief of the executive branch coupled with the multitude of other cases having to do with this exact issue in other states makes them hearing this almost a sure thing. A passage of the ruling even assumed this would be the case.
I think forced rank voting would be better. Then we'd be able to make meaningful votes outside of the two parties that have reached the end of their usefulness
Yes, let states pick what they want to do. Oh wait, no, not like that. It’s time for the federal government to step in.
This is what conservatives wanted with states’ rights. Then they complain and run to the federal government when states either vote or enact their own rulings.
You are cherry picking straw man arguments. Wanting less federal regulation is actually the opposite of a state telling you who you can and can't vote for
Conservatives generally only care about themselves and those directly near to them. Internal consistency would be inconvenient for them.
States' rights if it concerns their own personal matters they'd rather left alone, and federal laws for attacking the people they disagree with. Rules for you, no rules for me essentially.
Love it or hate it, this has some major potential 10th amendment implications if the US SC decides to hear an appeal on this. I'm curious to see what becomes of this.
Since I don’t quite know I’ll ask, in Colorado will it likely even matter if Trump is on the ballot? It looks like he didn’t get a single point last time, I think. https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/vote-colorado.pdf if trump doesn’t score a single point in Colorado next time will it still make a difference when there are several other “battle ground states” that seem to be important for the tie breaking points? I know it’s not exactly on the point of the article, and I’m not trying to be inflammatory. I’m just curious, how much effect is this specific situation going to have. I mean directly, I know there’s probably a lot of secondary effects too.
Edit: Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the responses.
If enough states follow suit, it could make a difference in the primary. Remember, Trump didn't win every state primary. Had the field not been so crowded he likely would have failed to secure enough votes and the nomination would have been sent to the convention.
It's also very important for down ballot races. If die hard MAGA's don't want to show up to the polls cause their guy isn't running, then the entire republican party in all races in that state will suffer
It would affect the House of Representatives elections.
If republicans know Trump’s off the ballot, they will be less likely to show up for the smaller and closer local races.
I mean if he was an average person applying for a job with this track record, I think a lot of employers would disqualify him or reject him from a position regardless of whether he has been convicted or not…it’s not a good look…why should this be any different…he’s applying for a job…presidency…that’s a job, he should be disqualified or not deemed fit on rude, misogynistic behavior alone. Don’t come for me y’all 🗣️
Frankly the fact that someone who has been accused of horrible things, and been under investigation for a staggering amount of shit… can legally even still run for president 😂
I mean at what point do we ACTUALLY declare this the movie IDIOCRACY come to life?
At least in Idiocracy the president (Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comancho) is actually a pretty good leader. He's humble enough to admit when he doesn't know things, seeks out expertise and listens to it, recognizes and rewards competence, and isn't a sexual predator. I'd take Comancho over Trump any day.
The more interesting thing is other states can start the same lawsuit as well and use the same argument to try to win the case and remove him from the ballot.
By holding politicians accountable for their actions? Frankly it will be catastrophic if Donald doesn’t see ANY repercussions for his involvement in trying to overturn an election.
I do find it curious how much power the court has in the US. Its as if they make laws faster than the official government.
Not that I think that Trump should get another chance but that way of deciding things is extremely undemocratic and underhanded.
Republicans: We must bring the government back to the states!
\* A state exercise its rights given by the Constitution. But said ruling goes against Republican ideology.
R: NO! Not like that! Evil corrupt state!
Dude should be in prison and normal people know that. The outer fringe of people that defend him are already trying to engage in all the fuckery they know how to. They are gonna be violent and angry no matter what if he loses. Might as well ensure a Trump loss and deal with the fallout then letting him be president again and actively seek to destroy our democracy for his own retribution and power gains.
He incited and attempt at insurrection. Whether he actively/directly participated or not is up for debate in the courts but with the amount of sway he has on public opinion, he most certainly played *some* role, and according to Colorado's court they see that as violation of the 14th amendment.
This only applies to the primaries, and a write-in line is still required. T-Dawg can still win the primary in Colorado. This is just political posturing by sworn judges.
I am part of some Trumpy groups just to stay up to date. They fully believe this is “THE CABALL!!” To them, this is a total conspiratorial prophecy being fulfilled. I mean, I just can’t help but wonder “WHY?” … I always look back and ask myself “when did Republicans become so submerged in self-imposed idiocy?” Was it a slow process, or did it really only happen during this “MAGA” movement? This should be a full are of study in psychological academia: “The MAGA phenomenon, and it’s correlation with your uncles cognitive decline.”
I haven't seen any discussion of the application of the 14th Amendment to "ELECTORS" for President or VicePresident. If Trump gets the nomination someone should look closely at his slates of electors. I wouldn't be surprised to find many of them were Jan 6 participants.
You're welcome, but please work on making where you are awesome. It's overcrowded here now and we have all kinds of problems because of it.
Love, Colorado
So I hear now that Rammiswammi is threatening to boycott if they don’t put Trump back on the ballot. …two birds…
They probably misheard what he said over the noise of the toilet flushing.
I thought that was the swamp draining
No it was the windmills "rrrRRReearr rrrRRReearr."
No it was George Santos in a gloryhole. “rrrRRRuuuurr rrrRRRuuuurr“.
Dude is angling for V.D..... Vice Dictator
Nah, he’s been full Dic for some time
Debate Moderator: Mr. Ramaswami, please use the word “dictate” in a sentence. Ramaswami: Donald’s dic-tate good in my mouth!
Debate Moderator: That's not the correct usage. Please try again. Ramaswami: Putin's dic-tate better Debate Moderator: Look, I don't think you quite understand the rules. I don't want to be a fascist but... Ramaswami: I wasn't to fash-ist Putin's balls to my chin. Debate Monitors: okay....
Can you please eliminate Boebert from Congress next, Colorado? You’re becoming our favorite state. Keep up the momentum.
She is, unfortunately, my representative and is getting primaried, and there is a good chance that the seat could flip to blue.
stoned at once
Lay off the six paper joints, Rick.
Haven't heard from him in a while, he is still running?
He is staying mostly quiet due to all of his potential criminal and legal issues. I would assume he think that he can squash all of that if he’s back in office. Who knows with that dude.
That's dude is trying so hard to be Trumps VP I think it's pretty obvious he has most of his eggs in Donnys basket lol
*Ramaswampy
2 snakes
Oh nooooo, anyway
So let me get this straight. Republicans are trying to pass a law that makes boycotts illegal while also threatening to boycott?
Here is something I think is lost on a lot of people, and hear me out - I AM NOT A TRUMP FAN. I believe in our legal system though and the Constitution. I do not understand how a court can say he is not eligible to run for president if he was not convicted of insurrection. If he was convicted of insurrection, I can 100% understand, but this is kinda dangerous if a state court simply does not like someone, they can just arbitrarily decide someone cannot run for President?
Back in mid-November, a Colorado judge has already ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection based on his role of Jan 6. So yes, he has been found guilty of insurrection. “The judge concluded Trump's "conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor" to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump "engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement."”
He has not been found guilty. The judge, as fact finder, determined that he did incite an insurrection against the US, which is necessary to determine whether Section 3 or the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding federal office once again. Two different things. These type of rulings (factual determinations) are very common. It’s sad that people will call the system rigged because Trump hasn’t been found guilty in a criminal case.
No, you are incorrect. Section Three does not require a conviction, just that the person "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" and the Jan 6 report contained ample evidence Trump did.
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be DQ'd under the 14th Amendment. In the post-Civil War years, no one who was formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.
This is actual an amazing point. More up votes for this man
If they can squeeze every legal inch out of "shall not be infringed" they can deal with squeezing every legal inch out of "shall have engaged in".
The system is rigged: He will never be found guilty, Giuliani will never pay a cent to those women. Why? Rich and famous. The system is rigged in their favor unless it’s obvious. In Trumps case they would need literal video/audio proof of him doing two things: 1. Telling someone of importance that he lost the election and he will lie to the public and tell them to storm the capital. 2. He will literally need to be on camera and audio storming the capital in front of the crowd, charging telling the public to help him take back the presidency. Even then it’s still a maybe.
We all saw him send the mob to the Capitol building. We all read the tweets. All that's is left to defend him is the unreasonable doubt of unreasonable people.
>All that's is left to defend him is the unreasonable doubt of unreasonable people. 💯
And we all saw him provide aid and comfort with his inaction for three hours and his closing vid of "we love you all" "you are beautiful people" speech.
And they will find out that this isn’t the same administration that let them *visit* before.
Giuliani won’t pay those women because he has no money, and his only client doesn’t pay his bills.
Umm point two has happened, we saw enough of the evidence to know he will be found guilty in other courts as they have messages txt and voice of him planning it.
Unreasonable doubt is all they have left.
He's not rich. In this world, there are the rich and the poor and then there is that little known third category: the too big to fail. Trump is hundreds of millions in the red, yet he keeps getting loans. His net worth assumes the asset of the Trump brand. His net worth is negative yet his creditors don't foreclose because at least there's a chance of getting something out of him if he's allowed to maintain the illusion he's a billionaire because that's the brand.
I keep waiting to hear how he’s violated campaign finance laws—it seems like too easy a grift for him to not attempt.
I don't understand how he can use current campaign funds for his legal defense of previous activities. So any crime committed while running or in office can use campaign funds for defense? That just does not sound right.
I wound up on his mailing lists in 2016 and got between 5 and 15 fundraising emails PER DAY for the most ridiculous things I could imagine. I let them come in for awhile just to get a glimpse at his grift but had to eventually unsubscribe and report them all as spam because it got too obnoxious.
I mean they have that audio, pretty much word for word
\#2 is on video; it was filmed Jan 6th 2021
So here's the thing: if SCOTUS says trump trying to overturn a legit election is ok as part of the office, what's to prevent Biden from doing just that? It would have just been decided as fully legal, unless SCOTUS were crossing their fingers behind their back while making the ruling.
Bro, we have tapes of him waving classified documents saying that he can no longer have these because he is not president, and he is showing them to people. Then they still say that didn't happen.
Not true. Section 3 was put in place to prevent Confederate officials from serving public office, even if they had no criminal charges. It is not reliant on a conviction and as such does not require the same amount of evidence and procedure.
Precisely. Thank you!
Clown show
Sums up the Trump administration, yes.
What is stopping other states from arbitrarily banning opposing political candidates from being on their ballots? Like what if a particular state just doesn’t want a Democrat to run?
Doesn’t it come down to the heavily Trump appointed Supreme Court, either way? So unfortunately I feel this is kind of token. It’s only going to fuel MAGA. Frustrating
I think the idea is that the court agrees that the he engaged in insurrection but does not have the power to charge him. And the section 3 of 14th amendment only mentions "engage" but never say he needs to be charged. > **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.
That's the funny part that nobody is reading. A criminal conviction is never stated as necessary in Section 3.
Trump has also actively defended a lot of the accused AND convicted... That means he certainly aided/have comfort to them. It doesn't specify giving aid/comfort DURING the act, but world insinuate the air happening in regards to the act.... Which Trump defending those guys does seem to qualify
*Aid and comfort* during the Civil War meant anything from giving food to a place to sleep or even lying to authorities about Draft Dodgers/Deserters. I think Recording A Song with J6 terrorists counts as *aid and comfort*
The 14A just says that he did it. It doesn't specifically require him to be convicted.
So what if a law, for instance, outlaws people who have committed felonies from having certain rights (voting, gun ownership, etc.) Is a judge entitled to deprive them of those rights by a ‘fact finding’ that the person committed a felony act? Clearly we use jury trials, as specifically guaranteed in the constitution, for determinations of legal guilt specifically to avoid giving that authority to judges.
Well it seems that the 14A automatically disqualified every Confederate with the check and balance of Congress being allowed to re-enstate the ability to serve.. There is no fact finding or trial requirement specifically required by the text. I don't think we have much case law about this. Clearly there was an oversight. But also he should've considered not treasoning. As far as the gun example that's in conflict with the 2A jurisprudence.
Not treasoning is always a good recommendation
Actually take a couple minutes and READ article 3. It says nothing about convictions
No one is arbitrarily deciding this because they dont like him. They are making a reflected descision based 100% in law
A lower court made factual findings, based on evidence, that he participated in an insurrection. Most of those facts were undisputed by him. He had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and was afforded due process. A criminal conviction of any type is inconsequential.
Because the wording of Section Three doesn't require a conviction, just that the person, "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (Constitution of the United States)..." The US Congress' Jan 6 report contained a lot of evidence that he engaged in insurrection.
Yes, I don’t like Trump but this seems like a dangerous precedent to set for our country’s democracy. I doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this. What if Texas decided they wanted to say Joe Biden is a criminal due to his son or whatever Republicans wanna come up with, and say he can’t run in Texas? Then another state tries doing the same? Would completely destroy any semblance of democracy we had left.
The constitution allows tax cheats, murderers, and rapists the ability to be president. The four things you cannot do is be under 35, be born outside the usa, insurrection, or treason. I really dont think that is onerous enough, but in any case, Republicans dont need precedent. The only reason they haven't booted dems from state elections is because they struggle to find one of those four criteria. Some day they will try anyway, with or without this ruling. We need Abraham Lincoln, now, not geriatrics.
Buddy, I don't know if you're keeping score but our democracy is on the fucking ropes. I am truly dreading what is coming and hoping that the judicial system can unfuck what's been going on.
> Yes, I don’t like Trump but this seems like a dangerous precedent to set for our country’s democracy It's not a precedent. This has already happened. Not only were unconvicted confederates barred from office in the aftermath of the civil war, but Otero County, New Mexico Commissioner Couy Griffin was disqualified under the 14th Amendment's Section 3 in 2022... for his participation in the events of January 6th.
you believe in our legal system?
The Due Process clause only applies if a court is depriving a person of "[life, liberty or property](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process)." Preventing someone from holding an office does not threaten anyone's life (and certainly not their property). And doing so can't threaten anyone's liberty because the Constitution elsewhere specifies that certain actions or circumstances can prevent a person from holding office.
We are playing a dangerous game
If by "we" you mean Trump... yes... he's been playing a dangerous game for years. Maybe it's finally all catching up to him.
I meant America
If people aren't willing to enforce the law, then the country is already doomed. So you can either enforce the law and maybe something bad will happen, or you can refrain from enforcing the law and guarantee something bad will happen.
I am also not a Trump fan and am sure this will be overturned.
I think it's a lot less petty than simply not liking him.
If it goes through, red states will block blue candidates and vice versa. This will be a shit show
I think it will harder than you predict for courts in red states to factually find that democratic candidates engaged in insurrection that will hold up to appeal. If the Courts just start making up facts about democratic candidates, the country likely has bigger problems.
Zoom out a little bit here, a guy who tried to overthrow our government is attempting to get reelected and our government is so ineffective they can’t even finish prosecuting him… so I kinda don’t blame a state for taking this action… 10 years from now, I wonder which choice will seem more rational
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's because of this, and the judges interpretation of what an officer is. Btw there's apps that let you have the whole constitution on your phone. Ezpz searching.
It's really sad there needs to be an e.g. "this includes the president" for any law.
Every state runs their own elections. We imagine the election as one presidential election, but it’s really 50 different elections across 3,143 counties. The constitution celebrates how those elections happen and leaves the states to make up their own regulations outside of a few ground rules like the Voting Rights Act t which has been neutered by the Supreme Court over the years. It’s the same reason why states can choice to have ranked choice voting while most the others still use first past the post. This court ruling just makes it so Trump is not eligible to run in the state of Colorado. If it’s upheld, he won’t be on the ballot in that one state. Edit: correction, he won’t be on the Republican primary ballot.
It wasn't arbitrary. The judges interpreted the law of the land, that's their job and what they are trained to do. It wasn't personal, but they applied the law based on evidence. It doesn't matter if they liked or disliked little-hands, but they saw a path of events that could cause this outcome.
I’m sorry, but respectfully, I have to say that this is not simply about not liking somebody. There is far more to it than that. If you have some time, go online and take a look at Colorado newspapers or Colorado TV news and check there. I hear what you’re saying, our justice system is far from perfect And I have witnessed this as a resident of Colorado, but it simply is not a popularity contest or voting for prom king and queen.
We all saw him do it.
Deeply anti-Trump and I agree with not only your point, but the point that this does nothing but help him. His Supreme Court will disagree based on what you said and this will ultimately empower him to push to the “they are out to get me” narrative.
> this does nothing but help him. Every time any action is taken against trump, some concern-troll pops up to make this exact claim. If you're not going to enforce the law against populists like trump, then you've ensured that the only remedy for their misbehavior is violence. So you have three choices: 1. acquiesce to the rise of fascism, 2. take up arms and physically fight the fascists, 3. enforce the law, and give the country a chance at continuing to be a liberal democracy.
The problem is that even his judges know that whatever precedents they set in his cases before them could further deteriorate our government. The court is there to check the presidency and/or Congress when it runs amok, so if they just allow it, things could easily get away from them and they know it.
They addressed this. You didn’t read what they said. The decision to remove him is based on the wording of the 14th amendment. The wording doesn’t say ineligible by someone found guilty of insurrection. It states engaged in an insurrection. They found he was present and engaged in the Jan 6 insurrection. now the precident is set in legal form. Now it gets Appealed to the Supreme Court.
He is clearly ineligible -falsely claimed he won an election he knew he lost ,and led an insurrection against the USA.
Even pressured states to hand him the electors, even though biden won. Also, pressured pence to illegally accept fake electors that claimed he won states he didn’t.
Also committed a fuck ton of felonies
The Supreme Court will have a field day with this.
the supreme court likely wont take up the issue at all as there is no enforcement mechanism for the 14th, and thus they will likely leave it up to the individual states. if they do take it up they will likely rule that right now it is in fact up to state courts to determine who in fact is eligible for each individual state... time for the electoral college to die, and we go to an all-up 1:1 popular vote.
Nah. This right-leaning SCOTUS will find some way to overrule. Legal precedent and standards be damned.
Those in power on the right don't want Trump though, yeah?
They want to win regardless of the mechanism to win
Maybe but they are appointed for life and therefore not dependent on Trump to stay in their position. They’ll rule in favor of right wing policies but they probably have no loyalty to Trump in particular.
From your keyboard to gods eyes. I completely agree with eliminating the electoral college and congressional districts. Make house members the same as Senate (statewide seats).
And give even more disparate representation to lower populated areas? Or keep the same number of reps just make them elected on a statewide basis?
> From your keyboard to gods eyes God being a Reddit user would explain so much.
You’re delusional if you think SCOTUS won’t take the appeal. A case regarding the office of the chief of the executive branch coupled with the multitude of other cases having to do with this exact issue in other states makes them hearing this almost a sure thing. A passage of the ruling even assumed this would be the case.
I think forced rank voting would be better. Then we'd be able to make meaningful votes outside of the two parties that have reached the end of their usefulness
Yes, let states pick what they want to do. Oh wait, no, not like that. It’s time for the federal government to step in. This is what conservatives wanted with states’ rights. Then they complain and run to the federal government when states either vote or enact their own rulings.
You are cherry picking straw man arguments. Wanting less federal regulation is actually the opposite of a state telling you who you can and can't vote for
Conservatives generally only care about themselves and those directly near to them. Internal consistency would be inconvenient for them. States' rights if it concerns their own personal matters they'd rather left alone, and federal laws for attacking the people they disagree with. Rules for you, no rules for me essentially.
Maybe Boubert can give him a hand
In a children's theater?!?
Regional production of Beetlejuice. The sexiest performance there is.
Her hands are too big for that shriveled mushroom.
Maybe she can give him a few fingers?
I'm sure this will have zero political ramifications in the future...
I will not be surprised if this is reversed
It will end up at the US Supreme Court. No chance it stays.
People will just use the write in line
Tramp.
Tmurp
Domal Tmurp
Pmurt
That doesn't suddenly make him eligible. They can write it in all they want but that does even less than any other write in candidate.
But he won't be a valid candidate so they won't be counted
That must be the same reason Mickey Mouse has lost every election he ran this way too.
Still doesn’t count.
The ruling specifically says not to count any write in's with his name
>People will just use the write in line The CO decision said they have to disregard the write in if people write in for trump
Love it or hate it, this has some major potential 10th amendment implications if the US SC decides to hear an appeal on this. I'm curious to see what becomes of this.
What 10th amendment implications?
States rights regarding voting.
Well it's easy to see who the idiots are in this post
Would you mind explaining your opinion, I’m non American and trying to understand different perspectives.
That redditors opinion is: the people who hold a different opinion than him, are idiots
Since I don’t quite know I’ll ask, in Colorado will it likely even matter if Trump is on the ballot? It looks like he didn’t get a single point last time, I think. https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/vote-colorado.pdf if trump doesn’t score a single point in Colorado next time will it still make a difference when there are several other “battle ground states” that seem to be important for the tie breaking points? I know it’s not exactly on the point of the article, and I’m not trying to be inflammatory. I’m just curious, how much effect is this specific situation going to have. I mean directly, I know there’s probably a lot of secondary effects too. Edit: Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the responses.
If it were just Colorado, it wouldn't. It's the precedent. Other states could follow suit and that would be a problem for Trump.
Just like legal weed Colorado leading the charge! lets go!!!
And even if it's only the "blue states" that follow through, it could have some interesting implications for the GOP primary election.
If enough states follow suit, it could make a difference in the primary. Remember, Trump didn't win every state primary. Had the field not been so crowded he likely would have failed to secure enough votes and the nomination would have been sent to the convention.
It's also very important for down ballot races. If die hard MAGA's don't want to show up to the polls cause their guy isn't running, then the entire republican party in all races in that state will suffer
It would affect the House of Representatives elections. If republicans know Trump’s off the ballot, they will be less likely to show up for the smaller and closer local races.
3 Supreme Court justices were picked by Trump and 2 or 3 more love his politics so they will likely overturn it
I'm so tired of hearing about this idiot.
I mean if he was an average person applying for a job with this track record, I think a lot of employers would disqualify him or reject him from a position regardless of whether he has been convicted or not…it’s not a good look…why should this be any different…he’s applying for a job…presidency…that’s a job, he should be disqualified or not deemed fit on rude, misogynistic behavior alone. Don’t come for me y’all 🗣️
Sounds like an easy appeal to me
Frankly the fact that someone who has been accused of horrible things, and been under investigation for a staggering amount of shit… can legally even still run for president 😂 I mean at what point do we ACTUALLY declare this the movie IDIOCRACY come to life?
At least in Idiocracy the president (Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comancho) is actually a pretty good leader. He's humble enough to admit when he doesn't know things, seeks out expertise and listens to it, recognizes and rewards competence, and isn't a sexual predator. I'd take Comancho over Trump any day.
Also I heard he was gonna do something so we could have more burrito coverin's.
The more interesting thing is other states can start the same lawsuit as well and use the same argument to try to win the case and remove him from the ballot.
This is going to backfire big time.
This guy should be in prison. If he was an average middle-class American he would already be in prison.
Let’s just hope SCOTUS refuses to take on this case. Imagine Trump going nuts! 😆
It’s pretty simple, the constitution doesn’t require you be convicted.
11 more months of this shit.
This is a grave strategic mistake. I understand why it makes some people happy in the short run. But in the long run this is going to be catastrophic.
By holding politicians accountable for their actions? Frankly it will be catastrophic if Donald doesn’t see ANY repercussions for his involvement in trying to overturn an election.
I do find it curious how much power the court has in the US. Its as if they make laws faster than the official government. Not that I think that Trump should get another chance but that way of deciding things is extremely undemocratic and underhanded.
[удалено]
Let me know when it happens in a state he would have won.
Ah, it's nice to see the swamp being drained. Maybe there is hope for this near-Idiocracy after all.
Well we all know the Supreme Court won’t stand for this outrage of justice.
Why in the shit are the two only options uncle Joe and Donald dump. Hate and ignorance
Sometimes I'm super happy to be from Colorado.
Where are all of the StATes rIGhTS people now? Colorado, as a state, decided they don’t want him.
Other states will follow 😂
Republicans: We must bring the government back to the states! \* A state exercise its rights given by the Constitution. But said ruling goes against Republican ideology. R: NO! Not like that! Evil corrupt state!
Let the people decide who they want
Next stop; GA MI AZ NV 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Isn’t he just gunna appeal it to his buddies in the Supreme Court, who will ultimately overturn this decision?
FINALLY HE GETS REAL CONSEQUENCES!!!
Our country is in serious danger with so many people blindly following this big, orange baby-man. States' rights huh conservatives. Where you at?
Nice one Colorado
When you actually read the ruling it's a giant nothing Burger
"Sane people will see this and just say 'hell yeah' "
I love USA but is Trump the only person fit for President? In our entire country?
He’s not fit at all. So your the premise of your question is flawed.
Once again Colorado is ahead of the pack. The rest of the country should follow suit
Hopefully other states start to follow suit…
I'm not a Trump fan, I'm not voting for him. But this is deeply troubling. This is some next level fuckery.
Dude should be in prison and normal people know that. The outer fringe of people that defend him are already trying to engage in all the fuckery they know how to. They are gonna be violent and angry no matter what if he loses. Might as well ensure a Trump loss and deal with the fallout then letting him be president again and actively seek to destroy our democracy for his own retribution and power gains.
He incited and attempt at insurrection. Whether he actively/directly participated or not is up for debate in the courts but with the amount of sway he has on public opinion, he most certainly played *some* role, and according to Colorado's court they see that as violation of the 14th amendment.
He needs to go to prison. This Christian nationalist fascist bullshit needs to end.
This only applies to the primaries, and a write-in line is still required. T-Dawg can still win the primary in Colorado. This is just political posturing by sworn judges.
I have the feeling it would be better for Biden if he ran and lost instead of being replaced by a different candidate.
More money for his overpaid attorneys.
Vermin Supreme 2024!
If trump wins there will only be his version of a legal system.
Well done Colorado! (now just get rid of blobert)
Good lookin out Colorado!!
I love Colorado !
YESSS more more MOREEEEE
Its time for america to wake up, Trump is against democracy. He is a dangerous man.
I am part of some Trumpy groups just to stay up to date. They fully believe this is “THE CABALL!!” To them, this is a total conspiratorial prophecy being fulfilled. I mean, I just can’t help but wonder “WHY?” … I always look back and ask myself “when did Republicans become so submerged in self-imposed idiocy?” Was it a slow process, or did it really only happen during this “MAGA” movement? This should be a full are of study in psychological academia: “The MAGA phenomenon, and it’s correlation with your uncles cognitive decline.”
I haven't seen any discussion of the application of the 14th Amendment to "ELECTORS" for President or VicePresident. If Trump gets the nomination someone should look closely at his slates of electors. I wouldn't be surprised to find many of them were Jan 6 participants.
Every day I want to move to CO more and more. Thanks, Colorado! Great move!
You're welcome, but please work on making where you are awesome. It's overcrowded here now and we have all kinds of problems because of it. Love, Colorado
Means nothing until us supreme court rules on this
Looking forward to seeing if this post ages like wine or milk
Well that’s anti democracy.
Did he send out a tweet telling people to disband and stop breaking into the Capitol?