Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

10 hours ago, Nemo said:

It's not the least bit arbitrary. I don't know how you can even say that.

Of course, it is arbitrary. It even is extremely arbitrary:

- 49 of 50 states did not arrive at this conclusion (nearly all Dem and all Rep states)

- it would be least arbitrary if either all or none included him

- It was a 4:3 decision in Colorado

- All seven Coloarado judges are Dem-appointed and three said there is no legal basis to exclude Trump

- Previously, Sarah Wallace, Colorado judge appointed by a Dem, ruled that Trump is eligible and that section 3 of am. 14. does not apply to presidents

- Even CNN (and they hate Trump so much) writes that this section 3 is vague and that one can neither conclude nor not conclude without a bias that it includes presidents, describing it as unexpected and surprising

10 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I’m sorry, being banned from holding future office on the basis of having tried to overthrow the gov’t as a remedy provided by the literal Constitution is an “arbitrary justification?” Be so fckn serious right now 

But this isn't the question. The questions are:

- Does it apply to presidents? Some people say no, that it does not apply to presidents like  Dem-appointed Sarah Wallace and the majority of the other states until now, otherwise they would have mentioned the most important political figure and not less important figures instead. Some people say yes, because they interpret officer as meaning also presidents, while others say officers are below president. There is no consensus on this, which makes it arbitrary. I see it like CNN, it is too vague too tell clearly.

- Is Colorado SC actually entitled to decide on this? (see post of MOT)

The process must happen on a legal basis, otherwise it is not constitutional.

5 hours ago, MOT said:

 but how can you be deemed to be guilty of a crime without having been tried and convicted for it ?

One cannot if one follows rule of law and this is why 49 of 50 states and 3 of the 7 judges so far have not disqualified him. I agree with you, it is just too vague. I agree also with some others and think that SCOTUS might or might not take it and it might be left to the federal states because SCOTUS has acted like this several times before, we cannot predict its decision.

The Colorado decision already now is 'causing furore in the world and has caused damage to America's reputation as a democracy.

The decision is even bad for Colorado residents themselves, because if it stays like this Biden will now take his victory as granted and not make any efforts to please Colorado, he likely would have won there anyway but this is not 100% sure, he would have had at least real competition, therefore he will focus his attention on other states and will not feel the need to make any promises to Colorado. In four years, Colorado residents will complain that they feel neglected and other states got more improvement. They can thank their SC for that.

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,992]

43 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

Of course, it is arbitrary. It even is extremely arbitrary:

- 49 of 50 states did not arrive at this conclusion (nearly all Dem and all Rep states)

- it would be least arbitrary if either all or none included him

- It was a 4:3 decision in Colorado

- All seven Coloarado judges are Dem-appointed and three said there is no legal basis to exclude Trump

- Previously, Sarah Wallace, Colorado judge appointed by a Dem, ruled that Trump is eligible and that section 3 of am. 14. does not apply to presidents

- Even CNN (and they hate Trump so much) writes that this section 3 is vague and that one can neither conclude nor not conclude without a bias that it includes presidents, describing it as unexpected and surprising

But this isn't the question. The questions are:

- Does it apply to presidents? Some people say no, that it does not apply to presidents like  Dem-appointed Sarah Wallace and the majority of the other states until now, otherwise they would have mentioned the most important political figure and not less important figures instead. Some people say yes, because they interpret officer as meaning also presidents, while others say officers are below president. There is no consensus on this, which makes it arbitrary. I see it like CNN, it is too vague too tell clearly.

- Is Colorado SC actually entitled to decide on this? (see post of MOT)

The process must happen on a legal basis, otherwise it is not constitutional.

One cannot if one follows rule of law and this is why 49 of 50 states and 3 of the 7 judges so far have not disqualified him. I agree with you, it is just too vague. I agree also with some others and think that SCOTUS might or might not take it and it might be left to the federal states because SCOTUS has acted like this several times before, we cannot predict its decision.

The Colorado decision already now is 'causing furore in the world and has caused damage to America's reputation as a democracy.

The decision is even bad for Colorado residents themselves, because if it stays like this Biden will now take his victory as granted and not make any efforts to please Colorado, he likely would have won there anyway but this is not 100% sure, he would have had at least real competition, therefore he will focus his attention on other states and will not feel the need to make any promises to Colorado. In four years, Colorado residents will complain that they feel neglected and other states got more improvement. They can thank their SC for that.

It hasn’t been adjudicated on in all 50 states, so no, it hasn’t been decided on in all 50 states. Secondly, I don’t buy the “vagueness” argument surrounding Sec 3. The language clearly states an “officer” of the US. An officer is someone who holds office, the presidency is an office, thus the president is an officer. Seems like a stranger argument to imply that the president would actually be immune to this clause and such an argument is weak and pedantic at best, if not outright disingenuous. The fact that it wasn’t unanimous also doesn’t make it “arbitrary,” nor does the partisan affiliation of the judges. Also: the blame for Biden not campaigning in Colorado pretty clearly falls on the electoral college, as Trump had no chance of winning the state either way based on that system. The language of the amendment also does not explicitly call for a conviction, so it wouldn’t actually violate the rule of law to remove someone under this pretext if the courts believe there is good enough reason/evidence to establish that a candidate engaged in this kind of behavior. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,992]

6 hours ago, MOT said:

My parade is being rained on from all sides.

I also wasn't aware that the Colorado Supreme Court is 100% Democrat-appointed, and even they only voted 4-3.

Much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit as well that I'm unsure about this ruling myself. I have no legal training in my own country, let alone the US, but it seems to me that they are disqualifying him on the basis of his having engaged in behaviour which amounted to the comnitting of a crime, but how can you be deemed to be guilty of a crime without having been tried and convicted for it ?

The Senate, via impeachment, can bar someone from ever holding office again without a conviction in a court of law. 

[bionic 50,111]

15 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

A similar case was appealed to SCOTUS and they declined to hear it. They could be deciding to leave it to the states, but we’ll see. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/
 

I think they'll be more compelled to hear it this time now it's actually come from a body that could affect things (and not just a person or charity etc)

[kurtz 52]

Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats and media are warning that Trump is a dangerous threat to democracy yet they would support removing him from the ballot by a court decision?

I’m not at all a Trump supporter but facts are that he is the clear leader for the Republican nomination and now leads Biden in general election polls. And he is now going to be disqualified from running due to a court decision?  Does not sound like democracy. 

[bionic 50,111]

2 minutes ago, kurtz said:

Isn’t ironic that the Democrats and media are warning that Trump is a dangerous threat to democracy yet they would support removing him from the ballot by a court decision?

I’m not at all a Trump supporter but facts are that he is the clear leader for the Republican nomination and now leads Biden In general election polls. And he is now going to be disqualified from running due to a court decision?  Does not sound like democracy. 

If the Constitution is the backbone of American democracy and binds the institutions within American democracy, then its application is upholding democracy, not a threat to it.

If the Colorado Supreme Court (or whoever) have legitimately and correctly applied the Constitution and thus deemed Trump to be an ineligible candidate, then its not their fault that the Republicans continue to run him as a candidate.

I agree in general with your post that I'd rather Trump not be disqualified on a technicality and he should be formally convicted etc, but if the Court is correctly applying THE most important document in US constitutional law then thats not an affront to democracy. It would be worse if they concluded the Constitution barred him but allowed him to run anyway

[Dennis 8,391]

Personally, I think this judgement would've been sound if a Jury found him guilty of inciting an insurrection. This court could've then used that verdict to apply the rule and disqualify him. Issue here, is that this court did its own fact-finding, rather than a Jury.

If we're seeing people on GGD out of all places having issues with this judgment, one has to wonder what the rest of the country thinks about it. 

[Bronco 25,129]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

The decision is even bad for Colorado residents themselves, because if it stays like this Biden will now take his victory as granted and not make any efforts to please Colorado,

Why? 

Have you read the actual result of this case? 

This ruling only applies to the republican primary election, not the general election. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,992]

1 hour ago, kurtz said:

Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats and media are warning that Trump is a dangerous threat to democracy yet they would support removing him from the ballot by a court decision?

I’m not at all a Trump supporter but facts are that he is the clear leader for the Republican nomination and now leads Biden in general election polls. And he is now going to be disqualified from running due to a court decision?  Does not sound like democracy. 

Removing him from ballot based on the Constitution isn’t a threat to democracy lmao 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,992]

39 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Personally, I think this judgement would've been sound if a Jury found him guilty of inciting an insurrection. This court could've then used that verdict to apply the rule and disqualify him. Issue here, is that this court did its own fact-finding, rather than a Jury.

If we're seeing people on GGD out of all places having issues with this judgment, one has to wonder what the rest of the country thinks about it. 

While I agree that a conviction would make the ruling more compelling, the Constitution also doesn’t require it. There are plenty of similar instances where a judge can establish the likelihood that a crime was committed without requiring a criminal conviction (crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, civil suits regarding criminal activity etc) 

[MOT 3,608]

38 minutes ago, bionic said:

If the Constitution is the backbone of American democracy and binds the institutions within American democracy, then its application is upholding democracy, not a threat to it.

If the Colorado Supreme Court (or whoever) have legitimately and correctly applied the Constitution and thus deemed Trump to be an ineligible candidate, then its not their fault that the Republicans continue to run him as a candidate.

I agree in general with your post that I'd rather Trump not be disqualified on a technicality and he should be formally convicted etc, but if the Court is correctly applying THE most important document in US constitutional law then thats not an affront to democracy. It would be worse if they concluded the Constitution barred him but allowed him to run anyway

Spot on imo. I myself am dubious about disqualifying someone for a crime that he hasn't been convicted of, but it's really a technical legal question and is way above my paygrade. It's all happening by the book and the next step will be for  the US Supreme Court to make a judgement. Where it would get undemocratic would be if Trump, or anyone else, refused to accept their verdict.

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,992]

1 hour ago, bionic said:

If the Constitution is the backbone of American democracy and binds the institutions within American democracy, then its application is upholding democracy, not a threat to it.

If the Colorado Supreme Court (or whoever) have legitimately and correctly applied the Constitution and thus deemed Trump to be an ineligible candidate, then its not their fault that the Republicans continue to run him as a candidate.

I agree in general with your post that I'd rather Trump not be disqualified on a technicality and he should be formally convicted etc, but if the Court is correctly applying THE most important document in US constitutional law then thats not an affront to democracy. It would be worse if they concluded the Constitution barred him but allowed him to run anyway

I may just buy Bionic on iTunes after reading this.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

1 hour ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

It hasn’t been adjudicated on in all 50 states, so no, it hasn’t been decided on in all 50 states. Secondly, I don’t buy the “vagueness” argument surrounding Sec 3. The language clearly states an “officer” of the US. [...]

Indeed, we have to wait for the final say of the remaining states and possibly SCOTUS (which might stay passive). It can still change. My answer only applies for right now and so far, I cannot judge what hasn't happened until now. Though, as long as not the majority or 66,7%+ of federal states share the same view, it can be considered as (very) arbitrary.

Hmhm, it's quite complicated because sec 3 of amd. 14 has multiple conditions attached to it. There is evidence that there have been times and instances where the president was and is not considered an officer, while others point out to instances where he was considered as such, and the oath also matters. If it wasn't arbitrary, lawyers and judges wouldn't spend countless hours and hundreds of pages discussing it and its details, then it would be simply clear. The sec 3 is BADLY WORDED - if people in the past had phrased it clearer, it would have avoided confusion, chaos and misunderstanding.

I put into spoiler a contrary view:

Spoiler

Section 3’s jurisdictional element applies to exactly four defined categories of state and federal positions. President Trump clearly does not fit into three of these categories. Trump never swore an oath as a “member of Congress,” “a member of any state legislature,” or an “executive or judicial officer of any state.” Indeed, Trump was the only President in American history to have never held prior state or federal, civilian or military, public office. Therefore, the only way for Section 3’s jurisdictional element to cover President Trump would be if he falls into the fourth category: he took an oath to support the Constitution as an “officer of the United States.” Trump only swore one constitutional oath: as President of the United States. In short, for President Trump to be subject to Section 3 disqualification, he must have violated the offense element and fit within the jurisdictional element. And in order to fit within the jurisdictional element, the President must be an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3.

The House’s impeachment article, however, did not address this threshold issue. It stated:

[S]ection 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office . . . under the United States.”

In fact, Section 3 does not apply to “any person” or even “any person” who committed the conduct provided for in the offense element. Here, the House seemed to assume that the phrase “officer of the United States” was equivalent to the phrase “any person.” Perhaps the House assumed that a President is an “officer of the United States.” Still, the House’s position was not entirely clear.

After the Senate trial, Trump was not convicted. Therefore, he could not be disqualified from holding future office pursuant to the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. But even after Trump’s acquittal, efforts to disqualify the former President based on Section 3 continue. For example, there is a pending concurrent resolution that would find “President Donald J. Trump ‘as an officer of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or g[ave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ making him ineligible for future office . . . .” This resolution assumed that the President is an “officer of the United States.”

We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. In both eras, there is substantial evidence that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.”

https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w

Full article:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6103f36b5eee6bf0ab2c1d/t/61bfe1e7f415793ae6492815/1639965161489/15.1_Blackman_Final+12.16.21.pdf

 

1 hour ago, kurtz said:

 Does not sound like democracy. 

In European media, in the comments, they already label Colorado as The New Russia of America.

40 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Why? 

Have you read the actual result of this case? 

This ruling only applies to the republican primary election, not the general election. 

Yes, but BBC writes that it might start a chain domino reaction where others states might follow suit and then another Republican could narrowly beat Trump. It may not seem likely as of now but fairness matters and things may turn out different than expected.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67770912

[MOT 3,608]

22 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

Indeed, we have to wait for the final say of the remaining states and possibly SCOTUS (which might stay passive). It can still change. My answer only applies for right now and so far, I cannot judge what hasn't happened until now. Though, as long as not the majority or at least 2/3 of federal states share the same view, it can be considered as (very) arbitrary.

Hmhm, it's quite complicated because sec 3 of amd. 14 has multiple conditions attached to it. There is evidence that there have been times and instances where the president was and is not considered an officer, while others point out to instances where he was considered as such, and the oath also matters. If it wasn't arbitrary, lawyers and judges wouldn't spend countless hours and hundreds of pages discussing it and its details, then it would be simply clear. The sec 3 is BADLY WORDED - if people in the past had phrased it clearer, it would have avoided confusion, chaos and misunderstanding.

I put into spoiler a contrary view:

  Reveal hidden contents

Section 3’s jurisdictional element applies to exactly four defined categories of state and federal positions. President Trump clearly does not fit into three of these categories. Trump never swore an oath as a “member of Congress,” “a member of any state legislature,” or an “executive or judicial officer of any state.” Indeed, Trump was the only President in American history to have never held prior state or federal, civilian or military, public office. Therefore, the only way for Section 3’s jurisdictional element to cover President Trump would be if he falls into the fourth category: he took an oath to support the Constitution as an “officer of the United States.” Trump only swore one constitutional oath: as President of the United States. In short, for President Trump to be subject to Section 3 disqualification, he must have violated the offense element and fit within the jurisdictional element. And in order to fit within the jurisdictional element, the President must be an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3.

The House’s impeachment article, however, did not address this threshold issue. It stated:

[S]ection 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office . . . under the United States.”

In fact, Section 3 does not apply to “any person” or even “any person” who committed the conduct provided for in the offense element. Here, the House seemed to assume that the phrase “officer of the United States” was equivalent to the phrase “any person.” Perhaps the House assumed that a President is an “officer of the United States.” Still, the House’s position was not entirely clear.

After the Senate trial, Trump was not convicted. Therefore, he could not be disqualified from holding future office pursuant to the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. But even after Trump’s acquittal, efforts to disqualify the former President based on Section 3 continue. For example, there is a pending concurrent resolution that would find “President Donald J. Trump ‘as an officer of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or g[ave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ making him ineligible for future office . . . .” This resolution assumed that the President is an “officer of the United States.”

We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. In both eras, there is substantial evidence that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.”

https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w

Full article:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6103f36b5eee6bf0ab2c1d/t/61bfe1e7f415793ae6492815/1639965161489/15.1_Blackman_Final+12.16.21.pdf

 

In European media, in the comments, they already label Colorado as The New Russia of America.

Yes, but BBC writes that it might start a chain domino reaction where others states might follow suit and then another Republican could narrowly beat Trump. It may not seem likely as of now but fairness matters and things may turn out different than expected.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67770912

The Colorado Suoreme Court are a lone voice for now, and they may remain a lone voice, but they have given a 200-page ruling. I'm struggling to see how that could be described as arbitrary. 

[MOT 3,608]

Incidentally, I would guess that even now there are magas trying to think up grounds for disqualifying Biden, eg he can't be on the ballot because he's's the subject of an impeachment enquiry.