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

[Inactive 698]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:23 PM, TortureMeOnReplay said:

 

Again, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of Republican voters. 

.

[Inactive 698]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:05 PM, MOT said:

Yeah, thanks for all that, I know it's a big story, but all I asked you for was the name, and it turns out it was Hunter Biden, but you just said Biden when you made the comment originally. If you just say Biden, people will assume you mean Joe Biden, e.g. you used Biden twice more in the comment and you did mean Joe Biden, and I see you've edited the line I asked about so it now says Hunter Biden.

.

[MOT 3,608]

5 minutes ago, PartySick said:

At least my suffering has meaning

I see at least three or four pickup trucks with some variation of "LET'S GO BRANDON" in huge letters across the tailgate, doors, or hood EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Asking me to find reason in these lunatics is like...well, I can't think of an example that's more extreme than thinking there's an iota of legitimate reasoning underneath a MAGA hat

I'm sorry for your troubles. I'm in Ireland so it's less urgent for me, but if that p---k gets back in it won't be good news for us.

[27monster27 15,863]

Here's a video about how Trump is taking a lot of it, and it refutes a lot of the points of his die-hard supporters:

 

[PartySick 172,542]

15 minutes ago, MOT said:

I'm sorry for your troubles. I'm in Ireland so it's less urgent for me, but if that p---k gets back in it won't be good news for us.

I'm still pretty hopeful that he'll get nowhere close to the white house again tbh

[GregJA 5,531]

This will do nothing more than move him further up the polls

 

I swear you Americans do everything to inadvertently elect him...

[Economy 52,854]

So what is their basis for doing this exactly? What part of the constitution, OP isnt overly detailed and Im not expert in US politics

 

Is it cuz of impeachment? Because of criminal charges?

[Inactive 698]

On 12/20/2023 at 6:19 PM, Economy said:

So what is their basis for doing this exactly? What part of the constitution, OP isnt overly detailed and Im not expert in US politics

 

Is it cuz of impeachment? Because of criminal charges?

.

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,972]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

So what is their basis for doing this exactly? What part of the constitution, OP isnt overly detailed and Im not expert in US politics

 

Is it cuz of impeachment? Because of criminal charges?

14th Amendment, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,972]

4 hours ago, GregJA said:

This will do nothing more than move him further up the polls

 

I swear you Americans do everything to inadvertently elect him...

Have seen very little evidence to suggest this tbh. The indictments haven’t helped him, even though they were allegedly going to do the same thing etc etc 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,972]

2 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution which was written to prevent confederates from returning to office. They’re arguing because of Jan 6, Trump cannot hold office. But the language says that members of the house or ELECTORS of the president cannot hold office. It’s likely going to be struck down in the Supreme Court. And republicans are already wanting to use it against Kamala Harris for bailing murderers and rapists out of prison who rioted in 2020. I think this move is going to backfire for dems, and fuel “election interference” rhetoric 

 

“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.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-79373b5043976588b599fc00ede049e8#

“…as an officer of the United States…” 

Officer (noun): a holder of public or civil office. 

 

[Inactive 698]

On 12/20/2023 at 8:43 PM, Ladle Ghoulash said:

“…as an officer of the United States…” 

Officer (noun): a holder of public or civil office. 

 

.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,970]

15 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

That’s a ridiculous talking point, the suit was brought by a left leaning DC organization whose leader is a democrat. They filed it on behalf of a total of 4 (four) republicans and 2 independent voters so that they could file it in Colorado and was decided on by a court entirely appointed by a democratic governor. To argue there is no political biases is absurd.

Political bias is gonna be in every political decision ever made. It's innate to humans. If there weren't political bias then things like abortion bans probably wouldn't be a thing. My point was that this isn't a one-sided thing and that even Republicans believe he should be ineligible to run. I feel like you're trying to minimize my numbers and dramaticise yours. You're making it sound like the justices were all appointed by a single governor. When they were in fact appointed by 3 (three). They then go through a 2 (two) year trial period where they go through a retention election. It's not a single guy putting a bunch of people in this ultimate power 

9 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

I’ll leave it to the Supreme Court to define… “One point of contention is whether classifying the president as an officer of the United States conflicts with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution ( Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, which in part concerns appointment by the president of Officers of the United States). Citing a report by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 2010 case of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board stating that "The people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and Seth Barrett Tillman, member of the Faculty of Law at Maynooth University, have argued that the president is not constitutionally an "officer of the United States".'" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States#:~:text=An officer of the United,a certain type of official.

 

It can’t be chopped up and taken out of context. Not any “officer”, an officer OF the United States which the clause states the President is empowered to appoint. The clause also notably does not say president of the United States while it does make a point to say Senators and Representatives. They are elected officials, like the President, and an officer OF the United States is assigned to their position by a superior. Like military officers, who could stage a coupe. 

The Supreme Court already defined what an officer is in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Funnily enough that's in the same Wikipedia article you linked. 

"This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

 

Furthermore Officers of the United States is broadly defined in Buckley v. Valeo.

"Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States,""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

 

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,972]

25 minutes ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Political bias is gonna be in every political decision ever made. It's innate to humans. If there weren't political bias then things like abortion bans probably wouldn't be a thing. My point was that this isn't a one-sided thing and that even Republicans believe he should be ineligible to run. I feel like you're trying to minimize my numbers and dramaticise yours. You're making it sound like the justices were all appointed by a single governor. When they were in fact appointed by 3 (three). They then go through a 2 (two) year trial period where they go through a retention election. It's not a single guy putting a bunch of people in this ultimate power 

The Supreme Court already defined what an officer is in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Funnily enough that's in the same Wikipedia article you linked. 

"This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

 

Furthermore Officers of the United States is broadly defined in Buckley v. Valeo.

"Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States,""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

 

 

This point about who constitutes an “officer” is exactly what I’ve been saying. Thank you for finding SCOTUS precedent on the issue!

[Inactive 698]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:49 AM, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Political bias is gonna be in every political decision ever made. It's innate to humans. If there weren't political bias then things like abortion bans probably wouldn't be a thing. My point was that this isn't a one-sided thing and that even Republicans believe he should be ineligible to run. I feel like you're trying to minimize my numbers and dramaticise yours. You're making it sound like the justices were all appointed by a single governor. When they were in fact appointed by 3 (three). They then go through a 2 (two) year trial period where they go through a retention election. It's not a single guy putting a bunch of people in this ultimate power 

The Supreme Court already defined what an officer is in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Funnily enough that's in the same Wikipedia article you linked. 

"This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

 

Furthermore Officers of the United States is broadly defined in Buckley v. Valeo.

"Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States,""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

 

 

 

On 12/21/2023 at 7:49 AM, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Political bias is gonna be in every political decision ever made. It's innate to humans. If there weren't political bias then things like abortion bans probably wouldn't be a thing. My point was that this isn't a one-sided thing and that even Republicans believe he should be ineligible to run. I feel like you're trying to minimize my numbers and dramaticise yours. You're making it sound like the justices were all appointed by a single governor. When they were in fact appointed by 3 (three). They then go through a 2 (two) year trial period where they go through a retention election. It's not a single guy putting a bunch of people in this ultimate power 

The Supreme Court already defined what an officer is in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Funnily enough that's in the same Wikipedia article you linked. 

"This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

 

Furthermore Officers of the United States is broadly defined in Buckley v. Valeo.

"Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States,""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

 

 

.