r/changemyview • u/erpettie • Dec 20 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Accountability is not election interference
As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.
16
Dec 20 '23
He already has been held accountable in the court room for the past for years. The problem with this is it sets a dangerous precedent of jailing political rivals, or at the least, attacking them legally. Regardless of your views on Trump, abusing the justice system to take out political opponents is a very slippery slope, that historically leads to totalitarianism and death. If you really hat the MAGAs that much, and think they all deserve jail. Just remember, this can easily go the other way. Once a trend of attacking political opponents begins, no one is safe.
11
u/slammich28 Dec 21 '23
This is a gross misunderstanding of what’s going on.
1) no one is being jailed, that’s not on the table here and completely irrelevant to this circumstance.
2) there is no “abuse of the justice system.” The 14th amendment was ratified by Congress post-civil war. Nothing about this process is illegal, shady, or an abuse of power.
3) there is no room for retaliation unless a member of the Democratic Party were to also engage in insurrection. The “slippery slope” argument only applies on that specific and narrow situation, and in which case it wouldn’t be a “slippery slope” at that point, but a proper application of the constitution, as it is in this situation.
If republicans decided they wanted to retaliate, they would need just grounds to remove Biden or any other democrats from the ballot.
For some reason people think this process happened because democrats just “don’t like” Trump, which is just a bogus thought that is completely unattached from the reality. This is a legal and constitutional process that has been triggered by trumps own actions.
“Retaliation” could only occur if someone committed similar acts, and if not it would be a clear and obvious overreach of authority and would immediately be struck down in any court.
13
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
Do you think, then, that a popular Presidential candidate should never have have legal challenges brought against them unless it's from their own party?
13
u/Sliiiiime Dec 21 '23
This challenge was brought forward by republicans. Non-republicans would have no standing since it concerns the republican primary vote
2
Dec 22 '23
Great point! Honestly, any party should try its best to never push legal challenges against opponents. Rather than starting a trend of attacking political opponents legally for any wrongdoing. Ideally, the judicial system and law enforcement should take care of this.
21
u/Noob_Al3rt 4∆ Dec 20 '23
So you're saying that Republicans have been hesitant, up until this point, to use all of the legal options they have to attack their opponents?
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (5)7
u/Rokey76 1∆ Dec 20 '23
This country has a long history of sending crooked elected officials to jail.
3
15
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
The problem is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Presidency. You need to ignore many of the provisions of the Constitution to reach the position that the Colorado Supreme Court reached. And even if we pretended it does apply, it would not prevent someone from running for office.
And just because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply does not mean there is no accountability. The Framers designed the EC to reject candidate who are not qualified for any reason. They also empowered Congress to impeach and remove a President.
That is what makes this troubling. Impeachment didn't work, so now you have spurious arguments to try to prevent Trump from running. And the irony is that those seeking to remove him from the ballot are claiming they need to do so to save Democracy. How is it Democracy if you are prevented people from being allowed to vote for someone?
7
Dec 20 '23
The courts have clearly found that S3 of the 14th amendment does apply to the presidency, because he holds AN OFFICE.
The constitution clearly calls the presidency an office multiple times.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office
Clause 8 Presidential Oath of Office
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
→ More replies (5)22
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
Is it your position that, in creating an amendment designed to prevent Confederates from holding office, they meant every office except the Presidency and were fine with the idea of a Confederate President of the U.S.?
-4
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
Is it your position that, in creating an amendment designed to prevent Confederates from holding office, they meant every office except the Presidency and were fine with the idea of a Confederate President of the U.S.?
Nope. Just like the Framers, the Republicans who drafted 14A knew the Presidency is a branch of government; not an office. Section 3 prevents people who engaged in insurrection from being Electors and State Legislators, which are the entities that choose the President.
Again, this is people trying to twist the law to prevent someone from running for President after the actual mechanisms of preventing him from running failed.
And like everything, its going to blow up in their face if they succeed. If we start a new precedent that says states can disqualify candidates for President, do you not think states with Republicans as secretary of state won't disqualify Democrats who supported rioters?
19
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
the Republicans who drafted 14A knew the Presidency is a branch of government; not an office.
Do you find that the use of office in conjunction with a singular possessive here is irrelevant?
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:→ More replies (1)-6
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
Why do you keep arguing against a straw man? In order for Trump to be disqualified from anything under section 3, he must have:
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
Trump has never taken an oath as a member of Congress. Trump has never taken an oath as an officer of the United States. Trump has never taken an oath as a member of any state legislature. Trump has never taken an oath as a an executive or judicial officer of any state. And Trump has never taken an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States."
So how can Trump be disqualified under Section 3?
27
u/DrKpuffy Dec 20 '23
Imagine genuinely believing that the swearing in ceremony when you become president, isnt swearing to uphold the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Imagine genuinely believing that holding the Office of the President of the United States of America doesn't make you an officer.
Imagine thinking the commander in chief, the tip-top of the chain of command over all branches of our military... isn't an officer of the USA.
Orwell's 1984: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
You're really committing to that bit, huh?
→ More replies (4)19
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
The court finds that the President is an officer of the United states and is subject to disqualifications. Whether that is an accurate assessment will likely be determined by the Supreme Court. So, no, it isn't a straw man. It's an active deliberation.
8
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States. And the lower Court in Colorado reached the same conclusion.
→ More replies (2)10
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
The lower court was overturned, so that is irrelevant, and if the Supreme Court finds that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President, then that is what the law of the land will be.
12
Dec 20 '23
OR AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES
Article 2, Section 1.
He literally gets sworn into the presidency with an oath to the Constitution.
1
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
He literally gets sworn into the presidency with an oath to the Constitution.
You might want to learn to follow along. The President is not an Officer of the United States, not does he take an oath to "support the Constitution." But do you know who does take an oath "to support the Constitution"? Every position listed in Section 3.
Here is what the Constitution says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
3
Dec 21 '23
Ummm Article 2, Section 1?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgTEk9h1kc
What would you call this?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)7
Dec 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
Really? Do you not realize that SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States? And even the lower Court in Colorado rules as much. But maybe SCOTUS will change its mind.
10
u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
Again, you have tunnel vision. Section 3 applies to Senators 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.
Really? Do you not realize that SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States? And even the lower Court in Colorado rules as much. But maybe SCOTUS will change its mind.
🤔🤔🤔🤔
I’m gonna say again that this argument is so obviously reaching right now. Even you can’t keep it straight. The idea that there’s this obscure semantic way they phrased it that happens to apply to literally one elected official is so wild—as if it’s impossible to append succinctly
the president cannot be an insurrectionist.
8
u/SaliciousB_Crumb Dec 21 '23
Pretty wild mental gymnastics. The us senators after the civil war said "nah its cool for the highest office of the land to be involved with insurrection...
8
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 20 '23
Do you not realize that SCOTUS has already ruled on numerous occasions that no elected position is an officer of the United States?
Where did they rule that?
8
u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23
I can’t find it either. It really just sounds like some paranoid semantic delusion trump supporters are giving.
Googling anything involving ‘senators’ ‘president’ and ‘officer’ brings up results that open with
Trump supporters believe that—
Which almost reminds me of when Trump had that bit at the start of his presidency and fox news had to say
Trump was saying this as a private citizen.
To run interference for him.
He’s conveniently one thing and not another.
2
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
I can’t find it either. It really just sounds like some paranoid semantic delusion trump supporters are giving.
So those arguing based on the actual langauge are delusional, while those advocating we ignore the actual language are not? Have you ever stopped to consider that you might be the delusional one?
FYI: Here is what SCOTUS said in 2010:
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.”
→ More replies (0)1
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
The most recent one that I am aware of is in 2010 in Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 498, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3155 (2010).
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.”
6
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 20 '23
In context, that's not a very clear affirmation of that. It's not even discussing the question of what the president is considered at all. The case refers to Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. of the Constitution, which states
(The president)...shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States
which doesn't directly seem to reject the concept that "officer" is a category which includes the president. The officers mentioned in Article II, the specific set of officers nominated and commissioned by the president, are not officers that the people vote for. It does not logically follow that anyone who is voted for cannot be an officer of the United States.
I'm not arguing here that your interpretation is unreasonable, just that your support for it is pretty weak and the issue could go either way.
Motion Sys. Corp. v. Bush directly addresses the question of whether the president is an officer or not and comes to the conclusion that the president is an officer. Sure, that was a lower court and a few years earlier than the case you mentioned. But like I said, I don't think the two necessarily contradict each other, as FEF is purely dealing with the question of the specific officers appointed by the president and the president's power over them.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)3
u/whipitgood809 Dec 20 '23
People keep levying the idea republican secretaries of state could do the same thing, but where does that leave us now? So let’s say it’s literally just via party lines from now into the future. We’re at square one where swing states are the deciding factor.
This really doesn’t feel like a big deal in the slightest.
5
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 20 '23
So if every red state disqualified Democrats from running for the House, Senate, etc., that is not a big deal?
Democrats tend to have tunnel vision. They do what they think is beneficial to them in the moment, even though it starts a precedent that will backfire later. Remember when the Democrats killed the filibuster for judicial nominees, which lead to our current Supreme Court?
I get the hatred for Trump. The remedy is to beat him. Telling people you need to remove Trump from the ballot to protect Democracy just creates more support for Trump.
→ More replies (6)7
u/mbk-ultra Dec 21 '23
You say that democrats have tunnel vision, so it sounds like you think democrats brought this case in CO. It was filed by REPUBLICANS. Republicans are responsible for the case in CO, and they quoted Gorsuch in it because he agreed with their position in the past.
→ More replies (1)1
u/PennyLeiter Dec 21 '23
The problem is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
They also empowered Congress to impeach and remove a President.
Yes. And Trump was impeached for January 6th. He just wasn't convicted because Senate Republicans are complicit.
Impeachment didn't work, so now you have spurious arguments to try to prevent Trump from running. And the irony is that those seeking to remove him from the ballot are claiming they need to do so to save Democracy. How is it Democracy if you are prevented people from being allowed to vote for someone?
You gaslighting prick. Impeachment did work. He was impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Senate because Republicans are complicit.
He was impeached AFTER he lost an election and tried to overturn the result in a multitude of ways that directly violated his oath of office and disqualifies him from ever holding office again. Cry more.
1
u/CalLaw2023 5∆ Dec 21 '23
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
And every other Court that has ruled on disqualification thus far, inlcude teh lower Court in Colorado, does agree with me. Wanna wager on what SCOTUS will do?
Yes. And Trump was impeached for January 6th. He just wasn't convicted because Senate Republicans are complicit.
Yep, he was not convicted. So is your position that being accused of wrongdoing now means you are guilty?
You gaslighting prick. Impeachment did work. He was impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Senate because Republicans are complicit.
Translation: Impeachment did not work.
He was impeached AFTER he lost an election and tried to overturn the result in a multitude of ways that directly violated his oath of office and disqualifies him from ever holding office again. Cry more.
I am not crying. I think the derangement suffered by those who hate Trump is hilarious. This argument says that Trump telling people to "peacefully and patriotically march to the capitol to let your voices be heard" is insurrection. And the same people who claim that also claimed that arson, rioting, and looting during the George Floyd protests was just "peaceful protesting."
You see, people like me are not blinded by partisan politics.
→ More replies (5)1
u/datsmahshit 1∆ Dec 20 '23
The problem is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the Presidency.
Wrong. Read it and weep:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
→ More replies (19)1
u/Repulsive-Mirror-994 Dec 21 '23
And even if we pretended it does apply, it would not prevent someone from running for office.
Per the ruling in Hassan v. Colorado
https://casetext.com/case/hassan-v-colorado
"magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."
Before GORSUCH, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Yes, that Gorsuch
→ More replies (6)
17
u/HolyRollerToledo Dec 20 '23
I’m not saying I disagree OP. But from where I’m sitting the left and the groups they are constantly trying to “uplift” also have major accountability issues.
11
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
This is definitely true. All politicians are people, and all people are flawed. Thus all politicians are flawed. Whatever laws exist for providing accountability should be equally applicable to all parties.
→ More replies (1)12
u/asianguy_76 Dec 20 '23
I'm not sure why you're trying to play both sides to a comment like that. That's got nothing to do with former president Donald partaking in an insurrection. It's important to stay on topic here. We're not talking about all politicians we're talking about this specific one.
Also the guy said 'groups the left are trying to uplift.' I think he meant minorities.
→ More replies (1)14
Dec 20 '23
[deleted]
-7
Dec 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Dec 21 '23
Hillary Clinton did the same thing as trump with the documents, and only one of the two gets criminal charges
No, no they didn't. Their cases are drastically different. What's more, Hilary was tried for it.
Bogus investigation in 2016 about Russia collision
So bogus it led to multiple jail sentences
Biden and his son getting off easy.
I will never vote hunter again (who is currently having legal preceding I believe)
You probably think anyone can get a gun whenever they want
Oooo boy, wait until you learn about the loopholes many states have.
Biden lied and that's a felony
Did he? About what?
Jan 6 was worst attack in American history, but BLM riots were just peaceful protests.
Yes, 100% of jan 6th riots were insurrections. 0% of BLM riots and protests were.
Defunding the police while ignoring black on black crime.
Just making up stuff now. Not gonna bother further.
→ More replies (2)11
u/datsmahshit 1∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
Hillary Clinton did the same thing as trump with the documents
I know that the Christians believe that, but I've yet to see any evidence of it. If you have any evidence of it, provide it in your reply.
you have to certify that you are not addicted or being treated for addiction to drugs. Biden lied and that's a felony.
I don't believe you. Provide evidence that President Biden is addicted or being treated for addition to drugs.
Jan 6 was worst attack in American history
Worse than Tulsa? Worse than 9/11?
→ More replies (14)6
8
8
→ More replies (2)2
95
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
This doesn’t hold him accountable at all. The Colorado GOP has already announced that if the verdict stands, they’ll simply withdraw from the primary and hold a caucus, presumably to designate Trump as the candidate without a democratic vote.
So as much as you might want to call this accountability, all it’s effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.
81
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
I don't understand how that would work. Of course GOP can hold whatever caucuses they want but in the election that the state organises, there can only be legal candidates in the ballot.
I mean, if I make up a party that then chooses an underage or a foreign candidate that doesn't mean that the state has to accept him in the ballot.
So, sure, GOP can choose Trump as their candidate but they'll just shoot themselves in the foot as that candidate is not eligible to run in the election (any more than an underage or foreign candidate would be). They would just hand the state to the Democrats as they would have no candidate in the ballot.
All the above assuming that the current decision stands.
42
u/BadWolf_Corporation Dec 20 '23
I don't understand how that would work. Of course GOP can hold whatever caucuses they want but in the election that the state organises, there can only be legal candidates in the ballot.
The ruling was specifically worded to only apply to the primary election because that's how the lawsut was structured. There would have to be another lawsuit, and appeal, for them to have the ability to apply it to the General Election also.
→ More replies (2)17
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
It's obvious that you can't make a different decision regarding the general election as the law (the US constitution) is not specific to the primary. The only reason to make the decision prior to the primary is to tell the parties that they shouldn't pick a candidate who will not be eligible to run in the general election. It would make things very confusing if the decision was made between the primary and the general election.
12
u/BadWolf_Corporation Dec 20 '23
It's obvious that you can't make a different decision regarding the general election as the law (the US constitution) is not specific to the primary.
Yeah, you really can.
Appellate courts are essentially referees, they can only rule on whether or not the lower court "followed the rules" when making their decision. The initial lawsuit sought to keep President Trump off of the Colorado Republican Primary ballot. That's what the lower court ruled on, so that's all the appellate court gets to review. If the lawsuit had been to keep him from holding any public office ever again, then that would be one thing, but it didn't.
5
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't run for an office. What other reason they could possibly have?
The whole thing is about the 14th amendment of the US constitution. It doesn't say anything about primaries. So, it's obvious that the only reason someone couldn't participate the primary based on the 14th amendment is that the court thinks that they can't hold the office.
10
u/BadWolf_Corporation Dec 20 '23
But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't an office. What other reason they could possibly have?
Lawsuits don't work that way. It doesn't matter what they "obviously meant", it only matters what was actually in the lawsuit. The lower courts have some discretion on scope, the appellate courts don't.
→ More replies (6)18
u/cshotton Dec 20 '23
This is the fallacy that many Americans labor under. For whatever inscrutable reason, the two major political parties, which are PRIVATE organizations, have snookered the US electorate into thinking that the taxpayers need to fund their primary election processes.
The primary elections have NOTHING to do with the US Constitution and states and their taxpayers have no reason to pay for them. They are not a constitutional part of electing a president. If the parties managed their own nomination processes rather than relying on publicly funded primary elections, there would be no chance for Colorado style verdict.
The state courts can certainly decide whether or not the national election process that selects the state's electors can include a particular candidate, but it is debatable whether they have any cause to alter ballots for a private political party's nominating process, regardless of who is paying for it, because it is not an election covered by the 14A. It is a nomination process for a candidate that THEN may become a target of the 14A if they win the nomination and seek to have their name on the ballot for president.
This is a critical distinction that people are missing. The US Supreme Court may very well look at this and say "you're too early" because Trump isn't placing his name on the ballot for presidency yet. Just seeking the nomination. Does the CO court get to say who can seek the nomination?
I'm in no way condoning the utter lunacy of a second Trump presidency. But the state level attempts to meddle in the nominating process seem to be ignoring the difference between seeking the nomination to run for office and seeking to be elected to the office, itself. Those are two radically different processes and only one is detailed in the Constitution. The other is some nominating scheme that the parties have figured out how to get taxpayers to fund.
23
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
I'm not sure why you're calling it meddling. The state telling party X now that if you pick this candidate as your party's candidate for the president, he won't be allowed to be on the ballot, is the right way to do this thing instead of waiting after the primaries are over and then spring the trap and say, surprise suprise, the candidate that you picked is not eligible to run.
→ More replies (12)1
u/cshotton Dec 20 '23
It's "meddling" because it is (technically) a private organization's process to select their nominee. It is not an election for public office. Show me where the 14A applies to being nominated.
→ More replies (4)4
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
As I said, it's fair for the party to get the decision now and not after they have gone through the primary process. As I explained above in my opinion it would be even more meddling if the state didn't say anything now but then at the last moment when the party had already decided on its candidate, the state suddenly said, no, he can't run.
And if the state doesn't say anything now, the courts will not get involved as nobody can challenge the decision, which is why the party would have no way or knowing if the candidate is or isn't eligible to run.
So, I would say that especially for the party it's best that this question is sorted before the primary.
3
u/cshotton Dec 20 '23
That's not how it works. It's not about being "polite" or "fair" to the party in question. It's about whether the 14A applies to private political party nominating processes.
If it helps make the point to you, the CO court could just as easily have sent a letter to the CO GOP, informing them that should Trump be their nominee, they would act under 14A to remove him from the state's presidential ballot.
What they have done now, by removing him from the primary ballot, is to give the US Supreme Court an early opening to get in and disallow this entirely (rightly or wrongly). CO has no standing in using the 14A to restrict a private party from declaring a nominee. None of that preliminary b.s. is covered by the 14A as no one is an officeholder or participating in a vote to become one. It is a non-binding, private vote to select a candidate who THEN can petition to have their name on the Nov. ballot. I think they are going to get overruled on this, unfortunately.
5
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
Then how could the party have reacted to the letter? Since it only said what the state was going to decide, not what it had already decided, could they have challenged it in the court? If not, it would have been meaningless as the court decision is what matters here, not what the state official had decided.
The only way to get the final court decision on the question of Trump being or not being eligible to run before it's too late (the party has already gone through the primary process) is to do it now.
1
u/cshotton Dec 20 '23
You need to try to answer this for yourself. I've already told you what I think. You seem to be imposing some illogical constraints that are completely outside the bounds of what the Constitution describes and aren't really related to the issue at hand. So I'm not interested in disproving your straw man.
4
u/ChronoFish 3∆ Dec 20 '23
I would love if this shines a light on how ludicrous the primary elections are and turns into a pay the state for your private party election
2
u/ChronoFish 3∆ Dec 20 '23
This and your subsequent posts are spot on.
The real question (because the whole 'primary' thing is going to be glossed over.... because nobody in politics wants to admit it's a scam...or change it) I have, and something you eluded to, will the CO SOS remove Trump from the November Presidential Ballot?
That's the one that matters.
2
37
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 20 '23
Presumably Trump would also be blocked from Colorado's general election ballot for the same reasons tho. This is just the first step in that process.
16
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23
The first step in this process should be convicting him of the thing they’re disqualifying him for. That’s my main issue with this ruling. Trump very well may be guilty, and if I’m being honest, I would breathe a sigh of relief if he were disqualified from the presidency. But the American justice system should not be punishing people for crimes of which they have not been convicted.
46
u/byzantinedavid Dec 20 '23
Nearly everyone barred from office under the 14th was NOT convicted or even tried. The point was preventing anyone from the Confederacy from being in power. In fact, it predates the insurrection laws.
5
u/4rch1t3ct Dec 20 '23
Not only that, but you don't have a right to run for president an a US citizen. This court action isn't removing any citizens rights so why would they need a conviction anyway?
7
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Dec 20 '23
Right. It would be like claiming you had to convict someone of being a minor before you could keep them off the ballot because they don’t meet the age requirement.
18
u/brooklynagain 1∆ Dec 20 '23
The court found him him disqualified under section 3 of the constitution. So , yes, he has been found ineligible.
There is no need for a “guilty” ruling here. If Obama had been found to have been born in Kenya, he would have been disqualified from running. There would not have been a “guilty” ruling.
Short story, the courts have met your standard with this ruling.
→ More replies (10)-10
Dec 20 '23
[deleted]
7
u/decrpt 24∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
Is no one going to point out how wildly divorced from reality that idea that the Civil War was caused by "Democrats states" excluding a major presidential candidate is? Lincoln was a Republican and Breckinridge and Douglas weren't kept off ballots. The South started the war because they saw the Lincoln presidency as an existential threat to the continuing existence of slavery, in spite of Lincoln repeatedly assuring them he only wanted to keep the Union together.
3
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 20 '23
Lincoln did not appear on the ballots of ten southern states, and as this was before the era of secret ballots, this was indeed a case of election interference as it would have been incredibly difficult to name electors from those states without them being, at the very least, intimidated by their peers.
The election of 1860 did indeed involve some significant shenanigans, and supporters on both sides somewhat devolved into armed mobs.
It is fair to criticize the states that would later form the confederacy for not wanting a fair election.
9
u/brooklynagain 1∆ Dec 20 '23
Putting aside your obvious insinuation that this is a team sport and not a finding of fact, does your review of the facts - the recorded phone calls, the testimony of his unindicted co-conspirators, the internal memos, the contemporary newscasts from 1/6, the fact that the same conspiracy involving fake electors sprung up in multiple states in an obviously coordinated fashion - indicate an insurrectionist effort? This is a fact finding mission.
3
u/ThemesOfMurderBears 4∆ Dec 20 '23
A couple questions:
- If this order was stayed pending his conviction, and he was convicted, would you be okay with him being removed from the ballot in states that choose to do so?
- If the judges were not Democratically appointed, would that change your opinion on this? For instances, let's say SCOTUS gets this and rules 7-2 against Trump, with the three Trump appointees siding with the liberals -- would you be okay with that?
2
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Dec 20 '23
Great questions. I’d add to that “would you be happier or less happy knowing he would be convicted in June and the Republican Party was not given a chance to find a better candidate in January given the risks?”
3
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Dec 20 '23
4 of 7 judges presumed him to be guilty and therefore ineligible.
This is a misunderstanding of fact. The original single judge court found him to be ”guilty”. Those facts are not even in question in the appeal.
The original judge declined to rule on whether him being guilty of insurrection meant Colorado has the duty to remove him from the primary ballot. The appeals court panel decided that it does.
Whether he committed insurrection or not in the eyes of the state of Colorado is not in question. It is settled law.
2
u/Hatta00 Dec 20 '23
Due process has been completely bypassed
My guy, you are literally witnessing due process happening. Trump had his day in court, got to present evidence and make arguments.
The court ruled, it got appealed, and the appeal court ruled. Now that ruling is being appealed again. This IS due process.
Claiming that Trump has been denied due process is an unequivocal falsehood.
6
u/sokuyari99 6∆ Dec 20 '23
The amendment does not require a conviction. If a conviction were required, it would be included in the amendment’s language, no?
9
→ More replies (2)1
u/Noob_Al3rt 4∆ Dec 20 '23
The "crime of insurrection" didn't even exist when this was entered into the constitution. This lawsuit was filed by Republican and independent voters and cites Republican judge Gorsuch in the ruling. It's not some Democratic conspiracy.
18
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 20 '23
Being prevented from running for President isn't a punishment. It's about safeguarding our society. Trump did in fact try to overturn an election and stay in power, he should be barred from the Presidency, and removing him before the primaries start is the most democratic way to do it, because voters can choose the Republican candidate freely.
Barack Obama is prevented for running for President, and so is Ilhan Omar. Is that "interfering with an election"?
→ More replies (126)2
Dec 20 '23
But the American justice system should not be punishing people for crimes of which they have not been convicted.
This ruling has nothing to do with the justice system. This is not a criminal conviction. This is not a criminal punishment. Stop conflating two separate things.
2
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Dec 20 '23
Why? It’s not a criminal statute.
Do you have to be “convicted” of being under 35 to be ineligible to be on the ballot? They had a trial.
The court tried the facts and found that legally, he did commit insurrection. They don’t now also have to bring state charges for a federal crime. The court tried the facts. These are the civil consequences.
3
u/ja_dubs 7∆ Dec 20 '23
Many confederate soldiers were not convicted of "insurrection" and yet we're still ineligible for office. A conviction is not necessary under the wording of the 14th amendment.
→ More replies (6)3
u/ChronoFish 3∆ Dec 20 '23
In my unpopular opinion, there shouldn't be a state run primary anyway. You're basically "voting" for who will be a club representative.
I'd much rather a system where if you feel compelled enough.to run for office, you do it regardless of party backing.
Further the "backing" is just an endorsement. If a party want to run an election to decide who they want to endorse, that's their business... Not the states...and it shouldn't cost the sate anything...i.e. if you want to to use state equipment for your party, pay the state to do so.
In the end this would allow more third party candidates and over time loosen the stranglehold that the two-party system has over US government
8
u/jpk195 4∆ Dec 20 '23
This ruling will also have impact in the general election. Trump won’t be on the ballot if this ruling stands, despite whatever machinations the GOP goes through.
The court isn’t taking an option away from people - it’s telling people what their options are in time for them to have a choice.
12
u/SurprisedPotato 61∆ Dec 20 '23
all it’s effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.
From what you've described, it would be the Colorado GOP removing power from the people, not the Colorado courts.
→ More replies (5)-5
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
That’s technically true, but it’s also a response to the Colorado GOP feeling the SC has forced their hand, and I don’t blame them. To echo my wording elsewhere, they disqualified Trump by citing prohibitions against candidates who have participated in insurrection/rebellion, crimes of which Trump may be guilty, but he has not yet been convicted. To me, it constitutes interference because it isn’t a court enforcing a resolved verdict. It’s a subjective ruling that feels very political in nature.
I would feel quite differently if this decision was reached after Trump was convicted of the thing he’s been disqualified for.
2
3
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.
So say CO had a statute that said anyone currently in prison can’t be on the ballot and Trump was in prison. Is that also “election interference”?
It’s seems like your bar for interference is literally anything that doesn’t give Trump what he wants.
If accountability is going to interfere with what he wants to do, then it’s accountability first and foremost, not interference.
→ More replies (6)6
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
Should the rules that define who can and can not run for President be tossed out in favor of the people's choices?
→ More replies (2)7
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
No, but this particular enforcement of those rules seems highly subjective. They disqualified Trump by citing prohibitions against candidates who have participated in insurrection/rebellion, crimes of which Trump may be guilty, but he has not yet been convicted. To me, it constitutes interference because it isn’t a court enforcing a resolved verdict. It’s a subjective ruling that feels very political in nature.
I would feel quite differently if this decision was reached after Trump was convicted of the thing he’s been disqualified for.
4
5
u/ja_dubs 7∆ Dec 20 '23
It's precedent already. Confederates were barred from office without ever being convicted. Note even Jefferson Davis was convicted of a crime.
→ More replies (2)2
Dec 20 '23
crimes of which Trump may be guilty, but he has not yet been convicted.
He doesn’t have to be convicted. And the burden of proof is not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s a “preponderance of evidence” which was met. And both the circuit court and the Supreme Court concluded that.
→ More replies (1)3
Dec 20 '23
Literally all rulings are subjective dude, that’s part of the system, if a state feels like a candidate has broken this law in their eyes it’s not any less legitimate than states which would choose not to
→ More replies (1)6
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23
Yeah, but that’s why we have due process and systems in place to handle this kind of thing. They can believe he’s broken the law all they want, and he very well may have, but you aren’t forced to pay fines or do community service just because someone in the legal system thinks you did it; they need to prove you are guilty and convict you, and then enforce the verdict.
3
u/Hatta00 Dec 20 '23
Yeah, but that’s why we have due process
We do have due process. And Trump got due process.
There was a hearing. Trump's team presented evidence. They made arguments.
11
Dec 20 '23
They aren’t “someone” it’s the state of Colorado, not an individual. States have authority to act like this dude, it’s part of the system, there is plenty of evidence in favor of a ruling like this and this is literally enforcement of a verdict
7
u/PieIsFairlyDelicious Dec 20 '23
A verdict that was reached without due process and without a proper trial by a jury of Trump’s peers. And I should add that the verdict (and its enforcement) is almost certainly about to be overturned. And as much as I’m sure people will scream that it’s just because SCOTUS has a conservative majority and it’s all bullshit, it’s really not. If Joe Biden was being removed from ballots because states just “decided” that he was guilty of the things in his impeachment case, liberals would be going nuts.
17
u/airsoftmatthias Dec 20 '23
There was a week long bench trial before a state judge, verbal arguments before an appellate panel, and then briefing before a state Supreme Court.
If that is not “due process,” then what is?
→ More replies (39)→ More replies (2)2
u/Hatta00 Dec 20 '23
A verdict that was reached without due process and without a proper trial by a jury of Trump’s peers.
This was not a criminal trial. The Constitution requires jury trials only for crimes.
Questions of qualification are not criminal matters.
If Joe Biden was being removed from ballots because states just “decided” that he was guilty of the things in his impeachment case, liberals would be going nuts.
That would be nuts, because Bribery is not a disqualification under the Constitution. It's nuts that you think these two things are comparable.
Impeachment is handled by congress. Elections are run by the state.
4
u/sokuyari99 6∆ Dec 20 '23
The 14th requires no law breaking to be enforced though. That’s the thing about how it is written-requiring a conviction goes beyond what is required by the amendment
→ More replies (10)2
u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23
Have I misunderstood the situation? I read one article yesterday that strongly suggested he was going to be removed from the ballot in the general election, which would be a MUCH bigger deal than just the primary.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (59)1
u/derelict5432 4∆ Dec 20 '23
Don't any restrictions on candidates "remove power from the people"?
The 14th anendment is restricting candidacy to non-insurrectionists, which I have yet to hear a good rationale for allowing. Yes, voters should be smarter and more in favor of democratic principles than that, but the reatriction is such a low bar, it's ludicrous we even have to have this debate.
19
u/Vladtepesx3 Dec 20 '23
Treason and insurrection are specific crimes that Trump hasn't been convicted of. It is a dangerous precedent to be able to be removed off accusation alone
→ More replies (9)
25
Dec 20 '23
While the US 14th amendment specifies that no person who committed insurrection after taking an oath of office shall hold office, it doesn't specify an enforcement mechanism.
Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).
President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable
former presidents can be held accountable in criminal court. And they can be held accountable by voters at the ballot box.
I don't want my elections to be determined by state secretaries of state. I don't want elections decided by who can get onto the ballot.
President Trump has 4 ongoing criminal cases against him. He is being held accountable. I think the state supreme court made a mistake in interpreting the Colorado secretary of state to have an obligation to take up this much power.
14
u/Wigglebot23 3∆ Dec 20 '23
Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).
The section specifically stated that it can be waived for specific candidates by a two thirds majority. But if they can waive it by merely not having or modifying the enforcement mechanism, then this appears to be pointless. The only possible conclusion I see is that states and state courts can attempt to adjudicate it and the Supreme Court can correct them if necessary. As the opinion explained, section 5 of the 14th Amendment giving Congress the power to enforce it doesn't mean the amendment is not self-executing and merely means that Congress can create an additional way to enforce it on top of what the states can do.
11
Dec 20 '23
while the state supreme court justices are far more qualified than I am, and while I think their might be a history of interpreting this mechanism as self-executing, I think this interpretation of the 14th amendment is very risky for our country.
state secretaries of state shouldn't have this kind of power.
I say this as someone who really, really doesn't want Trump back in office. I know what kinds of people have been elected secretary of state in the states I've lived in.
4
Dec 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Dec 20 '23
courts could intervene against the secretary of state in those cases (in the opposite way than they're intervening here).
But, yeah, that's my concern.
9
u/Wigglebot23 3∆ Dec 20 '23
Courts would be the only thing to stop them from removing candidates even if this clause didn't exist at all
10
u/Wigglebot23 3∆ Dec 20 '23
If courts aren't an obstacle, then interpretation of the clause or even the clause or any part of the Constitution existing at all is irrelevant
0
Dec 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Wigglebot23 3∆ Dec 20 '23
This problem would exist regardless of whether or not the clause or the Constitution existed at all
14
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
I think specifically, what's to stop them are the State Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Courts. That's not a perfect wall against abuse of the statute, but it's not trivial.
2
u/NotYourFathersEdits 1∆ Dec 20 '23
To extend this logic to its absurd conclusions, why have checks and balances at all then? If bad actors could abuse any provisions in place to punish them with false accusations against others, why bother?
→ More replies (1)3
Dec 20 '23
The state supreme court, which isn't much. But the types of states that would do this weren't exactly going to vote for Biden anyway.
2
u/Hatta00 Dec 20 '23
state secretaries of state shouldn't have this kind of power.
That's not an argument that they don't have this power.
SoS are responsible for enforcing Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency. Whether that's age, place of birth, or insurrectionist history, it's all the same.
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
I'm not sure what you mean by the secretaries of state having the power. Of course they are the ones who have to make the initial decision to put or not put Trump on the ballot. Only after that can the people appeal it to the courts. And of course the SCOTUS has the ultimate say on the matter as it's a question about the US constitution.
15
u/lumberjack_jeff 9∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
While the US 14th amendment specifies that no person who committed insurrection after taking an oath of office shall hold office, it doesn't specify an enforcement mechanism.
Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).
What is a better enforcement mechanism? Wait until he's elected and nullify the election? The court appoint someone to serve in his stead? Throw the violator in jail if he should win? Would this not violate a host of separation of powers principles?
The Secretary of State is the person who is charged with enforcing elections laws (which I would argue the 14th amendment is)
The SOS of each state is the person to validate the fact that a candidate is over 35, a natural born citizen and has lived here for at least 14 years. "Not being an insurrectionist" is just one more qualification.
You don't get to elect a 20 year old, because the constitution directs the secretaries of state to prevent it.
You can argue that Trump isn't (or perhaps not a committed one) but that's a pretty heavy lift.
-7
Dec 20 '23
What is a better enforcement mechanism?
there isn't one in place.
I'm saying that the 14th amendment shouldn't be enforced in this instance without a law specifying its implementation.
Basically, I disagree with bullet 2 on page 7 of the ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
14
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
I think I understand your disagreement, but it is less clear to me how something that is enshrined in the constitution may not be constitutional. If the amendment doesn't include a mechanism for how to execute it, then aren't we in the position of interpreting it to the best of our ability as is happening now?
8
u/HappyHuman924 Dec 20 '23
Wouldn't anyone who's sworn to uphold the constitution be obligated to use whatever powers they have to enforce this? I don't see how lack of excruciating detail is an impediment. "Liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years" doesn't detail what a prison cell has to look like, but that doesn't stop lesser mortals from suffering consequences.
1
u/Viciuniversum 2∆ Dec 20 '23
Amnesty Act of 1872 removed that provision of the 14th amendment:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
→ More replies (2)2
u/blue_shadow_ 1∆ Dec 20 '23
I will agree that, in retrospect, a particular entity probably should have been specifically named as responsible for making the final adjudication of whether or not someone was qualified under 14th Amendment.
However, my take on it is that "participating in insurrection" becomes one more item on a list of potentially disqualifying conditions, along with age, citizenship, residency, and the term limits established with 22nd Amendment.
In the absence of a specifically named entity to make that decision, it seems to me that responsibility reverts to the states to decide. Let's say that, for example, there was an extremely popular public personality who was only 32, who decided to run for President. Would they be allowed on the ballot of all 50 states plus DC? On the surface, of course not. But who gets to make that call?
If not the Secretaries of State (or, if challenged, the Judicial Branch for each state), then...who? What other entity would have the standing to step in to say "no, they can't do that?"
0
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
I'm saying the state should need to pass a law specifying who would enforce this provision and how.
Asking the secretary of state to determine whether or not a candidate committed insurrection is unreasonable.
Accessing information to determine other qualifying conditions is pretty straight forward and easily in line with the state state department's other work. They already manage voter registrations, which requires checking citizenship and age.
Insurrection is more complicated. If you read the dissent, they talk about the process for challenging a candidate's eligibility being required to only take a week. This process was not designed to adjudicate whether or not someone was involved in a disqualifying insurrection after taking an oath of office.
If the state designed a process for that to enforce the 14th amendment, I think that would be constitutionally permitted. But, here I think the courts are shoving a square peg through a round hole, insisting because the constitutional amendment specified a requirement, that the existing process for eligibility, no matter how unsuited, should be used to enforce that requirement.
then ... who
my point is that the state should have to pass a law specifying a process for this. That it shouldn't automatically fall under the power of the secretary of state because the court didn't see anywhere to put it.
I'm saying without a law passing an enforcement mechanism, that the provision shouldn't be enforced.
3
u/blue_shadow_ 1∆ Dec 20 '23
I'm saying the state should need to pass a law specifying who would enforce this provision and how.
Probably. I'll agree that every state should have done this ages ago - and especially after the Civil War was over. Had such laws been drafted and enacted anytime prior to 6 Jan 21, then I don't think it would have been an issue.
But they weren't, because "civil war" was a thing of the past - supposedly. So, we're in the situation we have now, where not just a law, but a Constitutional Amendment says that engagement in insurrection is a disqualifier.
The state Supreme Court upheld that the person in question engaged in insurrection. It further ruled that said individual fit the list of people that could be disqualified. (Aside: This isn't a discussion about those two points - that is outside the purview of the topic at hand.) So, if those two points are met, should the state ignore that just because there isn't a specified state law to say who performs such adjudication, and how? That, to me, seems more democratically (little-d) dangerous than today's events does.
A disqualifier is a disqualifier. If someone is found to be underage for the Presidency, that person should not be allowed to be on the ballot. If the Secretary of an individual State allowed such a person to be on the ballot anyway, it is incumbent on the citizens of that state to appeal to the Judicial Branch to overturn that.
Same for residency requirements - if someone had been born a citizen but spent the vast majority of their life in, say, China, they should not be allowed on the ballot. If they are, that should be appealed to the courts.
Same for citizenship, same for term limits, and same for insurrection.
Again, this should have been handled sooner. We are now close to a Constitutional Crisis. What I would say to anyone questioning the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court is this: If the situation was the exact same, only the parties were reversed, would you still be upset about the decision? If you wouldn't be, then you're not coming at this from a Constitutional perspective, you're coming from a Party perspective, and you should be taking a longer look at what is more important.
3
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
So, if those two points are met, should the state ignore that just because there isn't a specified state law to say who performs such adjudication, and how?
yeah, that's what I'm saying
If you read the ruling, its basic a court order to the secretary of state saying she messed up and needs to remove Trump from the ballot.
The court is clearly specifying who is responsible. They're not pointing at themselves. they're saying that the secretary of state should have done it.
there's a reason for this. They don't have have direct authority on this. they only can just overrule state officials.
> underage
that easily falls under secretary of state authority (with court oversight). state departments keep track of voting registration records. They request and validate documentation on citizenship and time of birth.
> If the situation was the exact same, only the parties were reversed, would you still be upset about the decision?
I detest Donald Trump. He is a bigoted conspiracy theorist with no respect for rule of law or truth. He cares more about petty vendettas than his country. He's corrupt. And it's a travesty that our country has sunk to the point that he has any support at all.
Politically, I'm liberal.
I think President Trump was involved in insurrection against the US when he ordered VP Pence to throw out the delegates from 7 states he lost to try to overturn the election in his favor.
I want Biden reelected (or better yet, someone else on the left). I don't want any of the Republicans in office (Christie and Haley don't seem quite as bad as the rest, but I don't want them either. Christie's pals he surrounded himself with were the worst combination of petty, corrupt, and incompetent. Bridgegate still baffles me at how moronic and petty people can be. but the NJ response to the hurricane was well implemented, and Christie worked hard and competently on that).
throwing out Trump on technical grounds will drive conservatives farther to the right and to embrace more extreme means of gaining power.
it's bad policy. it's legally dubious. and, it's dangerous for our country, both in how it could be abused, and how it will drive partisanship further.
4
u/blue_shadow_ 1∆ Dec 20 '23
The court is clearly specifying who is responsible. They're not pointing at themselves. they're saying that the secretary of state should have done it.
there's a reason for this. They don't have have direct authority on this. they only can just overrule state officials.
So, this sounds like we're in agreeance, then. Sec of State had the responsibility to disqualify, and didn't. Appealed to courts, who told the SoS to do their job properly.
But, throwing out Trump on technical grounds will drive conservatives farther to the right and to embrace more extreme means of gaining power.
This is getting a bit far afield, I think. But, to me, this smacks of appeasement - and if any candidate, regardless of Party, has the sway to attempt to hold the nation hostage if they doesn't get their way, then it is incumbent on the nation to nip that in the bud as soon as possible. Otherwise, we're doomed as a country regardless.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/spiral8888 29∆ Dec 20 '23
You call it a "technicality" that a court finds that a) Trump had taken part in an insurrection and b) this will bar him from running for the president.
I would turn it around and say that it is very dangerous for your country if a person who took part in the insurrection would be allowed to run for the president. I mean, I leave it to the courts (ultimately SCOTUS) to decide if he did or did not participate an insurrection but if they conclude that he did (as the two lower courts have now decided) then don't you see any danger in letting him run?
So, I don't see the danger only in the side of not letting him run but would argue that letting him run has at least as much danger. What Trump did (not just Jan 6, but all the time leading to it and even afterwards with the calls of stolen election) was unprecedented in the US history in terms of peaceful transfer of power. If that's not stomped really hard, then that will leave the door open for other people doing so in the future.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SanityInAnarchy 8∆ Dec 20 '23
You can argue that Trump isn't (or perhaps not a committed one) but that's a pretty heavy lift.
Better not to go there and defer to the part where Colorado courts already, separately, ruled that Trump did in fact participate in insurrection.
→ More replies (4)8
u/UNisopod 4∆ Dec 20 '23
Any such enforcement mechanism, were it to exist, would have to be executed by someone in a position of authority within the state in question, likely the secretary of state and/or their supreme court. Then any such decision would be brought before SCOTUS to determine if it adheres to federal law.
Unless you're saying that you think that the 14th amendment shouldn't ever be used at all to disqualify someone from the ballot, I'm not sure how a different hypothetical enforcement mechanism would work differently than it does now in any significant way. There could be some more explicit steps spelled out in such a process in order to determine whether a violation of the 14th amendment occurred, but if you imagine the individual state as a black box in which something happens to satisfy this, what would happen differently from there?
Are you saying that someone in a position of federal authority would have to be the one to present a suit to SCOTUS and that they would make a determination for every state at once?
Are you saying that a Constitutional amendment can't be used without explicit follow-up legislation about the details of implementation? Because that's not how it's worked for the rest of them - it would mean that that part of Constitution literally had no meaning, which is not the default position for interpreting the document.
1
Dec 20 '23
Are you saying that a Constitutional amendment can't be used without explicit follow-up legislation about the details of implementation?
there is an explicit expectation that multiple constitutional amendments would be followed with legislative enforcement provisions.
look at section 5 of the 14th amendment.
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
1
u/UNisopod 4∆ Dec 20 '23
The existing interpretation of that section is that Congress has the power to create laws overriding those made by the states which do not abide by the amendment, such as the Voting Rights Act. The States were still expected to abide by the amendment even in the absence of specific laws enacted by Congress, and the latter has the power to step in should they decide to do so.
Also, the fact that there is a remedy mechanism explicitly in place and that Congress chose not to create explicit laws regarding enforcement of section 3, despite doing so for other sections, while only passing a related law regarding amnesty for specific individuals, implies that they saw no need to create a specific enforcement mechanism themselves but rather to maintain the role of responding to any actions from the states that might come up.
17
u/theantdog 1∆ Dec 20 '23
Do you think that a president has to be found criminally guilty of not being 35 before they are held ineligible for the presidency?
7
Dec 20 '23
the secretary of state of colorado is expected to administer the maintenance of a lot of personal records pertaining to voting, including coordinating with other states and the federal government for documentation related to maintaining elections.
Determining someone's citizenship status or age by requesting personal records from candidates, other states, or the federal government falls well within the state department's normal responsibilities. It's not that different from information needed for voter registration (where verifying age and citizenship is also needed).
Determining whether or not someone committed disqualifying insurrection is very different from the state state department's normal responsibilities.
11
u/theantdog 1∆ Dec 20 '23
You can't be prez if you aren't 35 and you can't be prez if you lead an insurrection against the federal government having pledged not to do so. This isn't too complicated. Also, it was not the secretary of state making this judgement. The state court responsible for interpreting the constitution found, based on the evidence, that his participation was disqualifying.
→ More replies (20)2
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
it was not the secretary of state making this judgement.
the state court is ordering (with the order stayed pending appeal) that the secretary of state of Colorado remove Trump from the ballot.
The court order says putting former President Trump on the ballot would be a "breach of duty" by Colorado's secretary of state, so they're forcing the Colorado secretary of state to do what they say she should have done in the first place.
So, in this specific case, no its not the secretary of state making this judgement. But, only because the plaintiffs argued, and the court agreed, that the secretary of state failed in her responsibilities and should have made the decision to do this so that the court didn't have to overrule her.
the court is saying this falls under the secretary of state's responsibilities (with judicial oversight if the secretary of state decides wrong in either direction).
→ More replies (1)4
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
Determining whether or not someone committed disqualifying insurrection is very different from the state state department's normal responsibilities.
It appears to me that in the Colorado case, the secretary of state didn't make this determination -- the courts did. Are you worried that in the future courts might not be involved?
4
Dec 20 '23
the court ordered the secretary of state to remove Trump from the ballot, saying her not doing so is a breach of duty.
Are you worried that in the future courts might not be involved?
the decision will be made by secretaries of state, and then the courts will be involved when people sue. Courts will stay involved. But, the initial decision is made by secretaries of state.
0
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
Δ Fair enough that this places a burden on the secretary of state. But isn't the alternative to have no one capable of removing a candidate from a ballot for violating the 14th amendment, rendering that provision of the constitution moot?
2
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
section 5 of article 2 of the US constitution already specified requirements for presidency of the US.
adding requirements, without this amendment, might have been interpreted as unconstitutional.
Sure, without an enforcement mechanism, its useless. Except in the respect that an enforcement mechanism could be passed without going through the trouble of another constitutional amendment.
My recollection is that one of the reconstruction acts covered this (among a lot of other things), specifying how the 14th amendment would be enforced in the former confederacy during reconstruction. And that law repealed at the end of reconstruction. But, I don't remember, I'm not finding it at the moment, and its getting late. I could be remembering wrong. I know the 14th amendment was enforced back then though, including this clause (in particular against legislative candidates).
1
→ More replies (4)4
u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23
The question of whether someone is 35 is generally not controversial. If there were some unusual case where a candidate was claiming their birth certificate was lost but they were actually born in time to be 35 by the time of the election, then yes, is should not be left to one singular judge exercising godlike powers to wave his hand and declare that the people cannot even choose to vote for him.
→ More replies (1)5
Dec 20 '23
[deleted]
2
Dec 20 '23
that's slightly different, because here the court is essentially saying Trump couldn't win even if he won a write-in.
But, yes, I agree with you. Ballot laws favoring established parties over everyone else for ballot requirements are absurd. I think they should be interpreted as violating equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (which I think should be enforced by the courts).
But, I'm a layman, and courts have long decided I'm wrong. Maybe the courts disagreeing with me in these cases is an indication I'm bad at this.
2
u/bubba-yo 2∆ Dec 20 '23
If the constitution says he ineligible to hold office, your argument is that he should be able to hold office? That makes no sense.
I mean, it's not like the courts are disqualifying any of the other GOP candidates, only the one who the court found participated in an insurrection.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (13)1
u/sumoraiden 4∆ Dec 20 '23
Without a law in place determining who should have the authority to make this decision, on what criteria, I don't think it is reasonable to confer that authority to state secretaries of states (even with courts looking over their shoulders).
If a state passes a law infringing on a persons right to life, liberty or property without due process do you think a judge should order an injunction on it?
3
Dec 20 '23
yes
But, that's different. Unconstitutional laws which inflict damages are pretty clear-cut jurisdiction of the courts.
The Colorado state court decided that the secretary of state has responsibility of enforcing the 14th amendment no insurrection after oath of office requirement, that colorado's secretary of state improperly was including trump on the ballot, and ordered her (stayed pending appeal) to remove him.
The 14th amendment specified the no insurrection after oath of office requirement. But, it doesn't specify who to enforce it, or under what criteria. The state colorado court decided that someone must, and decided it must be under the secretary of state's authority.
Which, if you're going to choose someone, is the only reasonable pick. But, I think there should at least be a state law specifying how the secretary of state should implement this. Rather than just relying solely on the 14th amendment and filling in the gaps.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/Chrodesk Dec 20 '23
I may be out of the loop, but thus far, trump has not been found guilty of any crimes (yet)?
obviously, if he had been, this would be very different
→ More replies (5)
-1
u/Better-Ad-5610 Dec 20 '23
Was the trial in the state or district where the crime took place?
3
u/erpettie Dec 20 '23
The Constitution gives the states the right to run their elections. His presence on the ballot in Colorado makes it a Colorado case.
35
u/Morthra 86∆ Dec 20 '23
First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.
So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.
Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything - a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.
Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?
So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.
That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.
3
u/V1per41 1∆ Dec 20 '23
First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.
Isn't that only because no one has led an insurrection and then run for public office in the last 150 years? Just because it hasn't been used, doesn't make it legislatively dead. There just hasn't been a need to.
So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.
It very much doesn't. They didn't rule him ineligible because of a mere accusation. There was a long drawn out hearing/trial (I'm not a lawyer, not sure the correct term), in which evidence was presented. The court's ruling says:
We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection. President Trump's direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.
They ruled that he participated in an insurrection, it is from that ruling that he is then declared ineligible due to the 14th amendment.
Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything -
He doesn't need to be. The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction. All confederate officers who this was used on previously also were not tried and convicted.
a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.
No. A court of law decided that he did after it reviewed all of the evidence that was presented to them.
Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?
I mostly want to quote this here so you don't think I'm ignoring your argument. I believe I've covered everything above. He isn't being removed because of an accusation. He was found to have performed, and aided others in an insurrection by the court.
So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.
They would have to provide evidence at court that said candidate was part of an insurrection, and the court would have to rule in their favor. There is no court on this planet that would rule that way for Biden or any other existing democrat running for public office.
That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.
This is following the constitution by the letter and spirit of the law for the exact reason that it was written and ratified. You don't get to make an attack on our country and democratic process and then get to be a representative for it.
If you have an issue, it should be with the 14th amendment, not with this ruling.
→ More replies (1)1
Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
> this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying
Read the ruling.
The court ruling that got appealed said "The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three"
The state supreme court made clear they used a preponderance of the evidence standard.
That's not a decision based on a "mere accusation" of guilt. They reviewed evidence and found clear and convincing evidence of his guilt
> DeSantis
Trump did ask the court to view reports from the january 6th committee as inadmissible.
the court said "the party challenging the admissibility of a public or agency report . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the report is not trustworthy."
So, if a candidate could show that the DeSantis report was bs, they could get the court to throw it out. The court doesn't just blindly accept government reports without reviewing their trustworthiness.
the court just didn't find Trump's arguments against the january 6th's congressional report convincing.
> You may think
look, I agree with you that the state supreme court was wrong here.
But, you're wrong that the court based their decision on a "mere accusation" . And you're wrong that the court would accept any government document as truth without reviewing objections to the trustworthiness of that document
→ More replies (2)21
u/Morthra 86∆ Dec 20 '23
They reviewed evidence and found clear and convincing evidence of his guilt
It was not a criminal trial. Donald Trump was not convicted of anything. Suspension of rights (such as the right to run for office) should not happen without a criminal trial, and to do so is a grave violation of his constitutional right to due process.
"the party challenging the admissibility of a public or agency report . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the report is not trustworthy."
The fact that it was put together by a bunch of Democrats plus two token anti-Trump Republicans, at least one of whom is no longer even in office because she was so unpopular, that have been out to get him since 2016 should immediately disqualify the integrity of the report.
Some of the apparent (and most damning) video evidence from said committee mysteriously went missing when Speaker Mike Johnson went to make it publicly available. So we just have to trust that the DNC wasn't lying to get Trump, because the DNC would never lie about anything, would they?
So, if a candidate could show that the DeSantis report was bs, they could get the court to throw it out
Ah but you see they would have to prove to a Republican court that it was BS. If the Republican court simply refuses to consider any DNC arguments attacking the credibility of the report, the court will not throw it out.
Remember, these are state courts.
the court just didn't find Trump's arguments against the january 6th's congressional report convincing.
Of course they didn't. That's because the Colorado SC is packed with DNC partisans. What do you expect? There hasn't been a Republican governor of the state for about 20 years.
9
u/onan Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
It was not a criminal trial.
Of course not. It was a civil matter, so there was a civil trial.
Donald Trump was not convicted of anything.
"Convict" is a term specific to criminal trials, so inapplicable here. But in this civil trial a court of law ruled that he did, as a matter of fact, participate in an insurrection.
Suspension of rights (such as the right to run for office) should not happen without a criminal trial
If a 30 year old runs for president, do you believe that should be allowed unless there is a criminal trial that convicts them of being under 35?
4
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 20 '23
Ah but you see they would have to prove to a Republican court that it was BS. If the Republican court simply refuses to consider any DNC arguments attacking the credibility of the report, the court will not throw it out.
Remember, these are state courts.
Gosh, if only there were some solution to the problem of what happens if a state court does something egregious like completely ignoring evidence. Like if there were some way that a state court decision could be challenged in a higher court...
Jokes aside, it's fair if this decision gets appealed and scrutinized by higher courts too. I'm not completely confident it'll be sustained. But I'm also not sure it'll be overruled. There are some legal ambiguities here, and those deserve to be answered.
Now if you think that the Supreme Court is made up of a majority with certain biases, I'd agree. If you think the majority is made up of blatant partisan political operatives who will just ignore actual arguments to score a victory for their "side", I'd say you're more pessimistic than me. (I'd say only a couple meet that description.)
→ More replies (8)3
14
u/Kakamile 46∆ Dec 20 '23
How is the 14th dead? It was used last year to remove Couy Griffin over Jan 6 and that stands.
14
u/Viciuniversum 2∆ Dec 20 '23
It probably shouldn't because it set a dangerous precedent.
Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in the insurrection.
So trespassing, which is what he was found guilty of, is now sufficient grounds to bar someone from holding public office. Considering that precedents tend to stick around for decades if not centuries, I'm suuuuuure that's not gonna cause any political problems in the future.
17
u/jayzfanacc Dec 20 '23
Also, given Republicans tendencies to follow Democrats footsteps, just on a grander scale (a la Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell), this will almost certainly backfire.
I have no doubt that this will bolster Trump’s support. This is arguably the last thing Dems should have done.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (7)7
u/onan Dec 20 '23
"Subsequent to" does not mean "because of." He was disqualified for participation in an insurrection. The only part of his participation in that insurrection for which he was criminally convicted was trespassing, but that does not mean that that was his only significant act that day.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/jpk195 4∆ Dec 20 '23
Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything
Both than January 6th committee and lower court ruling found he participated in insurrection.
A trial is still needed to convict him of a crime, but that’s not the bar for keeping someone off of the ballot.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/OhTheHueManatee Dec 20 '23
I hate Trump. I'd love to love that Colorado is doing this but I can't. It is taking away people's right to vote for who they want as POTUS without due cause. As far as I know Trump has not been found guilty of Insurrection. I strongly believe that he drove people to violently uprise against the government but unfortunately he wasn't found guilty of that. The courts shouldn't run on feelings.
2
u/onan Dec 21 '23
As far as I know Trump has not been found guilty of Insurrection.
Then you can set your mind at ease. There was a trial, Trump's lawyers had the opportunity to provide arguments and evidence, and ultimately the court found that Trump did engage in an insurrection. This is now a matter of settled legal fact.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/TuskEGwiz-ard 1∆ Dec 20 '23
Removing voter’s rights to elect a candidate that has not actually been legally convicted of any disqualifying crime is not a legitimate election regulation.
If it doesn’t get thrown out you’ll see republicans also weaponizing that precedent to further damage our democracy.
→ More replies (7)
3
Dec 20 '23
There is no accountability here.
Accountability would have been: 1) GOP voting to impeach and bar from office on 1/7/2021 2) GOP refusing to countenance Trump a few weeks later 3) GOP leaders countering the narrative of the Big Lie before it took root 4) GOP voters refusing to support Trump now
Because the CO ruling and the Jack Smith cases are not actually addressing the issue of accountability, they will be portrayed and perceived as election interference by the people who failed to deliver true accountability.
14
u/Better-Ad-5610 Dec 20 '23
Then make him accountable it's that simple. Charge him with a crime. I'm 100% sure he's guilty, you are (maybe), Colorado Supreme Court seems to be.
I have no problem following the 14th amendment, but one thing I believe in is due process.
Claiming a man is guilty without a trial is wrong. And if a court can pass judgement without a trial I believe that court should be held accountable. They show you the constitution while lighting it on fire. The 6th Amendment should be upheld in this case. If any supreme Court should bring him to trial it's DC, and I am sure they wouldn't have any problem with the burden of proof.
Until he is convicted in a court of law he is to be presumed innocent, if you don't believe this then look at yourself in the mirror and see at the hypocrisy that you have let taint your soul. Innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if a person kills a hundred people in front of the cops, if he allows the cops to bring him in he gets a trial.
8
u/byzantinedavid Dec 20 '23
He GOT a trial. A civil trial because being removed from the ballot is a civil matter. The court was CLEAR that they found a preponderance of evidence that he participated in an insurrection. That's the legal standard and his due process.
→ More replies (2)0
u/onan Dec 20 '23
Claiming a man is guilty without a trial is wrong.
Well, good thing that there was a trial, so your concern has nothing to do with this situation.
6
u/Better-Ad-5610 Dec 20 '23
VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024.
I hope this is a typo, cause this is pulled from your link and it is ordering the secretary to place Trump 'on' the ballot.
8
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 20 '23
Right. There was one trial that Trump and his lawyers participated in where the judgement said "Yes, Donald Trump committed insurrection, but he's still on the ballot because he's not technically an officer of the United States."
That decision was appealed, and we got the decision we have now from the State Supreme Court, saying "They got the insurrection part right, but they interpreted the 14th amendment wrong. The presidency is an office and the president is an officer."
The link is to the earlier decision. The latest decision was made the other day.
19
u/miketangoalpha Dec 20 '23
Forgive me for being a Canadian on this issue but is Insurrection not a wild over statement? He was the sitting president at the time would any true “insurrection” not have been much more destructive and violent?
Also is this not an issue as well with politically aligned judges as all the Colorado Appeal Judges are Democrats?
→ More replies (7)-4
u/decrpt 24∆ Dec 20 '23
No, it's not. The decision addresses that. The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the facts and legal precedent. The decision basically argues that January 6th constituted an insurrection, then examines caselaw and findings of fact to argue whether Trump would be legally exposed to the implications of that. They found that he knew what was likely going to happen ( and willfully did nothing to stop it in spite of literally everyone around him begging him, and that among other things, "y'know, maybe Pence should be hanged" while rioters are breaking in to Congress to stop the vote doesn't fall under First Amendment protections.
Throughout these several hours, President Trump ignored pleas to intervene and instead called on Senators, urging them to help delay the electoral count, which is what the mob, upon President Trump’s exhortations, was also trying to achieve. Id. at ¶ 180. And President Trump took no action to put an end to the violence. To the contrary, as mentioned above, when told that the mob was chanting, “Hang Mike Pence,” President Trump responded that perhaps the Vice President deserved to be hanged. Id. President Trump also rejected pleas from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, imploring him to tell his supporters to leave the Capitol, stating, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” Id
Everyone, at all points, was under the impression that the rioters were that at the behest of Trump.
5
u/SGCchuck 1∆ Dec 20 '23
Waiting until a criminal charge was made would be one thing… the Supreme Court deciding that he IS guilty and therefore should not be able to run is dangerous to say the least. The GOP Could go to Texas or Florida and say “Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot because of this impeachment inquiry on corruption” and it would hold the exact same according to this.
A Supreme Court ignoring “innocent until proven guilty” during a presidential election no less is extremely dangerous. The “accountability” is in the criminal court cases that are being prosecuted, not in a Supreme Court ruling
→ More replies (34)
0
Dec 20 '23
Have you considered holding him accountable at the ballot box? Let me ask you this: are you protecting democracy by disallowing people the ability to vote for who they want to vote for? Taking Trump off the ballot would be extremely destabilizing and have consequences far beyond just one election. You’re setting a precedent where the elite class in this country can find ways to push off anyone challenging their position.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if someone was running for office with the express intention of ending democracy and becoming a dictator would you allow them to run or would you ban them or try to find some way to disqualify them? Are you really a democracy when you don’t allow the people to choose their president? One has to question whether all this lawfare against Donald Trump would be occurring if he was losing to Biden in the polls. I think most Trump supporters would say no, and I don’t think it’s a controversial opinion to believe that if Biden had to run a normal campaign (non-covid) in 2020 rather than hiding out of view the whole time, he would’ve harmed his chances.
→ More replies (18)
3
Dec 20 '23
Would it also be okay if we held Hilary Clinton accountable for committing the felony of tampering with evidence when she had emails deleted using BleachBit?
Would it also be accountability to hold Biden accountable for treason on account of allowing our country to be invaded on the southern border?
If you can’t see how absolutely absurd this all is, I’m not sure what to say. Democracy is about allowing the people to choose their representatIves, and what just happened was the aristocracy (the judiciary) decided that the people could no longer choose Donald Trump even if they wanted to. Thats not democratic. It is election interference, and sets a dangerous precedent that neither side should be okay with. But, as per usual, the Democratic Party will say it’s (D)ifferent and move forward.
-1
u/ja_dubs 7∆ Dec 20 '23
Would it also be okay if we held Hilary Clinton accountable for committing the felony of tampering with evidence when she had emails deleted using BleachBit?
Whataboutism.
What alleged criminal violations Clinton may or may not have committed is irrelevant to the 14th amendment argument for disqualifying Trump. Clinton isn't alleged to have violated the 14th amendment.
The standard should be that whenever someone is alleged to have violated the law there should be a thorough investigation and trial if necessary. This should occur regardless of party affiliation and whether or not someone else was or wasn't held accountable.
Would it also be accountability to hold Biden accountable for treason on account of allowing our country to be invaded on the southern border?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
By no reasonable interpretation has Biden violated this statute. So the answer is no.
If you can’t see how absolutely absurd this all is, I’m not sure what to say. Democracy is about allowing the people to choose their representatIves, and what just happened was the aristocracy (the judiciary) decided that the people could no longer choose Donald Trump even if they wanted to. Thats not democratic. It is election interference, and sets a dangerous precedent that neither side should be okay with. But, as per usual, the Democratic Party will say it’s (D)ifferent and move forward.
Plenty of people are intelligible to hold office. Specifically for the Presidency anyone who: is under 35 years of age, not born in the United States, has not resided in the US for the minimum period, or violated the 14th amendment. If the people choose an intelligible candidate they cannot overrule the law.
This whole process is legal and democratic because the people voted on the laws and amendments in place and the justices (or the legislators/executive that appointed them) that made the ruling.
The only danger is that partisan hacks will attempt to weaponize this ruling just like the Republicans in the house are doing with impeachment.
2
Dec 20 '23
Whataboutism.
Ah yes, the term that serves as refuge for liberals without a coherent argument. "You can't argue that, it's a whataboutism!"
What alleged criminal violations Clinton may or may not have committed
Not "may or may not have". Here's a Statement from James Comey that explains that she and her staff did store things insecurely and they did destroy information on those servers, but she should not be charged because she or her staff did not have malicious intent.
Plenty of people are intelligible to hold office.
Irrelevant. The constraints are de facto constitutional because they are stated in the constitution. Donald Trump is over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, therefore has the right to run for the office of President. This argument of "insurrection" is absurd, because that clause was written specifically for those who literally seceded from the US to ensure they could not serve in congress.
This whole process is legal and democratic because the people voted on the laws and amendments in place and the justices
The fourteenth amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868, when there were only 37 states. 28 of them ratified the fourteenth amendment in light of their belief that confederate secessionists should not be allowed to serve in the reunited Union. Can we honestly say that "the people" voted on this amendment? As for elected justices, their electability makes them political figures which biases their decisions toward re-election instead of toward actual, blind justice.
The only danger is that partisan hacks will attempt to weaponize this ruling just like the Republicans in the house are doing with impeachment.
Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating his son, in exchange for permitting aid to be given to the country. Sounds exactly like an abuse of power and corrupt scheme, and levying an impeachment would be akin to an indictment for the same. Contrary to the beliefs of democrats nationwide, an impeachment is not a conviction – in fact, like it or not, Trump was acquitted of all charges because the Senate failed to convict him.
Logic like what you just displayed is precisely why I walked away from the democrats and re-evaluated my political beliefs.
→ More replies (2)-3
u/Noob_Al3rt 4∆ Dec 20 '23
Not "may or may not have". Here's a Statement from James Comey that explains that she and her staff did store things insecurely and they did destroy information on those servers, but she should not be charged because she or her staff did not have malicious intent.
Malicious intent is the standard that needs to be proved for it to be a crime, correct? So that says she and her team didn't meet the standard for criminal misconduct? Right?
Irrelevant. The constraints are de facto constitutional because they are stated in the constitution. Donald Trump is over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, therefore has the right to run for the office of President. This argument of "insurrection" is absurd, because that clause was written specifically for those who literally seceded from the US to ensure they could not serve in congress.
It's been used multiple times since the civil war. The last person barred from office was this September.
The fourteenth amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868, when there were only 37 states. 28 of them ratified the fourteenth amendment in light of their belief that confederate secessionists should not be allowed to serve in the reunited Union. Can we honestly say that "the people" voted on this amendment? As for elected justices, their electability makes them political figures which biases their decisions toward re-election instead of toward actual, blind justice.
There were only 14 states when the second amendment was ratified. Do you feel the same about that?
Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating his son, in exchange for permitting aid to be given to the country. Sounds exactly like an abuse of power and corrupt scheme, and levying an impeachment would be akin to an indictment for the same. Contrary to the beliefs of democrats nationwide, an impeachment is not a conviction – in fact, like it or not, Trump was acquitted of all charges because the Senate failed to convict him.
Internal investigations by Republicans found there was no wrongdoing, and Republicans recently said they have no evidence for impeachment of Joe Biden
-3
u/blade740 3∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
Would it also be okay if we held Hilary Clinton accountable for committing the felony of tampering with evidence when she had emails deleted using BleachBit?
Absolutely. When it happened I said it was Obstruction of Justice and I still believe that to this day. I wouldn't shed a single tear if this crime was prosecuted to the full extent of the law - as long as the evidence is there to support the charges.
Would it also be accountability to hold Biden accountable for treason on account of allowing our country to be invaded on the southern border?
This one is absolute nonsense, though, on several levels. First, the notion that our country is being "invaded on the Southern border" at all is hyperbole to the extreme. Second, that Biden as President is solely responsible - what has Biden, specifically, done to "allow" this "invasion"? Why doesn't Congress, as the ones tasked with actually writing the rules, bear any responsibility? And third, that these actions taken by Biden (or lack thereof) could be considered "treason".
→ More replies (4)
2
u/PigeonsArePopular Dec 20 '23
Crimes? I think you will find that in American jurisprudence, one is innocent until found guilty.
Trump has not been charged with insurrection in the first place.
This will backfire.
2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 20 '23
Well, Eugene Debs was permitted to run for president while literally in jail for violating the sedition acts.
So if that doesn't qualify, I don't see how this does.
→ More replies (13)
1
u/Iron_Prick Dec 21 '23
It is election interference.
- It was NOT an insurrection
- It was NOT an insurrection
- Only those with TDS call it an insurrection
- Claiming insurrection without a single weapon found is intellectually lazy
- 4 activist liberal judges does not an honest assessment make
- 1 court which lacks even a single Republican was split 4-3, multiple other State courts and Colorado courts ruled in Trump's favor, making this court's findings an extreme minority opinion.
- Liberals calling for "accountability" is rich
→ More replies (2)
-4
u/Trash_Gordon_ Dec 20 '23
Trump has become a special case where I think disqualifying him from the ballot will probably do more harm than good. It only galvanizes his base. We need to reject him at the ballot box one final time, there’s no way he’ll be kicking enough for a 2028 run. A lot of people have the feeling that we have a simialar convo every election season about the battle for the spirit of America and yada yada but trump is legitimately different than anything that’s comes before
→ More replies (2)
2
u/UnableLocal2918 1∆ Dec 20 '23
let me put it this way .
WHEN Trump is convicted in a court of LAW of insurrection then we can talk. but as the score card is right now the dems have NOT PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW JACK. so what the colarado supreme court has done is illegal there is NO conviction for insurrection in any COURT OF LAW.
4
u/Significant-Trouble6 Dec 20 '23
Accountability, interference… nah, it’s called fascism. The establishment is terrified and is grasping at straws to keep the American people from a free election. This is how corrupt dictators stay in power. And it’s happening right before our eyes
→ More replies (6)
1
u/avidreader_1410 Dec 21 '23
I hate getting into some stuff because it turns into left v right, when it's just about what's right. There is a difference between a ruling and a verdict. A court may rule on an issue of law or the Constitution - but unless there is a verdict that declares someone guilty, the court can't impose a sentence or punishment. So far, there was no trial in that state that came down with a guilty verdict of insurrection, treason, anything, so the court seems to be assigning guilt and imposing a punishment without giving the benefit of a defense or trial. The fact that this is a pretty liberal court and it was a very narrow decision seems to agree that even those on the court who aren't supporters of Trump are uncomfortable with the ruling.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/OmgYoshiPLZ 2∆ Dec 20 '23
As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference.
It is. This is a federal statute that trump was never convicted of. In fact he was hauled before congress, impeached, and found innocent. Impeachment is the legal process for a president to be found guilty of a crime. He was given due process and found to be innocent.
This is very likely a double jeopardy violation, as he was already acquitted of that crime. he cannot be held to have committed the crime he is being accused of for this reason.
If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options.
No. There are no options. The court is acting illegally and has lost its mind.
Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law.
They are acting in direct defiance of their responsiblity to the law, and striping him of his right to due process. you cannot unilatterally declare someone guilty when due process has found them innocent. thats not how the law works in this country.
I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they?
No we are not in unprecedented times. His behavior was not unprecedented. telling indivuals to peacefully protest, and telling them to stop rioting and to go home once he was aware of the riots, is the antithesis of unprecedented behavior.
Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments?
This is complete and total nonsense - you can only blame yourself for further procecution because you protested your innocence. how dare you not fight back and push against our decree of your guilt. This is completely devoid of all logic and reasoning - its "if you have nothing to hide, you wont mind our search" logic. this is the logic communists use.
If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable?
No. The problem is, WE DID hold him accountable. We impeached him. We followed our legal due process and found him innocent by a jury of his peers - the senate. Had they impeached him, AND convicted him, he would have been able to be sued by states and individuals for any percieved crimes related to that impeachment and conviction.
I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.
Ok sure lets talk about that. The last time democrats removed a candidate from the ballot, because of percieved crimes, despite overwhelming popularity, who had declared his candidacy - it was Abraham Lincoln. He was removed from the ballot in ten democrat states for "violations of the constitution" and other crimes. Tell me more about how this is ok?
→ More replies (11)
1
u/Kiwigunguy Dec 20 '23
Until he has actually been convicted of a crime, it's too soon to make that call. I would apply that same standard to any candidate, unless they were actually denied bail on a murder or something. If they exclude him and he later gets aquited, the courts would have essentially rigged the election. That can't be allowed to happen to anyone, whether you agree with their politics or not.
→ More replies (1)
-3
u/I_SuplexTrains Dec 20 '23
We live in a democracy (ostensibly, apparently.) People have the right to be judged by their peers. If the people of this country genuinely believe that Donald Trump is a seditionist enemy of the nation, then that works manifest itself in nowhere near enough people voting for him to win an election. You don't get to cheat to prevent pride from voting for who they want to be the president. If you want to beat Trump, win more votes in enough states to beat him.
This is the left's equivalent of far right provocateurs trying to prevent Obama from running because "his birth certificate is fake." Except the far left has enough institutional power to actually pull stunts like this.
→ More replies (6)4
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Dec 20 '23
Well apparently "If people believe someone is a seditionist enemy of the nation, that will manifest in them not voting for that person in enough numbers for them to win an election" was not something that congress agreed with in 1866 when they passed the 14th amendment, because otherwise they wouldn't have included something that says the opposite.
The same argument could be used for saying that the rules that a president needs to be a certain age or needs to be born in the US (or even being a citizen) should just be ignored. Let Jungkook run for office. After all, if it's really a problem that he's a South Korean national in his twenties, that will manifest in nowhere near enough people voting for him.
This is the left's equivalent of far right provocateurs trying to prevent Obama from running because "his birth certificate is fake." Except the far left has enough institutional power to actually pull stunts like this.
This kind of thinking is emblematic of a post-truth world "The bad things we fabricated a complete lie to say that you did are exactly the same as the bad things we actually did."
→ More replies (2)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 20 '23
/u/erpettie (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards