The office of Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswald issued a statement that, since the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, Trump’s name will remain on the ballot “unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.” That clause or provision from the opinion may offer a welcomed escape option for both the Supreme Court and the state.
The timing question could have an interesting impact on the case. It could avoid a review by the Supreme Court by effectively mooting the case if the Supreme Court simply lets the clock run past January 5, 2024. The question is whether the Court would see a need to review the matter if no change would occur to the ballot itself.
The Colorado Secretary of State issued a press release that stated in part:
“The Colorado Republican Party has appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Griswold to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the appeal filed, Donald Trump will be included as a candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot when certification occurs on Jan. 5, 2024, unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.”
The Supreme Court should still take the case and reject the Colorado decision. This issue will only repeat itself in the general election and challengers are seeking additional judges or courts to embrace this dangerous theory. Currently, Colorado is an outlier. However, the Secretary of State in Maine has been as outspoken as Griswald on what she views as an “insurrection” on January 6th.
It is clear why challengers saw Democrat Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows as the most likely to endorse their theory. Bellows has already declared that “The Jan 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election… The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing what she called “the violent insurrection.”
Colorado may prefer to wait for states like Maine to join the cause rather than leave the state as the outlier. Moreover, it is clear to many of us that Colorado will lose before the Supreme Court if push comes to shove. This would remove the shove if the Court simply allows for review to continue beyond the certification on January 5th.
While the four Colorado justices have been lionized by pundits and the media, the optics could take a bad turn if liberal justices joined conservatives in setting aside this decision. Even on an all Democratically-appointed court, the majority was only able to eek out a 4-3 decision with three justices rejecting this novel theory.
It is hard to portray yourself as the defender of democracy by preventing citizens from voting for the current frontrunner for the presidency. It is even more difficult when various states, including Democratic jurists and justices, reject this radical effort.
The Secretary of State could have sought to lift the limitation on a pending review as barring removal. There was no effort to get the justices to reconsider that part of the ruling. Yet, Griswald could have argued that, once Trump is found to be an insurrectionalist under the Fourteenth Amendment, her office should not be compelled to include his name. After all, the office is not an intermediate court and it has a ruling that Trump is disqualified as a matter of law.
It appears, however, that Griswald accepts this condition that Trump will remain on the ballot unless the Court declines review (which seems unlikely) or affirms the Colorado Supreme Court (which seems even more unlikely).
The question is whether Griswald herself will seek to have the matter declared as moot after January 5th. She can argue that, while the same objections could be raised for the balloting for the general election, it is pure conjecture that Trump will win the primary despite every poll showing an overwhelming lead. She could then avoid a likely reversal but arguing that there is no change on the balloting and thus no injury to the Colorado GOP.
The Colorado GOP is arguing that it is being denied the constitutionally protected right to association due to the removal. Once again, even that right would be effectively protected by a default retention of Trump on the ballot.
The mootness argument, therefore, may hold great appeal for Griswald. It may also appeal to some justices who would like this cup to pass from their lips. Some like Chief Justice John Roberts are incrementalists who prefer to avoid divisive issues when possible. The lasting legacy of Bush v. Gore still haunts the Court decades after its issuance.
An exit ramp offered by a mootness argument might be an irresistible temptation for Roberts as well as the three liberal justices. Others like Justice Bret Kavanaugh could also agree that the Court can wait to see if this matter will arise again before the general election.
For many of us, the mooting of the issue would be a bitter pill since we have long argued for a final rejection on this pernicious legal theory. Yet, with states like Maine, this is not the only horse in the race if it is stopped at the gates.
Professor Turley should stretch as a writer and explain why the Republican party cannot possibly move on without Donald Trump.
Consider the following:
* Trump is 77 years old.
* Trump lost the Popular Vote in two elections.
* Trump polls badly with women and Independents.
In a normal America, these three reasons alone would discourage Republicans from giving Trump a third nomination.
And yet he is leading Biden and if the election were today he would win the popular vote.
Democrats have correctly pointer out that age is not relevant. Ronald Coase and Milton Friedman – 2 of the 4 most brilliant economists of the past century were both extremely able in the latter half of their 90’s.
The problem with Biden is that he is senile, not that he is old.
Trump is doing quite well for 77.
Trump is currently leading with independents, In fact his polls by demographic group are substantially better than his overall polls.
He is currently leading Biden in every single age cohort – including under 35.
He is wither slightly behind or slightly ahead among hispanics.
He is at 22% with Blacks – which no Republican has managed in a long time – and he is over 30% with Black men.
Even among women he is only trailing significantly with single white women.
In a normal america Biden never would have been president.
Regardless, Democrats are stuck with Biden – and frankly Harris and Newsome are polling worse.
The only actual hope Democrats had was RFK jr. and you pissed all over that.
Further it should be self evidence from the GOP debates that Not only do Republicans (and many other voters) want Trump, but the leading contenders – DeSantis and Viveck are Trump look alikes. Even Halley is mostly only distinguishable in that she is trying to appeal to neocons,
Trump is now over 50% in nearly all primaries, and over 60% in most.
Current RCP betting odds are something like 74% that Trump is the next president.
I would also note regarding your “normal america” argument.
Inj a normal america – neither Al Gore nor George Bush would have been contenders.
In a Normal America Bill Clinton would not have been president.
In a normal america Barack Obama would not have been president.
Further – you claim that Trump lost the popular vote multiple times – absolutely.
Because for cycle after Cycle Democrats have been lying through their teeth.
We were Told Obama had nothing to do with Bill Ayres – except we learn that Ayres a terrorist ghost wrote Obama’s book
We were told that the Murder of the US ambassador in Libya was not a Terrorist operation – yet, we learned it was an Al Queda operation.
We were Told that Trump colluded with Russia – yet it was Clinton that actually Colluded.
We were Told that the Claims of bribery regarding Joe Biden were Russian disinformation – and yet they were True.
Democrats have been lying through their teeth election after election – and constantly between.
We hear all this garbage about Trump – but the biggest whoppers of the my entire lifetime have been those of democrats.
We hear constantly from the left that Republicans are zombies that can’t think and blindly follow Trump.
Yet, it is Democrats that have been caught with their pants down beleiving lie after lie after lie my entire life.
Regardless, anyone who wants to be president is the wrong person for the job – that goes for all of them.
But those are the choices we have.
Of the choices we actually have:
The world was more peaceful and less dnagerous under Trump.
The economy was better,
Inflation was better,
crime was lower,
Democrats have been increasingly polarizing the country – even before Obama,
Nothing has changed. Biden promised to change that – he did – he made it worse.
Now instead of just calling Republic presidential candidates nazi’s Democrats are calling significant portions of the GOP nazi’s.
And they are busy running Domestic terrorism investigations against Catholics and parents of school kids.
The great danger to this country – to the rule of the law is entirely from THE LEFT.
Nearly all republicans promise to dismantle that.
Trump offers the best hope of ending that entirely.
We MUST end the garbage that our “deep state” is engaged in.
Our elections are not to be decided by the DOJ the FBI the CIA,
In this country Government may not censor speech – and yet Democrats have – repeatedly.
Democrats are reading 1984 as a howto manual not a dystopia.
I expect Trump will be the president in 2025.
But the good news is that EVERY republican candidate – currently beats Biden.
The party with the failure as candidate – is the democratic party.
Biden is trying to push James Buchannon out of the slot for the worst US president ever.
The core question right now is not – why is Trump winning,
But why isn’t Trump and every other republican candidate winning 538:0
The disaster right now – is Biden – not Trump.
It is highly likely that Voters get to compare Biden and Trump head to head in 2024, in the most unusual circumstances – Both are running with a record for good or evil both candidates are stuck with their presidency.
And voters Want the Trump presidency – not the Biden one.
I would note that the Demented Biden attacks are really unimportant.
Biden is senile. But voters know they are not electing Senile Joe, they are electing the people pulling his strings.
And they are voting against that.
They are voting against failed democrat policies.
They are voting for successful Trump policies.
Even on “little” things democrats can not get it right.
Obama stupidly courted Iran.
We all Hope that the iranian people cast off their terrorist government,
The irainian people – mostly are not the problem.
But those in power in Iran are extremely dangerous,
And Democrats keep empowering a state sponsor of terrorism.
And we are seeing how that is playing out. Iran is strngling the Persian Gulf. One of their puppets has chocked the entrance to the Suez,
Iran has also threatened shipping in the Indian ocean.
The good news is this has little effect on the US. The bad news is it is a very serious threat to europe and to the mideast.
The Yemen war barely cooled down – with US left wing nuts supporting Iran’s puppet state.
It is currently clear that they are a serious threat to global security.
And that Iran is too.
This mess not only happened on democrats watch – it did not just happen – Democrats by policy brought it about.
And who is it that you think is going to reign any of this in ?
The US navy cut its teeth fighting the Barbary pirates 2 centuries ago. United the UK, France and the US navies assured global free trade for the past 200 years. Today FRance and the UK are inconsequential naval powers. They certainly are not up to securing the Gulf, the Suez and the Mediterainian.
And increasingly the US has neither the wherewithal, not the will., Further our committments are elsewhere – Asia.
The mideast is no longer important to the US – though it is critical to the EU.
We hear this nonsense from the left – that Trump was not respected by world leaders – mostly meaning Europeans.
Yet, Trump brought peace to the mideast. Biden =- like Obama before him – has violence rising all over.
We had no problems in the Gulf under Trump – Iran would not have dared.
We had no problems with the Suez under Trump
We have a mess with both now.
Everywhere we turn with Biden – we see disaster.
And what we see is NOT because Biden is senile.
Biden is not running the country. The same nutjobs that were doing so under Obama are – and doing far worse this time.
I would note that MAGA is not just the GOP future, it is the countries future.
We hit peak woke in 2020. The left has failed.
One way or another Trump will be gone in 2028.
But the republican party will be much as it is under Trump.
That is because that is a winning strategy – one that appeals to americans.
We are tired of left wing nuts appologizing constantly for this country.
The US has made mistakes – every country has.
But this country is the greatest int he world.
The left likes to fawn over immigrants – but forgets why the US is and has been for 2 centuries the choice destination for people leaving their country
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”
They do not come for our social safety net.
They come for our FREEDOM.
What those of you on the left seek to destroy.
Nice try 😆
Clinton told the world he was unaware of the Rwandan Holocaust. He is a filthy liar.
I concur.
January 20th, 2025. Do you Donald Trump solemnly swear to uphold the office of president of the United States of America? Yes, I do. Congratulations Mr. President. As Trump said, I’m one indictment away from being re-elected. There’s only one way the establishment in this country is going to be able to stop him. That will be a sad day in America. God help us.
What are you Democrats afraid of?
You’ve already seen 4 years of a Donald Trump presidency. He didn’t start any wars, and he isn’t antisemitic. He tried his best to keep millions of uneducated, disease ridden, illegal invaders from over running our country to receive tax-payer monies that we and our grandchildren don’t have. Illegals who are putting an undue burden on our already under performing schools. Some are drug cartel plants, some drug runners, some rapists / murderers, some terrorists and human traffickers.
What can you say good about Joe Biden and his Democrat / Socialist policies?
Please state actual facts, and if say anything good of the Biden economy, we’ll know that you have no arrows in your quiver.
Section 5 of 14A gives Congress the authority to enforce Section 3. Congress has done so (18 USC 2383). Now that Congress has acted, it is the exclusive way for Section 3 to be enforced. Change my mind.
Read what the judges have already written instead of demanding to be individually tutored.
Bzzzt. You failed.
Bzzzt. I don’t care whether I change your mind. I care what the legal rulings are, because they have a legal impact, whereas your opinion about it has no legal impact. If you’re unwilling to educate yourself about it, that’s on you, not me.
BTW, you might also read the judges’ ruling in the disqualification of Couy Griffin (he’s already been disqualified under 14A s3), paragraphs 61-63: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/D101CV202200473-griffin.pdf
And there are other relevant legal analyses, such as https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/
If you’ve studied math, the distinction between “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions is also relevant here. An 18 USC 2383 conviction is sufficient but not necessary.
The only president ever removed from the ballot was … Abraham lincoln in 1860 who was removed from the ballot in 10 southern states.
There have only been 5 attempts to preclude someone who was part of the confederacy from office. 2 of these failed ALL occured AFTER they had been elected, and were done by Congress. The 14th amendment does not preclude people who participated in an insurection from holding office It allows congress to choose not to seat them – which is what has occured in every instance the 14th amendment was every used – prior to left wing nuts going nuts. The 14th amendment is specific to HOLDING office. There is no elections provision in it at all. Congress is empowered to remove the disability – which they can not do unless the person is first elected.
The 14th amendment is not “self executing” no constitutional delegation of power to government is self executing. Only individual rights and liberties are “self executing”.
I noted that 14S3 was invoked only 5 times – all when a federal representative was being seated in congress.
Equally important prior to the bat schiff left it was NOT used – hundreds perhaps thousands of times against former confederates.
Jefferson Davis the president of the confederacy – was not tried. Numerous confederate legislators, judges, generals later served in state and federal offices – including the house of representatives, the senate and the supreme court.
The very people who write the 14th amendment did not attempt to politically weaponize it in the way the left is trying.
Do you have to be convicted of insurrection to have the 14th amendment apply – that is a difficult question.
But what is certain is that absent a criminal conviction it is NOT the domain of the courts, and it is not the domain of elections.
Neither the courts nor elections are referenced in 14S3
Thank you. Our moronic destroyers, the demoncrats, obviously don’t care one whit how anything has been done by the USA for over 200 years.
It’s kind of funny how these whack jobs who scream we must stop the lifetime orange dictator, wind up taking up dictatorship themselves, declaring their new declared power and interpretations never before seen “in line with the law”.
“There have only been 5 attempts to preclude someone who was part of the confederacy from office.
ALL occurred AFTER they had been elected, and were done by Congress.
The 14th amendment does not preclude people who participated in an insurrection from holding office.
It allows congress to choose not to seat them – which is what has occurred in every instance the 14th amendment was every used.” JS
Thanks very much for that. I await anyone who can refute it.
These new “anything goes” types of government actions kind of means all restraint has vanished – they can do whatever they want so long as they half bake and twist some words or ideas spread in between the endless lies to pretend to comport to some law. It’s all novel stuff, and all the money mongers, movers and shakers, judges and lawyers, politicos and medias all love this kind of crap.
That you claim something does not make it true.
It’s really amusing that you insist “14S3 was invoked only 5 times – all when a federal representative was being seated in congress” right after I gave a link to the ruling where Couy Griffin was removed from local office under 14A s3 for his participation in J6. Even aside from C. Griffin, there are more than 5.
You’re also wrong that “The only president ever removed from the ballot was … Abraham lincoln.” Cleveland, LBJ, and Truman weren’t on the ballots in all states either.
These aren’t your only false claims, but I doubt that you’ll admit you’re even wrong about these totally straightforward issues, so I’m not going to bother to address the rest of what you wrote.
@John Say…
Got to correct you…
The 14th Section 3 did in fact keep anyone who fought for the South off any local or above ballot.
Then in 1872 the Amnesty Act was voted on w 2/3rd vote in each chamber of Congress.
That limited the scope of the 14th.
That’s why you could see people get seated who weren’t in Congress or a public official during the war and then fought on the side of the south.
History matters.
Add to this … the Berger example actually favors Trump.
He was elected and was refused to be seated because of the 14th Amendment Section 3.
The reality was that he was convicted under the Espionage Act.
Yet once he had that conviction overturned, he ran was re-elected where he then sat in Congress.
The point was that while he was convicted he was inelligible. Since the conviction was overturned… he could run and he did.
Now show me Trump’s conviction under 18 USC 2383…
-G
The Colorado Supreme Court majority opinion discusses 18 USC 2383 on page https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Oops — page 60 of the opinion.
Thanks CC. The analysis is undeveloped. It’s just two or three sentences basically declaring that section 3 is self executing, without explaining how due process can be ensured absent a trial on the question of guilt. Nor does it explain why the framers would have given Congress enforcement powers if they intended it to be self executing. Since it interprets federal law, it can be disapproved by Scotus, and I think it will be.
And what does it mean to say that a law is “self-executing”? All laws are words on paper. They must be enforced (“executed”) by administrative personnel and specialized institutions. Here there are no designated personnel or institutions. The operative words of the Amendment are not even defined in the Amendment. When leftists say it is self-executing, they mean that they are free to do anything they want.
You know, if you want to understand what it means for a law to be self-executing, you could look it up and read about it. For example, “Section Three is legally self-executing. That is, Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is.” (https://theorcasonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SSRN-id4532751.pdf) The requirement that a candidate for President be at least 35 y.o. is similarly self-executing, they could just as easily write “disqualification [under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5] is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are [not] satisfied. [Article II, Section 1, Clause 5] requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective.”
The original judge held a 5 day bench trial. Trump’s lawyers presented their arguments. They lost.
There WAS a trial in CO. It lasted 5 days. It was a civil trial because 14A s3 is an issue of civil law.
So they ignored 18 USC 2383 which codified rebellion or insurrection?
Yes that is exactly what they did along w Amnesty Act of 1872.
Their reasoning is flawed.
Because of 18 USC 2383, which is a federal law… the state’s laws must align and do not supersede Federal law.
@oldmanfromAR
This isn’t 100% accurate.
POTUS and Congress can declare an insurrection without charging anyone w 18 USC 2383.
Its a requirement before they call in the military to quell a rebellion.
But that didn’t happen.
What is interesting is in the wording of the Amnesty Act of 1872.
It absolved everyone but a select few.
It didn’t say that it absolved everyone that participated in the rebellion (civil war) except a few, but everyone.
-G
Get a grip people, there was an insurrection. Thanks for letting us all know Bob, seeing as there hasn’t ever been an insurrection declared by Congress or anyone indicted for or convicted of insurrection Bob. Thanks again for letting us all know, because without your insight we wouldn’t have known.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has to declare an insurrection? The plain facts of the day and the clear meaning of an insurrection say trump is not fit to serve. 2 states have now said this. I believe this is now a majority position since only 3 states have ruled. And the outlier (Michigan) did not rule on the facts of the case.
The Court of Claims judge in Michigan did discuss the “facts of the case”, saying that the question of eligibility to run for President is a political question.
It does not say that anywhere.
It also does not say that the courts get to decide.
However it does say HOLD office – not run for election. It does say that Congress can remove the disability, and the history – by the people who WROTE the 14th amendment was that Congress decides when someone who has already been elected is to be seated.
To the extent that you can bar someone from office for allegedly participating in an insurrection – they must first be elected, and then congress must decide is an insurrection took place, and then if they will allow that person to hold office.
If Trump is elected in 2024, When congress sits to certify the election results – democrats will be free to claim he is ineligable because he is an insurectionist, and congress can decide whether they wish to entertain that question, and if so, whether there was an insurection adn if so whether the person in question is an insurrectionist and if so whether they wish to remove the disability.
When Trump is elected in 2024 if Congress actually manages to bar Trump from office – his VP will become president.
That is constitutionally how this works. While that is the best read of the text, more importantly it is also consistent with what those who wrote the text actually did.
When the constitution wishes to delegate a power to the states – it does so explicitly. Barring such explicit reference to the states, the power is a federal power.
Sorry John…
But no…
You have to do some digging but POTUS and CONGRESS can declare that an insurrection is taking place. This is actually a precursor to allowing the military to be brought in to quell said rebellion. But that didn’t happen.
So then you’re left to someone being charged and convicted under 18 USC 2383.
That too didn’t happen.
It seems you’re talking about using the 14th if/when Trump is elected.
But that’s not how it works.
I mean yes, its at that time you can make the call, but … you first need to have an established act of insurrection.
None exists.
-G
@Anonymous: Re: ”Get a grip people, there was an insurrection..” The charge of ‘incitement of insurrection’ against Trump resulted in an impeachment trial for which he was found not guilty by the Senate. All else is immaterial notwithstanding the fact that his detractors are silk purse fabricators. As for “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”, “shall” is not a word of obligation. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “shall” really means “may”. However, further reading finds that many federal documents are being revised by replacing “shall” with “must” to indicate a requirement. In the absence of additional due process beyond that of the second impeachment, i.e. a charge, indictment, trial and conviction, the present and future of the question hang on the pleasure of the SCOTUS arriving at a final determination in the matter of the language of Section 3.
If J6 was an insurrection – then the collusion delusion was an insurection, the BLM/FLoyd riots were an insurection. Chuck Schumer engaged in insurrection at the Supreme court and on and on and on.
We read laws narrowly with respect to government and broadly with respect to rights.
Any broad defintion of insurection runs hard into the first amendment. In a conflictr between the broad rights of the first amendment and a broad reading of what is an insurrection in the 14th – the 14th MUST lose.
But even without the 1st – broad readings of govenrment powers are error.
An insurrection is an armed attempt to overthrown the government.
Attempting to protest and persuade congress not to certify an election is NOT an attempt to overthrow government.
How do we know that – because it has happened before and no one called it an insurrection – and in fact it was successful.
Congress selected alternate slates of electors and Harris ended up president.
“Overturning” the results of an election – is perfectly legal. The court in Bridgeport Connecticut recently did exactly that.
Federal courts have explicitly rules in the past that the legislatures path to challenge an election – is by appointing alternate slates of electors.
Again pointing out this left wing nut effort to pretent that the past does not exist and that they can read the law in a vaccuum and bend it to reach their desired result.
I would note that recent reporting has revealed that had Biden lost 2020 narrowly that Democrats intended to challenge the election in exactly the way Trump did – challenging the voting machines, demanding recounts, alleging fraud. Trying to get legislatures to apppoint alternate slates of electors and ultimately trying to get congress to either accept the alternate slates or refuse to certify the election.
There was no insurection on J6. There was barely even a riot.
While DC juries have convicted people of crimes without any evidence, what was clear from those trials is there was no plan, no conspiracy, no plan for violence, the hope was that Congress would not certify. But the expectation was they would. Protestors were at the capitol to make their anger over a stolen election known. They were not there to overthrow the government – and this would not have been the moment to do so.
They were not armed. Only the capitol police were armed.
Why are we debating this nonsense ?
There was no insurrection.
There would not have been a riot but for the incompetence of the capitol police.
The only consequential lawlessness was by Democrats in the election – you seem to forget that you were CAUGHT rigging the election.
You engaged in mass political censorship – and you AGAIN weaponized government to do so.
There are very very very few circumstances in which govenrment can censor the speech of private individuals.
And politics is absolutely positively NOT one of this.
Alleged missinformation is NOT one of those.
National Security is NOT one of those.
Public health is NOT one of those.
We allow government censorship of child pornography.
We allow government censorship of adult content when it is provided to children
We allow govenrment censorship of immediate, credible clear threats of violence to others.
That is ALL.
All other govenrment censorship of private individuals is unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional censorship in an election is election rigging – FRAUD.
While there is ample evidence of the probability of other forms of election fraud – and no one should ever beleive anything that people who would censor their political opponents claim, Government censorship of Political and Covid speech int he 2020 election is PROVEN and admitted.
Even more interesting is the very persuasive Amicus which Meese et al submitted in support of the Trump legal team. Turley has yet to comment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf
“Colorado may prefer to wait for states like Maine to join the cause rather than leave the state as the outlier.”
Yea, and maybe not. Outlier? Get a grip people. There was an insurrection, it failed. The 14th amendment says nothing ab out conviction. A judge or judges, or jury is capable of making a judgment, and is in fact required to make a judgement based on facts at hand.
Quiet calling it an outlier. The facts are coming home to roost.
By its express text, the enforcement of the 14th Amendment was delegated to CONGRESS. What is there anything hard about this?
It isn’t, and we know that as a fact because it was enforced against multiple people without any enforcement by Congress. You should be asking why you find this difficult to understand.
“Trump Election Denial Was Expected”
From Politico: 6/21/19
The scenarios all seem far-fetched. But the constant drumbeat has people chattering in the halls of Congress and throughout the Beltway: What if Trump won’t accept defeat in 2020?
And one scenario in particular has Democrats nervous: the lawsuit-happy Trump contests the election results in court.
Constitutional experts and top Republican lawmakers dismiss the fears as nonsense, noting there are too many forces working against a sitting president simply clinging to power — including history, law and political pressure.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/21/trump-election-2020-1374589
………………………….
This piece was written in June of 2019. Question: ‘How did Politico know back then that Trump would deny defeat’?
Everyone who recognized Trump as a malignant narcissist could anticipate that he might deny defeat. It’s not as though his malignant narcissism was a secret. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump was published in 2017, with essays from 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals describing Trump’s mental ill-health and the danger it posed to the country. He was planning to deny defeat in 2016 had Clinton won.
13A, Section 1——>Section 2 ——>18 USC 77
14A Section 3—->section 5——> 18 USC 2383
24A Section 1——Section 2——> 53 USC 10306
15A Section 1——-Section 2——>52 USC 10101
Clinton is responsible for the slaughter of Rwandans.
Politico Turd from turdrunner
Signed
Everybody here plus Estovir
The fools who elect this rot to high office are cutting not only their own throats, the rest of the citizenry, and this Constitutional Republic. Those who charge Trump with being Hitler have only to look in the mirror to know how Hitler succeeded. He turned the world inside out, was responsible for the death of millions, beyond that of his Jew Hating genocide, and made of his nation and its people excrement.
Apparently Maine has removed Trump, so I guess it’s game on.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/maine-bars-trump-2024-ballot
The ruling is suspended until Maine’s Superior Court rules on any appeal.
ROFL
the harlet of babylon, shenna bellows Demoncrat:
“She is executive director of the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine, and the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine.[2]” wiki
“Shenna Bellows was born on March 23, 1975, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the eldest daughter of Dexter Bellows, a carpenter, and Janice Colson, a nurse. She grew up in Hancock, Maine, where she attended Hancock Grammar School. Bellows grew up in a struggling family; she claims her family did not have running water or electricity, which the family could not afford, until she was in the fifth grade.[3][4]” wiki
I SEE. Born in 1975, no running water or electricity – her mommie as usual a government stooge public school teacher – DADDY WAS A CARPENTER LIKE JESUS.
None of these people are ever believable. They all have the commie intel fake backrounds, they were all poor destitute waifs, this one crapped in box made from a stolen hay bale and mud, no doubt, and barely escaped the pogrom, sadly the relatives did not
Semper Gumbus!
Always flexible until we bend no more.
Oh no! It appears Colorado AG has changed her mind. Looks like PRESIDENT TRUMP will remain on the ballot unless the SC affirms their judgement. News flash, the SC will never affirm…
Trump will glide into the Presidency again as blithering Biden is impeached and convicted of obstruction and corruption.
@Traveler
Nope.
The brain dead CO Supreme Court didn’t change their mind, nor did the AG.
The ruling from the CO SC was stayed by the court pending an appeal by Trump’s lawyers. (Trump is on the ballot)
If no appeal is heard because SCOTUS isn’t in session and doesn’t want to hold an emergency session before Jan 5th, then Trump stays on the ballot.
The AG is clarifying the scenario that will most likely occur. SCOTUS won’t cut short their vacation to hear this case. Would you?
Clearly not Joe Biden who’s hanging out in the VI. The first POTUS to spend more time on vacation than any previous POTUS in history.
(And this is why unlimited vacation days is not a good thing… )
-G
This ‘escape’ clause is interesting in that SCOTUS would have to take this up by Jan 4th since the names have to be decided by Jan 5th.
If SCOTUS has no plans to go into session before Jan 5th… Then Trump’s name has to be on the ballot. (The action was stayed pending an appeal.)
Trump gets some ‘due process’ which was lacking in the lower courts.
There are two unanswered questions. Did the Amnesty Act of 1872 restrict section 3 to just a handful of people that fought in the civil war, and who are all now dead? Or did they mean to also include anyone guilty going forward? From the writing, the Act limits the scope only to that small set of people
Then you have the larger issue.
18 USC 2383 codifies the charge of insurrection.
If no one is charged under 18 USC 2383 did an insurrection actually occur?
Because only POTUS and Congress can declare an insurrection and must prior to calling on the military to put down such a rebellion.
(But that didn’t happen.) [Other than charging under 18 USC 2383]
Claiming that an insurrection occurred is legal malpractice.
And for judges its a violation of canon #5.
-G
If I am sued for the civil claim of fraud, can I dismiss the case because I was not prosecuted for criminal fraud?
Asking for a friend.
But seriously, why do folks continue to re-write the clear statutory language to suggest that “insurrection” means “the crime of insurrection per 18 USC 2383”?
If that is what they intended, then it is not SCOTUS’s job to rewrite the amendment. It is the job of Congress to do so.
@Anon
You have two statutes of fraud. One criminal, one civil, which in this case is being abused by the courts.
The clear statutory language?
Huh?
The 14th Amendment Section 3 doesn’t define the term ‘insurrection’.
And if you want to be pedantic, you have to ask yourself who can decide if an insurrection took place.
1) POTUS
2) CONGRESS
3) 18 USC 2383 which codifies the law as to what is insurrection.
Now #1 and #2 must do so before calling out the military to quell any rebellion.
Did that happen?
Nope.
#3. Did anyone get charged under 18 USC 2383?
Nope.
So in this country, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That means that the burden is on the court to show that an insurrection took place and that person X was a participant and guilty of the charge. So unless you’re charged and found guilty under 18 USC 2383, you’re not.
Got it?
No insurrection. You can’t apply the 14th, regardless of the Amnesty Act of 1872.
-G
Your argument is a red herring.
Civil fraud is codified. Criminal fraud is also codified. The statutes that allow you to be sued are separate from the criminal statutes. Section 3 is codified criminally by 18 USC 2383, by Congress, as permitted to them solely, by Section 5. They did not choose to codify a civil liability. So you cant get sued by someone for insurrection. They did provide a civil remedy in addition to the criminal penalty in 18 USC 2383. The wording is not coincidentally based on 14A. However, both remedies require a conviction by a jury of peers. Sorry.
The Sununu Branch of the Bush Republican Establishment up there in Maine are a bunch of Never-Trumpers….to include the Loon of a Secretary of State.
She had this to say on Twitter following the failed second Impeachment of Trump….remember that Snap Impeachment thing that failed so badly?
“Shenna Bellows
@shennabellows
The Jan 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Today 57 Senators including King & Collins found Trump guilty. That’s short of impeachment but nevertheless an indictment. The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.
3:59 PM · Feb 13, 2021”
Acquitted is not an Indictment.
We should take such biased opinions from those making decisions re who gets onto the State Ballot for President?
If the Governor had any honor or integrity he would have removed her back then and certainly should today.
We have to know our entire Election Process is fair, ethical, and conforms with the Law and the requirements of the US Constitution….especially that part about Due Process.
In clown world failure to convict and remove is a win.
Joe Patrice’s piece today, publlished at “Above the Law” says it all:
Jonathan Turley Compares Trump’s ‘Rot In Hell’ Holiday Greeting To Die Hard For Some Stupid Reason
Trump’s ‘rot in hell’ is to holiday greetings what Jonathan Turley is to academic credibility…
Comparing Joe Patrice to Jonathan Turley’s as legal commentators is like comparing the 1962 Mets to the 1927 Yankees as baseball teams.
The SoS press release is not legally binding. Furthermore, in light of the CO court’s ruling, couldn’t Biden or his supporters get Trump removed from the ballot, for example, by filing a complaint for mandamus relief? So I’m not seeing how her press release moots out the case.
Old Man…
The ruling from Colorado Supreme Court was stayed pending an appeal.
If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case… then it means that they probably agree with the court and Trump loses.
If SCOTUS doesn’t get back in sessions, so the appeal is still pending by Jan 5th, then he’s still on the ballot.
Because the court made their ruling and stayed it… she had to clarify what that meant.
SCOTUS will hear his appeal since there are multiple state courts that have heard cases and came to different conclusions. Just a question of when.
The issue heard will be interesting.
Why not more Constitutional Scholars talking about the Amnesty Act?
As written the Act limits Section 3, but it was short of a full repeal of Section 3. Why not amend Section 3 rather than write a separate act?
They did have 2/3rds vote in Congress.
How does the Amnesty Act apply here? I don’t think it was prospective as to future alleged rebellions. Or was it?
In other Trump legal news …
The 2nd Circuit appeals court has denied Trump’s motion to stay the ruling rejecting his claim of immunity from E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit.
Trump had asked for the stay — and to delay the January trial — while he considered appealing to SCOTUS. The trial starts on Jan. 16.
🫏🫏🫏🫏 to 👨⚖️🧑⚖️👨⚖️ ruling. The four Colorado justices don’t deserve a moooooo- ting, they deserve a He-hawwwwing.
Well, the reality is Trump is the only hope this country has. Clearly the weak weasel POS in the wh agenda is the destruction of America. And the republicans, all they do is yack, yack, yack. They are working for the same agenda as the democraps, they just have a different route to take to get to the end result. These “leaders” are undoubtedly mental cases. Weak little men and women who are probably all guilty of various crimes and even atrocities against the entire human race all around the world. It amazes me in a sickening way how complacent the sheep of America, how blind “we” are and how truth is cast away and lies are embraced. Look at the lies we’ve grown up with, being told it’s truth… Back to the subject at hand. Trump is our only hope. He doesn’t have a bunch of different masks to wear depending on who he’s talking to. He’s not a pu**y, he’s respected and probably even feared, which being feared is better then having a gutless traitor who works for America’s enemy or a homosexual who bows to other leaders. Our country is in the toilet and the truth hurts. The government is a cancer, right wing, left wing, all parts of the POS bird that robs us and murders us!!!
Wake up sheeple and
VOTE TRUMP 2024!!!
I’ll be voting AGAINST Trump in 2024.
Good to know
trump will not win in 2024. He will get millions of votes, including yours, he will win a few states. He will come no where near 45% of the popular vote and likely much less than 40% of the electoral vote. The Democrats can place some mayor of a small town as their nominee and being unknown, that person (male, female, trans, or anything) will get more votes than trump will get. He is a looser. He has never won a majority of the popular vote. His endorsements fail way more often than they succeed. So go ahead, insist on trump being the nominee of the party formerly known as republican. He will loose because he is a looser. He is a rapist, he allegedly hid classified documents in his house, he allegedly tried to get fake electors say he won in states he clearly lost. He is a looser, did I already say that? He is a looser. He talks like a 4 year old, constantly whining and calling people petty names. What a snowflake. The fact you support a person like this says a lot about your character, none of them good. He is a looser.
Bob: It’s spelled “loser” given your context, not “looser”.
I agree with your assessment of Trump.
Know that Trump is a child of a “looser” God. 🤣
Illiterates of a feather flock together.
The “looser God” remark is really quite witty. Indicates someone who can use language as satire.
Hillary Clinton believed nonsense like this.