This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X. I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historically flawed. It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world.
We can expect the justices to focus on the three main questions before the Court:
1. Is the president “an officer of the United States” for purposes of section 3?
2. Is section 3 self-executing?
3. Was January 6th an “insurrection” under Section 3.
You will likely hear references to Griffin’s Case in the arguments. Not long after ratification in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled in a circuit opinion that the clause was not self-executing. He suggested that allowing Congress to simply bar political opponents from office would be a form of punishment without due process and would likely violate the prohibition on bills of attainder.
You will also likely hear comparisons to other sections and how this case could impact the meaning of terms like “officers” and “offices.” For example, the Appointments Clause gives a president the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” That creates a tension with defining, as do those pushing this theory, that a president is also an officer of the United States. Most of the advocates simply argue that the meaning is different.
You may also hear references to the Incompatibility Clause which provides, “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6. Critics have noted that the proponents of this theory argue that the Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore are “Officers of the United States.” Indeed, they reject any difference between an “Officer of the United States” and an “Office under the United States.” However, this creates tension with members serving as Speakers and Senate Presidents Pro Tempore since those positions are also “Offices under the United States.”
Some of the argument will clearly focus on the history and context for this amendment.
These members and activists have latched upon the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — which was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court later explained, “[t]he idea [was] that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.” So, members drafted a provision that declared that “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.”
Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. I publicly condemned President Trump’s speech that day while it was being given — and I denounced the riot as a “constitutional desecration.” However, it has not been treated legally as an insurrection. Those charged for their role in the attack that day are largely facing trespass and other less serious charges — rather than insurrection or sedition. While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of an insurrection. While a few were charged with seditious conspiracy, no one was charged with insurrection. Trump has never been charged with either incitement or insurrection.
The clause was created in reference to a real Civil War in which over 750,000 people died in combat. The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.
Conversely, in my view, Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot.
You will be hearing arguments from:
- Jonathan Mitchell, who is representing Trump. He is a Texas lawyer who has previously argued before the Court.
- Jason Murray, who is representing Republican voters who want to disqualify Trump. Murray clerked for Justice Elena Kagan and also then judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit.
- Shannon Stevenson, who is the Colorado Solicitor General. Stevenson only recently became solicitor general and was previously in private practice.
OT, is Hawaii seceding from the Union? Its supreme court just ruled unanimously that its own “spirit of aloha” supersedes the US Constitution. It is therefore not bound by Scotus rulings on the Second Amendment. It can decide to be insubordinate and side with Scotus dissenters. Who knew the US Constitution didn’t apply in Hawaii?
The same people who think that the Constitution doesn’t apply to Texas.
TX is not arguing the Constitution does not apply.
They are arguing correctly – that the consitution is a contract with the states, and that the Federal government has failed to meet its constitutional obligations and therefore that TX is free to take on the constutional task that the federal govenrment refused to do.
The entirety of that argument is driven by the plain text of the constitution.
The closest thing to a weakness in Texas’s argument is that the constitution empowers the state to perform a task that the federal govenrment fails to do in several specific instances. TX uses the requirement of the constitution that the federal government protect the states from invasion.
The TX claim that massive illegal immigration is an invasion is the only weak part of their claim.
Everything else is constitutionally very well grounded.
Is millions of illegal immigrants flooding across the border an invasion ?
More so that unarmed protestors were engaged in insurrection.
I would note that in the DC appelate immunity decision the court found that presidents have a duty to uphold the law.
It is beyond any doubt at all that Biden is NOT upholding the law.
What “plain text” of the Constitution? Citation?
NEWSFLASH
Attorney General Merrick Garland and the United States Department of Justice declare Joe Biden demented, having a “poor memory,” and incompetent to the duties of President, thereby fulfilling their duty to the Global Communist Deep Deep State Swamp Regime.
Understanding that 10 million new democrat voters have been delivered and firmly ensconced in America by Joe Biden, Moochhell Obama will be nominated at the Democrat National Convention, insidiously and circuitously providing a third presidential term to the thoroughly ineligible Barack Hussein “Barry ‘I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta’ Soetoro” Obama, finally and irrevocably relieving Americans of possession of their country.
Goodnight, America.
Jonathan: Remember after DJT was charged by Jack Smith with concealing classified material and obstruction? And remember how DJT responded? He claimed Joe Biden did the same thing–falsely claiming Biden was hoarding thousands and thousands of docs. DJT claimed that Jack Smith’s indictment was a “WITCH HUNT” and ‘ELECTION INTERFERENCE”. Well, special counsel Robert Hur has concluded his over one year investigation of the Biden case and what did he find? Biden shout NOT be criminally prosecuted. Case closed.
But DJT’s response to Hur’s decision was immediate: “THIS IS A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE”. This view will no doubt be echoed by some on your blog. The problem for DJT’s claim is that we don’t have a two-tiered system of justice in this country. The Biden/DJT cases are quite dissimilar. NARA and the DOJ spent over a year trying to get DJT to return all the classified docs he intentionally took from the WH. It took a subpoena and then a search warrant to get DJT to cough up some of the docs and even then he obstructed the FBI investigation and is now possibly hiding other classified material.
In contrast Biden didn’t hide anything. When his attorneys found classified material they immediately notified the government and everything was returned. And they didn’t obstruct the investigation like DJT who moved docs around into secret hiding places to avoid detection. Can’t anyone see the difference?
THE POWER – UTTERLY, CATEGORICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY
_________________________________________________________________
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify, dispose of, or archive material is constitutional.
Oh Dennis Dennis Dennis….
the propaganda runs deep in you…
YES! We can see the difference.
The question is: can YOU?
They “immediately” notified government of docs Biden had strewn about, in tattered boxes, for 15 years!
The Hur report found that Biden WILLFULLY mishandled highly classified documents, in multiple ways, for decades.
That is a FELONY crime.
Biden KNEW it.
And he lied about it.
Still, to this day, Biden lies about it.
But Biden didn’t get charged.
His biographer who destroyed documents, didn’t get charged.
Because rule of law doesn’t exist in Biden’s Banana Republic.
Do YOU see the difference?
Of course not.
You are “programmed” by the “fake news” you consume.
Could be an AI program doing this
Just when you think that Dennis couldn’t be more pathetic, he still manages to surprise you.
From page 11:
It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
“allegedly”
That’s why there’s a trial for Trump.
There are no similar allegations for Biden.
“It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, ”
And that is where Hur was obligated to stop.
He neither investigated nor is prosecuting Trump, there is no reason to beleive he knows any more than an ordinary person on the street about the Trump case.
As to Factual differences –
Senators have absolutely no legitimate basis to possess classified documents outside of a SCIF. There is no legal way for Biden to possess classified documents from his time as a senator.
Vice presidents have very limited declassification authority and very limited ownership rights in records during their term in office.
Biden has NOT claimed these documents were declassified by him or anyone else, or that he has a legitimate right to posess them – and that includes the massive govenrment records he has that are NOT classified. Since he has not asserted any ownership interest or any declassification authority, the only choice he had left was to throw himself on the mercy of the prosecutor.
And contra those on the left – there is no get out of jail free card for waiting 6 months after you discover you are in illegal possession of classified docs before turning them over. These docs were found by lawyers in March – not November.
It is absolutely undeniable that Sen. Joe Biden and VP Joe Biden violated Multiple provisions of the espionage act.
The Trump case is RADICALLY different. Trump is not arguing that he did not take these docs. He is not arguing that some some were never classified.
Trump’s argument from Day One has been THEIR MINE, and they are not classified anymore.
Both of those are likely true.
Further both of those are defenses of actual innocence.
Yes, the circumstances are different. It is highly likely that Trump legally possessed the documents he is charged with.
There is no obligation to cooperate in efforts to find you guilty when you are innocent.
Though I would note that the recent squablly in Florida was over Smith trying to block the release of unclassified documents that Trump acquired using the FOIA that established:
That he was cooperating from NARA from the start,
and that NARA, the WH, DOJ and FBI were from the start trying to fit him up for a crime.
There is LOTS of caselaw on this. Presidents can retain posession of any WH docs they wish – classified or not – JW V. NARA.
NARA has ZERO authority to confiscate documents from ex-presidents. Even the courts do not have they authority to do so.
Further even when NARA has custody of WH records – it does not own them, This is important, because NARA can not share an expresidents records with the current administration. Which there is amble evidence the Biden WH sought.
The current executive CAN under SOME conditions gan ACCESS to the docs of the prior administration. To do so it must file a lawsuit.
The court will likely grant limited ACCESS, but not POSESSION.
“Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.”
ATS, why would Hur say that? It was political and not based on legal analysis. The present administration appointed him to look into itself. He found that Biden was GUILTY! You should know that, but for some reason, you are ignorant of the facts.
To soothe his bosses, he wrote about ALLEGED Trump problems. The raid at Mar a Lago was bogus. All they needed was a court order to obtain the records. You are ignorant about this as well.
The conclusion is Biden is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.
The excuse is Biden is mentally incompetent. You support mental incompetence in the White House. That doesn’t say much about you.
It is not up to HUR to determine that Biden shouldn’t be charged because of mental incompetence. That is up to psychiatrists and judges. Start getting your facts straight.
Are you paying attention.
Hur did NOT find that Biden SHOULD not be prosecuted – in fact he found EXACTLY the opposite.
He found that Biden had Large numbers of classified documents – as well as thousands of documents that were government property,
and that Senators and presidents have no ownership claim to Government docs, and no declassification authority.
He found that Biden had WILLFULLY removed documents he had no right to.
AND he found that he had deliberately shared those documents with people not entitled to have access
And he found he had handled them so recklessly that others might have gained access to them.
Biden could be charged with almost half of the separate crimes in the espionage act.
Hur found that Biden CAN NOT be prosecuted – because he is mentally incompetent,
and he is unable to understand and assist in his own defense.
This report is DOUBLY damning. It makes Clear that Biden committed numerous crimes and that some of them he fully understood what he was doing at the time.
At the same time it found Biden not competent enough to stand Trial.
What little respect Americans may have had for DOJ and the US Justice System, the recent decision by the Robert Kur Special Counsel’s office investigating Joseph Biden for the same thing Trump allegedly did, likely locked up either Trump winning a fair election or gotten us closer to a civil war if/when Trump is sentenced to prison or “loses” the election. And Americans used to say that communism could never happen in the United States.
Robert K. Hur
Special Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Feb 5, 2024
We also considered whether Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense information to his ghostwriter by reading aloud certain classified notebook passages to the ghostwriter nearly verbatim on at least three occasions. Mr. Biden should have known that by reading his unfiltered notes about classified meetings in the Situation Room, he risked sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. But the evidence does not show that when Mr. Biden shared the specific passages with his ghostwriter, Mr. Biden knew the passages were classified and intended to share classified information. Mr. Biden’s lapses in attention and vigilance demonstrate why former officials should not keep classified materials unsecured at home and read them aloud to others, but jurors could well conclude that Mr. Biden’s actions were unintentional. We therefore decline to charge Mr. Biden for disclosure of these passages to his ghostwriter.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
Hmmmmm. Where have we heard such mansplaining in the past by a Federal law enforcement officer?
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
– Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Robert Kur thinks just like James Comey. Hillary gets off. Biden gets off. Next we’ll have a Supreme Court nominee state she can’t define the word “woman” because she’s not a biologist.
Also this —>
“Unbelievable. Biden’s ghostwriter deleted files after special counsel was appointed. But he won’t be charged with destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice.
Two Mar a Lago employees charged with obstruction for MOVING BOXES”. @julie_kelly2
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
also known as Biden’s Banana Republic
It’s not “the same thing Trump allegedly did.” Biden turned over the docs that he became aware of without need of a subpoena, and then let them do a search of his property without a warrant for any other docs. He cooperated. Trump refused to turn over all docs, had to be subpoenaed, did not turn everything over even then, so they had to get a search warrant, he had Nauta move things in and out of storage to obstruct recovery, had Nauta and De Oliveira try to delete security footage, …
The question is: WHO is running the government, bc we KNOW it is not Joe Biden.
You BELIEVE it’s not Joe Biden. That belief is not knowledge.
Biden: “I did not share classified information with my ghostwriter. I did not. Guarantee you did not.”
The Special Counsel report stated: Biden’s “disclosure of classified information from his notebooks to his ghostwriter, risked serious damage to America’s national security.”
Biden has always been a pathological liar and serial plagiarist.
Biden is now a demented, lying, corrupt, criminal occupying the Oval Office.
Biden is acting like a DICTATOR.
He does not understand his role.
HE works for us.
We are not his servants.
He is our public SERVANT.
HE answers to We The People and the Constitution.
He is not a RULER.
Get it straight, Joe.
“But the evidence falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden retained and disclosed these classified materials willfully. “
Anonymous- you say “Biden turned over the docs that he became aware of without need of a subpoena”. Not true. He was always aware of the documents. He moved them, divided them and saw them in plain view. He started to comply with the law when the documents were seen by a third party.
No need for a subpoena.
but jurors could well conclude that Mr. Biden’s actions were unintentional. We therefore decline to charge Mr. Biden for disclosure of these passages to his ghostwriter.
Is that normal legal writing? Predicting the actions of others? Reading minds? Wild suppositions? Reading the mind of the accused as to why he took certain actions?
Is the mind reading trick taught in law school? Or is it ordained on you when you pass the Bar?
Estovir – Hur was not going to be able to bring charges so long as Biden was president.
The most he could do – which he DID was find that Sen Biden and VP Biden violated numerous laws.
I am not sure why Hur included the comments about Biden’s mental state – they were not necescary to his investigation or findings.
I am also not sure why Garland chose to make them public.
If I were to guess this is the deep state trying to get Biden to drop out of the election or get democrats to replace him.
The finding that Biden is not competent enough to stand trial is MORE damaging than mishandling classified documents.
Finding that Biden mishandled classified documents – and make no mistake Hur found that Biden Clearly – and while Competent mishandled classified documents possibly over a period of 40 years. Regardless that conclusion at Best bolsters Trumps defense in FL and takes the classified documents issue away as a campaign issue.
The assessment of Biden’s competence, is independently incredibly damaging to Biden.
I do not think Hur is looking to protect Biden. I think Hur is looking to get rid of Biden.
But it goes further than that. Garland released this. SC reports are not inherently for public consumption.
Garland could have redacted the report.
Hur could have omitted the competence references.
This report is MORE damaging that I expected. It is MORE damaging than hur saying that Biden can not be prosecuted while president.
Or that he can not be prosecuted because he will pardon himself.
This report is very good news for Trump, and very bad news for Biden.
It is good for Trump legally and politically, it is bad for Biden legally and politically.
Biden can not try to refute the claims of incompetence – because doing so means he can be charged and tried.
“I do not think Hur is looking to protect Biden. Hur is looking to get rid of Biden.
Biden’s days are numbered, but Hur didn’t say what he did because he was non-partisan. A non-partisan person wouldn’t make a false comparison with Trump.
Marc E. Elias:
I can’t believe a lawyer for Donald Trump said this in the Supreme Court and no one commented on the demented irony of what he tried in Dec. 2020.
“A ruling from this Court that affirms the decision below would…take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans”
In December 2020, Donald Trump supported a Texas effort in the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This one lawsuit would have disenfranchised more than 20 million voters and changed the outcome of the election.
Why would it be difficult to believe Trump’s lawyer said this? Saying this is squarely within the job description of what Trump’s lawyer doing before Scotus. If Marc E Elias never went to law school, then that would explain his surprise.
Elias didn’t say that he was surprised the lawyer said what he said. Elias said that he was surprised that no commented on the irony. Apparently you misinterpreted the quote.
* … no one commented …
If he went to law school he’d realize there’s no irony. Irony assumes some relevance to the “other” situation. Trump’s current lawyer making arguments in *this* case has no relevance to a different lawyer making arguments in a different case with different issues. Every 1L I knew in law school understood that.
Once again, you’re misinterpreting what Elias said. He was not contrasting what two lawyers said in two different cases. He was noting the irony of what Trump’s lawyer said in one case given what Trump himself said about another case. Trump was not a party to the other case / had no lawyer on the other case.
That’s probably why nobody else commented on it.
This one lawsuit would have implemented the laws of the U.S. and the States.
SCOTUS disagrees with you and denied cert.
Improperly. Scotus denied on standing grounds. But the constitution gives states standing to sue other states and those lawsuits must take place int he supreme court. There is no standing issue. Nor can there be one – this is in the constitution.
This is the only instance in which the Supreme court sits as a trial court.
There is also no cert with respect to states suing states. It is one of the few instances in which SCOTUS is obligated to take a case.
It did not. It is SCOTUS that acted unconstitutionally in failing to hear the TX case.
I would suggest that you listen to the Ballot case today. Many of the arguments there apply to the TX case in 2020.
The justices were unanimous in questioning whether a few states could use their ability to manipulate elections to disenfranchise voters in their own state and the rest for the country.
That is pretty much exactly what the argument was in the TX 2020 case.
Today SCOTUS is essentially deciding the TX case 4 years late.
And they appear near certain to rule unanimously that states have to be very careful about deviating from election norms and effectively disenfranchising their own voters as well as those of other states.
Elias himself sought to overturn a Congressional election in 2020 in either Maine or New York.
I look forward to your sharing said lawsuit.
The various Trump lawsuits NEVER sought to prevent any legal voter from voting as they pleased.
Never sought to discard any legally cast ballots.
There is no voter that legally voted in 2020 that was ever at risk of being disenfranchised.
MArc Elias is lying and you are parrotting lies.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the challengers’ position would have empowered the former Confederate states to determine whether candidates were disqualified from holding federal office. The 14th Amendment was adopted to constrain states’ rights and empower the federal government, the chief justice said, and it is ‘the last place you’d look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce the presidential election process.'”
I thought this exposes the weakness the lefts chattering over the last month. The contradiction between what the left is trying to do, with the clear intent of the 14th amendment, and sec 3.
Jonathan: Well, oral arguments are over at the SC and the legal pundits seem to think the Court will overrule the Colorado SC decision barring DJT from the ballot. I agree. But what is interesting is that a majority of the Court didn’t focus on whether DJT engaged in “insurrection” but the “chaos” that would result if the Colorado decision were to be upheld, i.e., that states could taking different positions creating conflicting decisions and barring DJT from the ballot would deprive millions of Americans of the right to select the candidate of their choice.
The only Justice who tried to focus on the “insurrection” issue was Justice Jackson. She kept probing counsel for DJT on that issue. She asked the Q whether if the Colorado SC found DJT engaged in “insurrection” why would that not in itself be a disqualifying factor? DJT’s counsel simply declared J.6 was not an “insurrection” because it was not an “organized” or “concerted” effort to overthrow the government of the US through violence. He declared , like you, that J. 6 was “riot” and “shameful” but nothing more. Nothing more?
Justice Potter Stewart famously remarked: “I know pornography when I see it”. The same rule could be applied to J. 6. What we saw before our eyes on TV was an “organized” and “concerted” attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election to keep DJT in power–through force and violence. That was an attempt to cancel the votes of 80 million Americans and cancel our Democracy. Like Potter Stewart I know an “insurrection” when I see it!
Now that DJT is back on the ballot what happens next? Here’s an interesting scenario. Suppose DJT wins the November election but the Dems take back control of the Congress. Suppose further that, before inauguration day, the Dems pass legislation finding DJT to be an “insurrectionist” and barring him from taking office. What happens then?
There would be a lot of violence from MAGAs in that scenario.
But I suspect that SCOTUS will quickly rule on or deny cert to the immunity case, returning it to the district court for trial. Hopefully he’ll be convicted and lose the election, just like he did in 2020.
Hopefully he’ll win the election and restore sanity just like he did in 2016. I’m tired of the invasion, out-of-control violent crime, national bankruptcy, unaffordable groceries, gas, and housing, high inflation and interest rates, energy dependence on foreign countries, pointless forever wars, successive $1.5T pork-barrel spending bills, hundreds of billions going to foreign countries largely to enrich (a) already-rich corrupt oligarchs half-way around the world, and (b) weapons makers, defunding the police, a weaponized justice system, being beholden to the Davos crowd, the green new scam, wokism corrupting all major institutions, the slandering of half of the American electorate, and on and on.
But I guess you like all of the above, so you want it to continue for another four years.
I don’t agree that yours is a factual description of the state of the US, nor that it describes all that’s important to consider.
If Trump is convicted, will you accept it, or will you make excuses for not accepting it?
As long as the rule of law applies to everybody the same I will accept it.
But as we still have a ‘rules for tee but not for me’ law system I am unfortunately bound to not accepting it..
He might be convicted, and win because of that conviction. With ALL presidential power intact. The lefts prryhic victory.
Garland has created a huge pile of bull scat. Prosecuting the leading candidate for President. The Democrat Justice Department is prosecuting the person running against the Democrat President. The Democrat controlled Department of Justice.
Garlands only hope is SCOTUS rules against the DoJ on every item appealed to SCOTUS.
God forbid that Smith indict someone for whom there’s good evidence of the person having broken the law.
No one should be above the law.
As a factual matter, I don’t agree that there’s “good evidence of the person having broken the law.”
No one should be above the law.
Except Biden . . . says the special counsel, Biden is above the law, oh and Hunter Biden is above the law. Oops, cant forget Hillary, Hillary is above law.
He found Biden willfully took classified documents he had no legal power to poses. BUT he lacks the mental faculties to prosecute. BUT we should all vote for him to serve another four years.
You now have a special counsel report that has finally done the little kid, in the Emperors new robes. Shouted out the truth the whole world has been watchin
Meanwhile, Trump is insisting that Biden’s in his “mental primetime.”
That is highly unlikely. The DC appellate decison actually agreed with every single immunity argument Trump raised. They merely manufactured a balancing test out of whole cloth and then concluded that in this case Trump is not entitled to immunity.
SCOTUS is near certain to hear this – because leaving a muddy ballancing of interests argument as the basis for deciding whether a president has immunity is as big a problem as the nonsense in Colorado.
SCOTUS is going to grant cert tot he immunity claim.
After that there are 2 or more possibilities.
They hold the case until after the election and declare it moot, returning to the status quo regarding presidentially immunity.
The establish a clear rule for presidential immunity that may or may not give immunity to Trump.
What they almost certainly will NOT do it leave the muddy DC decison that will foster more lawfare stand.
Dennis, honey, you watch MSNBC and think you are being informed.
You are not.
You are being propagandized and disinformed.
You truly have no idea what is really going on.
Ask Turley, he knows how ignorant CNN/NBC viewers actually are.
Sorry to point out that you are one of them ignoramuses.
Just dropping a truth bomb on ya, baby.
“Jonathan: Well, oral arguments are over at the SC and the legal pundits seem to think the Court will overrule the Colorado SC decision barring DJT from the ballot. I agree. “
Why don’t you tell us how wrong your prior opinions were? I have a present for you. Your own words coming from your own big mouth and little brain. Democracy will not die as you predicted, nor will the court be fractured, another of your major points.
Dennis is fitted with a big mouth and a tiny brain. He has opined on the Colorado decision and what the Supreme Court would say. He has insulted right-wing justices and told us a bunch of crazy things. He told us Democracy would die if the right wing got its way and that the court would be fractured.
After listening to the court, in particular Jackson, one can see that, as usual, Dennis was all wet. The left especially Jackson showed that both the left and right do not think much of Dennis’ ideas.
Now I will quote Dennis.
“As you mention, Justices Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett have conflicting allegiances. ”
“We can only hope Kavanaugh and the other conservatives on the SC are not “in the pocket” of DJT and Alina Habba and won’t be swayed by the unwarranted political pressure campaign by DJT and his supporters.”
Here are some of his words:
Dennis needs to correct everything he said. He thinks his words are brilliant, but his words are almost always wrong.
“Jonathan: It’s hard to see that Chief Justice Roberts can avoid the “bitter fracturing of 2000” when the Court takes up DJT’s appeal of the Colorado SC decision. It will be 2000 again in spades!”
“Not something the Framers contemplated or those who wrote Section 3. It will be a repudiation of the “core principles of the Democratic process”!
“If the right-wing majority gets its way they will give an “insurrectionist” the right to be on the ballot.”
Dennis, check with Jackson. Is she right-wing?
“Jonathan: It is “rare” that states would now oppose their own God-given “state’s rights” and encourage the SC to overturn the Colorado SC decision. But that is exactly what Republican led states are doing. ”
Again Dennis, check with Jackson.
“What about the CO district court and the state’s SC that ruled DJT engaged in “insurrection”?”
You should read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment carefully. Does it say anywhere that an individual must first be tried and convicted before the Section applies? ”
Anyone who ever thought Dennis knew what he was talking about should shake their heads and walk on another path. I wait for a 9-0 decision.
Bills of Attainder are unconstitutional. The 14th Amendmenet invites Congress to establish a legal process to determine who is an “insurrectionist” It does not state that Congress can by-pass legal process. You guys are really getting desperate.
Oh Denise you missed that obvious here.
So little was said because so little was needed to be said.
SCOTUS recognized that Trump didn’t engage in an insurrection because he wasn’t charged under 18 USC 2383, which was last updated in 1948.
Now for the fun stuff you seemed to ignore, the point that was being raised was that there was a Federal route to handle this … try and convict Trump under 18 USC 2383 and he would be ineligible for office. That it would be absurd for any state or anyone to claim an insurrection occurred because it would further required that the courts fully detail was is or is not an insurrection.
That the existing route of charging one w insurrection was the correct path.
No charge against Trump, Trump not guilty of insurrection. Game over.
Based on what we saw…. 9-0.
-G
The court did not address the insurrection issue – because they do not need to.
There was a limited amount of discussion – and it went badly for CO.
Regardless, SCOTUS would only have looked seriously at whether there ws an insurrection – a question of FACT, not law,
if it had FIRST concluded that the 14th amendment applied to the president.
It is my hope that this is NOT the primary holding , but it appears that is likely – Even Jackson was not convinced the 14th amendment applied to the president – and SCOTUS is going to try very hard to speak with one voice on this, and that is the easiet basis to reach one voice.
Second SCOTUS would have had to have found that the 14th amendment was self executing , or that if not, that congress had authorized the states to disqualify candidates, and the states had authorized the SOS to do so.
All of the above would have had to have been decided in CO’s favor before even asking if the acts on J6 constituted an insurrection.
I would like to see SCOTUS hold:
The 14th amendment does not apply to the president – that is highly likely 9-0.
The 14th amendment is not self executing – that appears to be likely – maybe 9-0
Roberts comment is incredibly damning. There is litterally no way that the 14th amendment was intended to give confederate states the power to remove people from the ballot. That is one of the more brilliant remarks Roberts has ever made.
That defining insurection as broadly as CO has done is unconstitutionally overbroad. SCOTUS should conclude that – but it is unlikely they will.
You do understand that we are well past Potter Stewart. That the “I know it when I see” standard is not and never was a part of first amendment law. When I was 20 people were going to jail for content far tamer than you can find on pornhub (or tiktok).
The first amendment standards of Potter Stewart are gone.
Trump’s attorney is correct. The 14th amendment is not self executing – I think Roberts did an excellent job or putting the nail int hat coffin.
If congress had passed a law – it would have had to define insurrection, and if it defined insurrection so broadly that it included J6 then the law would be unconstitutionally overbroad.
The constitution and law must be read broadly with respect to individual liberty and narrowly with respect to government power.
Anything else is not merely immoral, but also will fail.
What a joke and mockery the Democrats have become. These idiots have flooded our Nation with welfare recipients while our annual deficit is 2T and National debt is 34T. They have destroyed our military with their delusion DEI and CRT policies, they have put illegal interlopers ahead of their own constituents importing drugs, promoting drugs and destroying our children. In all they have done everything in their power to destroy the America we true citizens believe in.
Get ready to rumble.
10 million new voters for Moochhell provided by Biden and de facto president Barack Obama.
It’s going to take much, much more than votes to “keep” this republic after November 5.
In his argument to SCOTUS today, Trump’s lawyer called J6 “criminal, shameful, violent.”
Yes, I heard that too. Good lawyering. Remember: the lawyer is there for one purpose and one purpose only – to help his client win the case. He’s not there to pass moral or societal judgments on third parties. There are no legal points to be made by defending the actions of the rioters, and any attempt to do so would lose credibility with the Justices that dislike Trump personally and/or are appalled at the actions of the rioters on J6. Dismissing their actions in harsh terms like that basically puts that issue to one side so everyone can concentrate on the legal issues . . . where Trump’s lawyer has his strongest ammo.
And it’s also against lawyers’ ethical norms to lie to the court.
But I doubt that Trump could bring himself to say the same thing.
. . . against lawyers’ ethical norms to lie to the court.
True, but he was making a moral judgment, not a factual assertion.
But I doubt that Trump could bring himself to say the same thing.
You may be right, but perhaps that’s why in our system the client generally does not make the argument to the court.
No, it’s a factual — true — assertion that J6 was ““criminal, … violent.” It’s a matter of opinion that it’s “shameful” (an opinion I share).
It was good lawyering.
not-so-old-mentally: Hi there, I only heard part of the arguments as I was driving in a car with a friend. But from what I heard, seems like both sides were represented by competent attorneys–they were quick and articulate in their responses.
The only inkling I heard that indicated a loss for Colorado was when multiple justices tried to bring Colorado’s atty back to the topic of whether one state’s decision on “insurrection” and removal from ballot could be enough to upset the number of electoral votes in toto (from all states), -thus affecting the voting rights of all the citizens in states who disagree with Colorado? Also, good argument/discussion on how different states would/could use different criteria and the problems that could create? Did I hear that right? (We were talking about other stuff, in traffic at the same time, so I may have heard arguments incorrectly..
The last thing I heard was (I believe it was Kavanaugh) bringing up the meaning of “officer.”
(p.s. Kagan is the only liberal on the court that I have appreciated, as far as her logic and dispositive opinions lead. I have low regard for sotomayor.)
What are your thoughts, sir?
Lin – I came in late to that particular discussion (re disenfranchisement). But with Trump’s lawyer there I did hear a pretty lengthy exchange on whether POTUS is even an “officer of the United States” for 14As3 purposes. The other thing I remember vividly is Justice Jackson’s seemingly vehement denial that the framers of 14A had any intention of encompassing POTUS within the S3 disqualification — which came as a surprise to me because I wasn’t expecting her to defend a point that would favor Trump. But I agree with you that both lawyers were articulate, relaxed, and smooth talkers (not in a bad way). As for Kagan and Sotomayor, I have had the same impression: that Sotomayor is an intellectual lightweight comparatively. Enjoy your evening!
-Uncle Henry
@Old Man…
How does POTUS engage in insurrection?
I mean in theory its possible if he attempted a coup to become President for Life.
But other than that… not really something easy to do. Hence I think that when they wrote the 14th Amendment POTUS wasn’t listed.
But its immaterial.
No insurrection occurred.
-G
Gumby, one could plausibly conclude an insurrection did indeed happen on Jan 6th, 2017. POTUS-Elect Biden, with the backing of Congress certifying a contested election without examination, did manuver to force out one Executive to install another at a later time. Afterall, words and their historical meanings don’t seem to apply to most DC’ers much, anymore.
Jackson does not appear to be an idiot.
There is as close to zero doubt Trump is winning.
The question is WHY and how large the majority will be.
I think that the “the president is not covered by A14S3” argument is correct, but it is also the WEAKEST conclusion that SCOTUS can reach.
I beleive Jackson is offering Roberts a possible 9-0 decision – but on grounds that will be viewed is the most technical andf that will leave leave the issue on the table for democrats politically, but not legally.
Roberts argument that there is no way that the Union congress intended to give confederate states carte blanche to eliminate candidates from the ballot based on vague language.
The better ruling would be: A14S3 – as required by A14S5 requires congress to put into law, the defintion of a insurection, and the mechanism for barring someone from holding office. And that only after Congress has passed said law, can SCOTUS decide whether that law itself is constitutional.
True, the murder of of one of the protestors really went over the top.
As a factual matter, no murder was charged, and we’ve yet to see the outcome of the various J6-related wrongful death suits (e.g., Babbitt, Sicknick).
But of course you can have any opinion that you want about it.
No it is self evidently a matter of opinion.
There is a huge difference between the person who through the fire extinguisher at the CP was criminal violent and shameful,
And Jacob Chansley entering the open capital door and being escorted by the CP peacefully through the capital was criminal vioent and shameful.
Every single person at BLM protests that turned into Riots were not criminal and violent.
Though on the whole the BLM riots were far more criminal and violent than J6.
It is a FACT that some people committed crimes and that some people were violent.
Just as it is a fact that some FBI agents have lied under oath.
It is your oppinion – and a false on at that, that J6 was on the whole criminal and/or violent.
Excellent, I was trying to figure out how to say just that.
I would note that a lawyer can not lie to the court. But that does not require them to say anything.
Is it a violation of professional ethics for a lawyer to argue to a court that his client is not guilty if he privately believes that he is guilty?
It depends how he argues it. As defense counsel, his job is to hold the state’s feet to the fire, and make them prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That kind of shield protects us all from an overbearing state that can abuse its citizens.
The lawyer can ethically do his job even if he believes his client is guilty. He can make arguments about both the relevant law and the facts in an effort to convince the judge that the state has not met its evidentiary burden.
Now . . . whether one wants to be that lawyer is a separate question. Me personally, I have never really specifically desired that role, even while I respect it and realize it’s an important one. My conundrum is made lighter by the simple reality that there are plenty of lawyers out there who have no misgivings about accepting that role.
In the above, when I say “convince the judge” I probably should have said convince the “fact finder.” In a jury trial, the jury is the fact-finder. In a bench trial (a/k/a a waiver trial – where defendant has waived his right to a jury), the judge is the fact-finder.
Of course, Africans may riot violently, including Federal Buildings and Courthouses, but Americans may not.
There were actions on J6 that were criminal shameful and violent. There were actions at the Kavanaugh protests that were ciminal shameful and violent.
The entire J6 protes, more than 99% of the J6 protest – was just that – an excecise of the right to assemble, to petition government and to speak freely.
Did Merrick “The Corrupt” Garland just take the opportunity of the Supreme Court appearance on the national scene to absolve then-Vice President Joke “The Demented” Biden of guilt in the case of mishandling classified materials, just as President Trump was charged and prosecuted falsely, illicitly and unconstitutionally for the same alleged transgression, understanding that only the President, and not the Vice President, has the power over classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of classified materials?
Good POINT:
“If mental impairment is enough to invalidate a signed contract, then what are the implications when a mental incompetent like Biden signs laws and executive orders? How can they be valid if he doesn’t even understand what he’s doing?” @seanmdav
“Hillary gets a new legal standard.
Biden gets a new legal standard.
Trump and J6’ers get a new legal standard.
This is what real power looks like. Curse it all you like, you may as well piss in the wind.” @Cernovich
Biden committed serious felonies….over YEARS…
his degenerate drug addict son having full accesss to all the docs…
while collecting tens of millions from our adversaries….
Biden is a filthy dirty crooked politician
and a criminal….
we cannot let him walk off into the sunset…
A large thread just got deleted, but here was my answer:
I get that. But I answered that point already. To be brief: there is no dispute over the meaning of the Colorado provision. As you observe, listing a disqualified candidate on the ballot would be a wrongful act. Nobody is denying that. What they are arguing about, is whether Trump is, in fact, a “disqualified candidate” – which depends on how one interprets federal law (14A).
If the above were not true, Scotus could not have granted review. Scotus only interprets federal law, not state law. If there had been some issue of state law in dispute, and the CO supreme court resolved it, Scotus is bound by what the CO supreme court said. They don’t second-guess state supreme courts on questions of state law.
Sure they do, all the time, if that state law violates the Constitution.
Sure they do, all the time
Name one case in which Scotus has second-guessed a state supreme court on a question of state law.
if that state law violates the Constitution
For a constitutional issue to be an issue of state law, the question has to be whether the state law violates the state Constitution. Scotus never second-guesses state supreme courts on that kind of question.
If you’re talking about a state law violating the US Constitution, that’s an issue of federal law, not state law. The state courts issue interpretations of the state law, and it’s possible after that, that Scotus would say the law violates the US constitution. Again, whether a state law violates the US Constitution is an issue of federal law.
BTW, I’m not just making this up. This is the stuff I’ve been doing for a living for 25 years.
Do this for a living. Three States violated their own constitutions; those electoral votes were invalid. The FBI compelled Zuckerberg et al. to mitigate promotions and ads to disfavor candidate Trump. The Founders required times and places for elections which are nonexistent in the U.S. Mails – vote-by-mail is antithetical and unconstitutional. The Founders imposed voter restrictions, the last of which is the age limitation, now 18 and should be 21 (idiotic kids are voting).
Still waiting on the case you refer to?
They do, all the time.
What about disputes between states, where the Supremes have original jurisdiction? And other situations, per SEC 2, Clause 1:
SECTION 2. Clause 1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
“Scotus only interprets federal law, not state law.”
That is generally correct, however in Harper V moore – the ISL case both prior precident both sides arguments and the ultimate decision made clear that even if state legislatures do not have excludive domain over federal elections in their states, that the federal courts can and may be obligated to rule on the validity of state election laws – and even state constitutional provisions where they apply to federal elections.
So absolutely SCOTUS would have the power of judicial review over state election laws in federal elections.
Not so much in apply state election laws, but in deciding whether they were constitutional.
But everything you described involves interpreting and applying federal law. As I mentioned, when Scotus judges whether action by a state is constitutional, they’re making a pronouncement of federal law: does the US Constitution permit what the state did? Does the US Constitution require the state to act in a way different than the way it acted? Those are issues of federal law. In Harper v. Moore, Scotus was interpreting and applying Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution – and what it means concerning what the different branches of a state government may do. The “what it means” is a question of federal law, since “it” is Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution.
They never ask: does the state constitution permit what the state did. That is a question exclusively for the state courts. Do you disagree?
“…absolutely SCOTUS would have the power of judicial review over state election laws in federal elections.” SCOTUS’s refusal to hear Texas vs Pennsylvania in late 2020 is another example of what can be reasonably considered Derelection of Duty by the Court.
Here’s a good point from CJ Roberts following up on Thomas’questioning Colorado counsel for past examples of states disqualifying national candidates. (There are none):
Chief Justice John Roberts then weighed in:
Look at Justice Thomas’s questions sort of from the 30,000 foot level. I mean, the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrict state power. Right? States shall not abridge privileges or immunities. They won’t deprive people of property without due process, and they won’t deny equal protection. On the other hand, it augmented federal power under Section Five. Congress has the power to enforce it. So wouldn’t that be the last place that you’d look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce implicitly authorized to enforce the presidential election process?
“That seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the Fourteenth Amendment and very ahistorical,” Roberts added
Good Stuff!
2012 Virginia – state disqualified Rick Perry, a national candidate.
Not under the 14th Amendment, which is what CJ Roberts was talking about.
Perry failed to meet State requirements for signatures.
While your statement is factual, it fails to address this topic on any level
It qualifies as misinformation.
Iowan2,
Well said.
What is the “topic” in your opinion?
What exactly was inaccurate that I said?
I stated clearly your statement was correct.
Nope. If that was the case, anyone and everyone could demand to be on the state ballot.
an attorney commenting on a legal matter on a legal blog……What a world!
Thanks Mespo for gracing us with some long overdue intelligent legal analysis.
Estovir,
Well said and I agree!
Thank you Mespo!
This is all laughable.
In a society of laws, the law must be adhered to.
Some want to enforce the law now, even though they did not want to enforce the law then.
Secession was included in the ratifications of the U.S. Constitution by three States. Secession was not prohibited. Secession was fully constitutional. Lincoln’s denial of secession violated constitutional rights and was illicit and unconstitutional. Lincoln’s war and his suspension of habeas corpus were patently unconstitutional. Lincoln’s proclamation had no legal or constitutional basis and was, in fact, unconstitutional. The right to private property was denied and violated, and private property was illicitly and unconstitutionally confiscated. Existing immigration law was arbitrarily voided and violated and stated, in other words, that freed slaves “…may [NOT] be admitted to become a citizen…” requiring immediate compassionate repatriation, understanding that visas expire and that visas are temporary. Lincoln was a flagrant criminal of high office.
The Supreme Court of 2022 acted retroactively by 50 years to correct the Supreme Court of 1973 on abortion.
The Supreme Court of 2024 may certainly act retroactively by 150 years to correct the pervasive illegalities, unconstitutional acts and consequences of Lincoln and his successors.
If SCOTUS invalidates the Reconstruction amendments (they were ratified under duress), that will create a lot of problems for the courts.
Courts have no power to legislate or otherwise avoid or eliminate “problems.”
Courts adjudicate per statute and fundamental law.
It will re-implement many of the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities of Americans, by the design and intent of the Founders and Framers.
Karl Marx will be excised to a degree.
https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1755614499426734189
This is the easiest grounds to dispose of this appeal. States never had the authority to judge the qualifications of federal officials, so the whole case should not have been decided in the first place.
I am not sure that is the case, but it most certainly is the case that elections must be conducted in accordance with laws passed by congress and legislatures. The executive is not empowered to enforce anything regarding an election absent laws passed by either congress or the legislature.
In the case of A14S3, A14S5 says that law must be passed by congress.
The entire reason this whole thing is a mess is that the constitution defines rights, powers, and principles – it is NOT regulation or statutory law.
It is the grants of power and/or the constraints to that law. We judge LAW against the constitution. We do not treat the constitution itself as regulation or regulation.
“You will likely hear references to Griffin’s Case in the arguments. Not long after ratification in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled in a circuit opinion that the clause was not self-executing. He suggested that allowing Congress to simply bar political opponents from office would be a form of punishment without due process and would likely violate the prohibition on bills of attainder.”
********************************
That’s been my argument all along. How is a self-executing prohibition like the crazy argument goes anything but a Bill of Attainder* and/or a Bill of Pains & Penalties.*
*In case you were wondering, a Bill of Attainder is “[a] legislative act, directed against a designated person, pronouncing him guilty of an alleged crime, (usually treason,) without trial or conviction according to the recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him. “Bills of attainder,” as they are technically called, are such special acts of the legislature as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a “bill of pains and penalties,” but both are included in the prohibition in the Federal constitution.” Story, Const. (Blacks’s Law Dictionary)
That’s me above!
It is not self executing because no delegation of power in the constitution is self executing.
It is not self executing bcause A!4S5 says that congress must pass laws to put the 14th amendment in to effect.
The constitution recognizing individual rights is always self executing.
The right to free speech exists – regardless of whether congress passes laws.
The power to print currency does not exist until congress passes laws putting that constitutional power into effect.
If we may reference Black’s Law Dictionary, we may reference Vattel’s Law of Nations, 1758, which clearly and abundantly defines “natural born citizen” (it sure ain’t Obama), the phrase revealed in Jay’s letter to Washington, 1787.
To wit,
To George Washington
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
John Jay
I looked up 18 US Code 2383, and all Congress did was:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
This is a dangerously vague law. I was thinking at the end of the Oral Argument that maybe the solution would be to require conviction on 18 US Code 2383 in Federal Court as the disqualifying trigger. But anyone convicted would already have a strong appeal that the law is vague in failing to define in advance necessary elements for rebellion or insurrection.
So, Congress would have to seriously repair this statute in order to give SCOTUS a roadmap.
I beleive 18 US Code 2383 is no longer law. There was a congressional restructuring of federal law int he 50’s and many older laws were not re-authorized.
Regardless, yes 18 US Code 2383 is unconstitutionally vague – which is precisely why the 14th amendment requires congress to pass law.
It is NOT for the courts to define insurrection. It is for legislators.
It is for courts to decide if the legislatures definition is vague or overbroad.
Courts can narrow or throw out legilative definitions – they can not create their own.
This should be a no-brainer.
Many of the legal pundits, including Turley raise three issues where the challenge against Trump must meet three tests.
The third issue raised … was Jan 6th an insurrection?
Now, the 14th Amendment doesn’t define what is meant by an insurrection or rebellion because it was at the time self evident. The 14th Amendment was written in response to the Civil War, where you had an actual armed rebellion. (Hint: The South had set up their own government in an effort the cede from the Union.)
The issue of insurrection alone would put this to rest.
For those (aka Denise, Giggly or the Anon sock puppets) who would argue that this was an insurrection… then consider all of the pink hat wearing women who protested the Kavanaugh confirmation. That too could then be defined as an insurrection. So any of the pink hat supporters, including congresswomen can be denied their seats in congress.
Look up the word insurrection. In your case translated from Russian.
Fish Wings, preposterously asserts that the riot of Jan. 6 was the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War.
I would recommend you to look up the word insurrection. So put down your coloring books and have somebody read it to you.
It’s gonna be a 9-0 ruling.
As for classified docs…Dems and their propaganda media just lost their talking point: “No one is above the law”
Biden is a not only a criminal and pathological liar,
but also a demented traitor who has been selling out the country to our enemies…
to massively enrich his family by the tens of millions….
Biden’s crime family has been running its racket for decades…
But now….If they remove presidential “immunity” from Trump,
let’s make sure to prosecute Biden once Trump becomes POTUS again…
then move on to prosecute Obama
then Hillary….and on down the line….
You know, because NO ONE is Above the Law….
Democracy!
You make it perfectly clear Why we have rules for reading the law and constitution.
There is not likely a single word that does not have multiple meanings.
And if there is – wait 10 minutes.
Over and over we see those of you on the left adopt 1984 newspeak deliberately seeking to alter the meaning of words.
Courts are expected to find the definitions of words in the law. And those definitions are expected to be narrow and clear, and within the scope provided by the constitution while not infringing on actual rights.
When they do not find the defintions of words in the law they use other resources – modern dictionaries for century+ old laws NOT being among those. They look to the expressions of intent and meaning by the drafters, and even more by the people who ratified a law or amendment. The look to the common meaning at the time, they look to the dictionaries at the time.
What they are not supposed to do is deliberately search for anything that reinforces their personal beleifs, without regard for what does not.
Precisely why this is going to be…and should be… a 9-0 ruling…
The court must BE the High Court they are charged with being…
with a unanimous decision…
offering much needed clarity for the good of the country….
no dissent is welcome now (Sonia!)
…unless the intent of a dissenting justice
is to throw the Left a bone to gnaw on…
to keep the division and chaos going….right into the election…
9-0 – bring it, justices….
Actually, when the 14thA was written, they had a definition of insurrection in mind, the Civil War.
As the good professor points out, “The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.”
If we use that established standard, not some vague wording or claims by those with TDS, Jan6th was NOT an insurrection.
Prof. Turley doesn’t mention John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. Was that an insurrection? John Brown didn’t have his own currency and wasn’t much of a diplomat. He was hanged before the filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary and Lincoln was elected President. According to Wikipedia:
The label “raid” was not used at the time. A month after the attack, a Baltimore newspaper listed 26 terms used, including “insurrection”, “rebellion”, “treason”, and “crusade”. “Raid” was not among them.
Why has NO ONE been charged with insurrection?
Because President Trump did not conduct any form of insurrection.
Mike Davis 🇺🇸
@mrddmia
“Democrats want to imprison Trump and his supporters for using a lawful process–the Electoral Count Act of 1887–to challenge the 2020 election.
Yet Democrats are using an unlawful process–illegal disqualification–to challenge the 2024 election.
Should they face charges?”
—————-
YES!
THEY are the INSURRECTIONISTS!
A small portion of an estimated 2,000 people is not a “large group” in a nation with a population of 330 million.
Jan 6. was, at worst, a riot.
_____________________________
Oxford Dictionary
a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence
– synonym uprising
“an armed insurrection against the regime”
@Anonymous
Oh? And when was there an insurrection? Who has actually been charged with that? By all means, provide links and details. Enlighten us, oh Anonymous one. We will wait.
James,
Actually, when the 14thA was written, they had a definition of insurrection in mind, the Civil War.
As the good professor points out, “The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.”
If we use that established standard, not some vague wording or claims by those with TDS, Jan6th was NOT an insurrection.
Look up the word insurrection. The definition has not changed.
Actually, when the 14thA was written, they had a definition of insurrection in mind, the Civil War.
As the good professor points out, “The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.”
If we use that established standard, not some vague wording or claims by those with TDS, Jan6th was NOT an insurrection.
UF:
But, but, but … Orangeman Bad! Now its the Dims that are the Party of Stupid.
Mespo,
LOL!
Right?
Notice how FishStick is losing his mind when not only I but the good professor points out the facts they had a definition at that time of what an insurrection truly was, the Civil War. During which, to quote the good professor, “The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.”
Had they witnessed Jan6th, they would have laughed at people like FishStick and Bob and Sammy et all, and told them to go away, the grownups are working.
They weren’t armed, they weren’t organized, and they weren’t trying to overthrow the US government. If any intent can be ascribed to the crowd as a whole, it was to prevent the government from being overthrown by a stolen election. Whether one agrees or disagrees that the election was stolen, that was their belief and that was their intent. So . . . not even close to an insurrection.
What world do you live in, they were armed with bear spray, flag sticks, etc. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were organized, not to mention far-right militias. Insurrection means violent uprising.
I live in this world. Nobody brought a firearm. Bear spray? Hahahahah, that’s a good one! Hey mom, look at me, I’m gonna overthrow the US government with bear spray!
OldManFromKS,
The best most recent example of a real insurrection, is the disastrous Biden lead withdraw from Afghanistan. Watching how the Taliban retook territory, using real organization, communications, objectives and by real use of force with real arms, that was an insurrection.
Heck, when the French protest, they makes Jan6th look lame.
Multiple people brought firearms. Just search on firearm to identify them: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Many had other weapons (such as baseball bats); search the same database to identify the people with weapons and read what kinds they were. Hundreds of police were injured that day.
The purpose was to prevent Congress from certifying the EC vote.
According to the FBI investigation, no firearms were found inside the Capitol building.
Oh, yes. Bats are going to overthrow the government.
Yet, Congress certified the EC vote. Just a few hours later than expected.
My. What an insurrection.
You want to see a real insurrection? Look at Biden’s disaster of a withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban retaking the country.
That is what a insurrection looks like.
I know.
I have been there.
Not one firearm is listed on the page. I do admit a few policemen got scratched. How many needed hospitalization due to an attack against them? You can’t answer because you are ignorant of the facts. You can link, but you cannot produce. You are impotent. Four protestors died, and the killer of one had to disappear because the shooting was terrible and looked bad for the Democrats. Another officer was filmed beating a protestor on the ground, and that protestor died.
Ohhh! Bear spray, flags and sticks are going to take on the entire US government to include the military!
And how many Proud Boys, Oath Keepers were there?
Based off some reports, there were more FBI paid informants there than far right militias.
Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?
Like the George Floyd riots, right?
you look it up. You obviously lack the vocabulary to understand the definition.
That Oxford definition is above at February 8, 2024 at 4:04 PM.
The Union side didn’t call the Civil War the “War of the Insurrection”. They called it the ” War of the Rebellion”.
The 14th amendment does not define insurrection – because such terms are defined in LAWS – again A14S3 is not self executing.
The courts – not even SCOTUS get to define what IS an insurrection. They DO get to decide if the facts match the definition in the law – but we have no law and no definition.
They DO get to decide what is NOT an insurrection – when the laws definition is unclear, country to common understanding at the time the law or constitution was passed, or where the definition is overly broad.
Good luck, Professor. I expect a split decision; modern dem do not vote against the regime, and that is just that. We would be screwed beyond repair if the left had ever succeeded at packing the courts.
Based on the oral argument, it sounded to me like it will be 9-0 to reverse. Some combination of only Congress can implement and President/Presidency not office of/office under US. Perhaps also states can’t accelerate disqualification to time of ballot, though that seemed less compelling. Not clear to me that they will all agree on one rationale, but there will almost certainly be at least a majority for one of them, and they all will vote to reverse for one reason or another. The decision will foreclose all other cases.
Super RINO Tom McClintock voted against the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas because it was an undignified “stunt,” says McClintock, “As were the impeachments of President Trump.” Totally oblivious McClintock approves of the extremist lawfare of democrats. He denies reality, refusing to engage the enemy and “fight fire with fire.” McClintock attempts some totally transparent moral excuse for his treachery and desire to lose.
If secession is not prohibited, if secession is included in three particular State ratifications of the U.S. Constitution, and if secession is fully constitutional, all acts of Lincoln and his immediate successors are irrefutably unconstitutional, including but not limited to the “Reconstruction Amendments.”
Dude, that was over 150 years ago. Do you realize you have LDS?
Ah, ad hominem, the last resort of the vanquished.
Have you no facts?
Certainly not; they are not available to the opposing team because none exist.
Congratulations, Napoleon!
What I wonder is, will Justice Ketanji “Butterfly McQueen” Jackson Brown vote in favor of Colorado or not. I think she lacks even 1/10th the courage of a Rosa Parks, and that she will toe the White Liberal line, no matter how embarrassing, in a legal sense.
Crazy Colorado embarrasses itself.
Colorado proclaims the riot of Jan. 6 the equivalent of the American Civil War.
“Colorado proclaims the riot of Jan. 6 the equivalent of the American Civil War.”
This illustrates the need for increased Availability of mental health services especially for lawyers with TDS
@George
Yes, it’s embarrassing and it’s sad. I have a lot of family history in that State, and but for the Western slope, it’s pretty much lost, and that slope careens on the edge. That even Gunnison is now prohibitively expensive, and make no mistake, these are rich, white people driving it (from Aspen, from CA) – sheesh. Dems do not create, they aren’t capable; they ride the coattails of genuinely innovative people and destroy, period, and only when and if it serves their own interests. I’ve seem it too many times in my life to ignore, at this point. It is personally sad to me though what has happened to CO, though. It was a second home to me, and it is now a woke joke I don’t even like to visit.