DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Disqualified from being on Colorado ballot!

Just out on MSNBC, Trump has been disqualified under the 14th amendment in Colorado for insurrection. One down, 49 more to go. Hell half will do it.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...olorado-14th-amendment-ruling-rcna128710

I certainly do not want him to be president. However, I don't think this is going to do anything but piss people off. This is the kind of stuff that leads to a civil war.

He never would have been elected president.

Let it lead to civil war. Trump deserves to be disqualified under the law of the land. He’s not above the law.

You say that now...

Nobody wants that, but some of us insist that Trump be held responsible for his criminality and being a fascist traitor. Hopefully before it’s over, he pays the traitor’s price for his deeds.

I could also say, there may be a civil war if he isn’t held accountable too…

I’m all for him being disqualified but I think he has to be convicted first. Not sure how their Supreme Court can justify this without the case being decided.

Hey P,

I’m all for it too. I think my biggest hope is getting through the ‘24 cycle without him winning. I see that as an urgent need.

Phase 2 after that would be trying to get more reasonable voices back at the forefront of the party and sidelining the sycophant wannabes, a couple of which are in the primaries now.

Then maybe…just maybe one day we can try to have functional, collaborative relationships in DC.

Pie in the sky hopes I know.

What do you think about them doing this before he is convicted? I know you are a pretty sharp lawyer, even though this might not be your specialty.

Straight to the Supreme Court, but I don’t see a conviction for insurrection.

Also voices like Vivek and DeSantis need to be defeated. I like what little I know of Haley. She can’t win right now with the Trump base but she can shift the conversation back to a reasonable discussion.

I agree with you there on both fronts. Good question - and I appreciate the compliment, although the "sharpness" varies from day to day

And you're right, Constitutional law is one of my less refined areas, especially since I've devoted the last 12 years of my career toward transactions and negotiations.

The truth is I have to punt for now, because I haven't read the ruling yet, which I would like to do here soon. I imagine what it is devoted to, not needing a conviction, is that the standard for barring him on these reasons requires less than what a criminal verdict would require (beyond reasonable doubt standard). This paves the way for them to consider the entirety of the situation and determine that he violated Section 3, even though he has not earned any convictions saying he did so. Kind of like how California found OJ liable for wrongful death, despite the fact they found him not guilty of murder.

Since it's tied to the 14th Amendment, Colorado won't be the last say, and I'm sure SCOTUS will deal with it here somewhat soon. I'm sure the phrase "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" really came into play in the ruling.

All that being said, I need to peruse the actual language.

Are you kidding me? The 14 th was written because of our civil war. Let ‘em be pissed. My god they bring on a candidate that wants to rule not govern. Bring it on Mega Goper’s we got you. I’m very proud of the state I live in. Best way to do it is trump trump with the 14th. God bless America and our government that added the 14 th.

I'm posting quotes from the ruling as I find them:

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in theaction below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three. Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶ 241, 298(Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023). But, the district court concluded,Section Three does not apply to the President.Id.at ¶ 313. Therefore, the court denied the petition to keep President Trump off the presidential primary ballot.Id.at Part VI. Conclusion."

With this in mind, the District Court found via clear and convincing evidence (again, less than beyond reasonable doubt) that Trump engaged in insurrection. It is unlikely that an appellate court would overrule that notion if it already underwent a five day trial.

The ruling is not as simple as it's being made out in the media (as is almost always the case). Here are the specific bullet points the court ruled on appeal:

The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.

•Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

•Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

•Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.

•The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

•The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

•The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

•President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment

Nor are we persuaded by President Trump’s assertion that Section Three does not bar him from running for or being elected to office because Section Three bars individuals only from holding office. Hassan specifically rejected any such distinction. 495 Fed. App’x at 948. There, the candidate argued that even if Article II “properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president,” Colorado could38not “deny him a place on the ballot.” Id. The Hassan panel concluded otherwise. Id. In any event, the provisions in the Election Code governing presidential primary elections do not recognize such a distinction. Rather, as discussed above, those provisions require all presidential primary candidates to be constitutionally "qualified” before their names are added to the presidential primary ballot pursuant to section 1-4-1204(1)

Were we to adopt President Trump’s view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency, and citizenship requirements of the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II

In our view, Section Three’s text is fully consistent with our conclusion thatthe Constitution has not committed the matter of presidential candidatequalifications to Congress. As we have noted, although Section Three requires a “vote of two-thirds of each House” to remove the disqualification set forth in Section Three, it says nothing about who or which branch should determine disqualification in the first place.

J/C ..Of course this SCOTUS will eventually overturn our Constitution and take this decision away from states. How convenient.

This is where the huge crux of the decision lies, IMO:

The parties debate the scope of Section Three. The Electors claim that thispotential source of disqualification encompasses the President. President Trump argues that it does not, and the district court agreed. On this issue, we reverse the district court.

We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that thePresidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three. It seems most likely thatthe Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an “office.” Infact, no specificofficeis listed in Section Three; instead, the Section refers to “any office, civil or military.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. True, senators, representatives, and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions isconsidered an “office” in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as “members” of their respective bodies.

LOL, it doesn't surprise me that Trump's team tried to make the following argument:

Indeed, even Intervenors do not deny that the Presidency is an office. Instead, they assert that it is not an office “under the United States.” Their claim is that the President and elected members of Congress are the government of the United States, and cannot, therefore, be serving “under the United States.” Id. at amend. XIV, § 3. We cannot accept this interpretation. A conclusion that the Presidency is something other than an office “under” the United States is fundamentally at odds with the idea that all government officials, including the President, serve “we the people.” Id.at pmbl. A more plausible reading of the phrase “under the United States” is that the drafters meant simply to distinguish those holding federal office from those held “under any State.” Id. at amend. XIV,§ 3

To read “office under the United States” to exclude the Presidency would mean that a sitting President could also constitutionally occupy a seat in Congress, a result foreclosed by basic principles of the separation of powers."

The Court also ruled that a President is an "officer" of the United States as well.

This is another big crux:

"Article II specifies that the President shall swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”Id.at art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Intervenors contend that because the Article II oath does not include a pledge to “support” the Constitution, an insurrectionist President cannot be disqualified from holding future office under Section Three on the basis of that oath."

This argument fails because the President is an “executive . . . Officer[]” of the United States under Article VI, albeit one for whom a more specific oath is prescribed. Id. at art. VI, cl. 3 (“The Senators and Representatives beforementioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executiveand judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . . .”). This conclusion follows logically from the accepted fact that the Vice President is also an executiveofficer.

The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa.

President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.

Damn.

So a lot of the decision hinges on the language and the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment. It seems that the actual findings of insurrectionist involvement weren't really even the central issue. More narrowly focused on the applicability of the Fourteenth.

It'll be interesting to see what SCOTUS does and where the resulting dominos fall, if they fall.

This issue is actually deciding a federal Constitutional issue with the XIV Amendment at play, so it's within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review. We can argue the flaws of the decision, but I am not upset by the fact this issue can trigger SCOTUS involvement. Had this only been an issue of state law, then yes, it would be inappropriate.

You either have Law and Order or you don't.

The law either applies to all citizens or you do not have Law and Order.

trump violated the Law. The Colorado State Supreme Court ruled.

This will go to the Federal Supreme Court. They should uphold the ruling of the State.

Will They?

I do not know. IMO he should be in prison.

I don't believe this issue will hold up under SCOTUS review. Not only has trump not been convicted of insurrection, he hasn't even been charged with it by any court in the land. I'm not sure how a state government can claim he's guilty of something he hasn't even been so much as charged of. I'm certainly not an attorney nor am I qualified to break down the law surrounding this. It simply doesn't pass the smell test.

When it comes to my feelings on the matter I certainly think trump isn't fit to be president due to many of his actions. I think he is responsible for Jan. 6th. He called those people to be there, he and his speakers whipped them into a frenzy and then he directly sent them to the Capital. But my thoughts and feelings have nothing to do with any of this and I'm fully capable of separating those two things.

I just want to add by the way, the Colorado Supreme Court did something very interesting, and I should have pointed it out before. If you go through the decision, they took an originalist view, even citing discussions from the minutes notes between the various Congressional reps and senators, when the discussion of the XIV Amendment wording took place on the floor. They went full court press on addressing that, citing various people (McKee, Johnson, for example).

It is a really interesting approach because you can pretty much see that the Colorado Supreme Court was preemptively addressing the Originalists on the SCOTUS panel, who are most likely to reverse the decision. Using their own methodology against them, so to speak.

It's an interesting play.

According to the 14th … doesn’t say anything about being convicted or even charged.

“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

His speech on Jan 6th gave insurrectionists aid and comfort to go storm the Capitol, and as the POTUS he did nothing to stop them to protect our constitution, after he swore an oath he would.

Slam dunk .. disqualified.

Actually it’s not. it’s Congress who has the authority to overrule a disqualification the way I read the last line of section 3.

“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

And section 5

“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

I should have posted more on the finding of insurrection, and here are some tidbits from going through again to hone in on that issue:


"President Trump challenges the district court’s findings that he “engaged in” an “insurrection.” The Constitution leaves these terms undefined. Therefore,we must make a legal determination regarding what the drafters and ratifiers meant when they chose to deploy these words in Section Three."

That last part there confirms what I said earlier about the court taking an originalism approach.

"As a general matter, we review findings of fact under either a clear error or abuse of discretion standard, and we review legal conclusions de novo."

This is a huge fork in the road. Clear error and abuse of discretion for factual-reviewing means that there has to be a heavy deference given to the trial court. Basically it says that the trial court held the five day trial and who are we to say we know better on figuring out what the facts were?

On the other hand, "de novo" affords the appellate court a lot more leeway to overturning the trial court. The Court addressed this as a mixed issue of law and fact (which does make sense). The court states the following:

"For our purposes here, where we are called on to review the district court’s construction of certain terms used in Section Three to the facts established by the evidence, we will review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo."

Again, makes sense. Then the court defines insurrection:


"For example, Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1860 defined “insurrection”as:A rising against civil or political authority; the open and activeopposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city orstate. It is equivalent to SEDITION, except thatseditionexpresses aless extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 613 (1860);accord John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of97the United States of America and of the Several States to the American Union(6th ed. 1856), available at https://wzukusers.storage.googleapi.../5ad525c314331myoR8FY/1856_bouvier_6.pdf [https://perma.cc/PXK4-M75N] (defining “insurrection” as “[a] rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government”)."

This was a pretty genius play on the Courts part. They are going back to the definition of insurrection from Webster's at the time the XIV Amendment would have passed, speaking to the framer's intent. Very smart.

Are you kidding me? Any state interpretation of federal law or the US Constitution can be appealed to the Supreme Court. That's like...one of the central tenants of having the Supreme Court. Con Law 101.

Colorado does the most anti-Democratic thing possible. When all we have heard from the Democrats is we need to save our Democracy. Communism at its finest.

Disagree with you on the slam dunk, and I think the Colorado Supreme Court would also disagree. Hence why they wrote pages to define insurrection, which I will post here shortly.

I do agree with you, though, as far as not needing a conviction or other court ruling. In this case, insurrection would be a "finding" rather than a "ruling" or a "holding." I know that sounds like semantics, but it's basically a subset determination that insurrection occurred as part of the Court's overall ruling on the XIV issue. Had there been some type of conviction that took place, it would have made it a heck of a lot easier, but in this case, there was a hybrid factual/legal determination that took place.

All that being said, Pit could be right that SCOTUS may still zig on that finding where the district court and Colorado Supreme Court zagged. TBD I suppose. Insurrection portion of the ruling to be posted here shortly.

Great work Dawglover05, really appreciate ypur insight.

I apologize in advance. Copying and pasting from the ruling is clunky. I did my best to try and clean it up in a short amount of time. Here is the discussion on the definition of insurrection. You can tell the court knew this would be the central discussion before SCOTUS, so they spent a long time on it and really buttoned it up.

----------------------------

Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump’s counsel, while not
providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but
less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of
related conduct.

See The Brig Amy Warwick (The Prize Cases), 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635,
666 (1862) (“Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an
organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the
lawful authority of the Government.”);Case of Davis, 7 F. Cas. 63, 96 (C.C.D. Va.98
1871) (No. 3,621a) (“Although treason by levying war, in a case of civil war, may
involve insurrection or rebellion, and they are usually its first stages, they do not
necessarily reach to the actual levying of war.”);

77 C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 36, Westlaw (database updated August 2023)

(“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offenses connected with mob violence by the fact that, in insurrection, there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.”).

But we part company with him when he goes one step further. No authority supports the position taken by President Trump’s counsel at oral argument that insurrectionary conduct must involve a particular length of time or geographic location.

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are
arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not
adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word “insurrection.”

Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of “insurrection” for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.
99
The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the
dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success.
In re
Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828, 830 (N.D. Ill. 1894). Moreover, although those
involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the
insurrection’s inception.
See Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Davila, 212 F.2d 731, 736 (1st
Cir. 1954)

(“[A]t its inception an insurrection may be a pretty loosely organized
affair. . . . It may start as a sudden surprise attack upon the civil authorities of a
community with incidental destruction of property by fire or pillage, even before
the military forces of the constituted government have been alerted and mobilized
into action to suppress the insurrection.”).

The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court
sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and
public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the
U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful
transfer of power in this country. We have little difficulty concluding that
substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as
the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.
It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and
that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers onsite could
not control it.

Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence
in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons.
The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol’s premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers’ batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.

The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied.

Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force
was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support,
“The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose . . . . They
marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they
were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President
Pence.”
Id.at ¶ 243.

And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target—the certification of the presidential election—and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building.

Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob’s unified
purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as
required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential
election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to
accomplish a peaceful transfer of power. As noted above, soon after breaching the
Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification
process was ongoing.

This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob’s ire—which included threats of physical violence—was directed at Vice President Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with carrying out the electoral count.

As discussed more fully below, these actions were the product of President Trump’s conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump’s demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties.

In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6
constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of
people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary
to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable
definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider
whether President Trump “engaged in” this insurrection.

If the Supreme Court wants to keep any credibility they have left. They’ll say no thanks. The constitution specifically gives control to congress on the issue of who’s qualified to be president in the 14th Amendment.

This is the perfect example of an inaccurate, thoughtless, fear-based reaction without substance.

Colorado applied the XIV Amendment of the Constitution, literally the fabric of our country's government, specifically an amendment that has been there since right after the Civil War, before communism was even a thing. I've gone through and put in the court's ruling, along with analyses. If you disagree with the merits, then I'd be glad to have a discussion on that front, but how in the name of hell is applying a Constitutional Amendment from 1868 communist? Or is it just communist because it happened to Trump?

By the way, if you read the decision, they discuss that 2/3 notion as well. I didn't have the time to delve into that.

This article gives a good analysis of all the issues at play. I did not read the dissents, but one of the dissenting judges brought up Pit's point about a conviction. The conservative attorney first cited in the article though seems to think the dissents were weak, but could provide enough for SCOTUS to pull on a thread.

In any event, there are a ton of open points in this case where SCOTUS can decide to make its ruling. I do disagree with Ty Cobb on the "officer" part being the central tenant, invoking a 9-0 decision from SCOTUS, because it was not THE central issue that he makes it out to be, at least from my reading of the decision. There are also videos in the link. Anyhow, here's the article:

---------------------


The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause.

“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in a 4-3 decision.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion read. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

A lower court judge previously found that Trump engaged in insurrection but agreed with his lawyers’ arguments that Section 3 does not apply to the president. The state Supreme Court majority disagreed.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority opinion wrote. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

One of the dissenting judges argued that Trump shouldn’t be disqualified unless he has been convicted of insurrection. Another raised due process concerns and argued that only Congress could enforce the ban.

Conservative attorney George Conway told MSNBC that he had been “skeptical” until seeing how “weak” the dissents were in the case — even as he acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn the ruling anyway.

“I have been a little skeptical of this theory until last night," Conway said. "Now I'm completely sold. I was sold by the dissents. I have been skeptical of this theory not because I found anything that [legal experts] said was wrong…I just thought, well, it's a little too good to be true. I really do want to see Donald Trump beaten at the polls, so I have been a little skeptical.

"Then I read the dissents," he added. "They are so unbelievably weak that I'm now convinced there really isn't an argument against what the Supreme Court did."

Conway argued that Section 3 does not mention requiring a conviction and none of the dissenting judges disagreed with the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.

"It's strong evidence," he said. "You don't see the dissents challenging those findings at all, and in fact, there's no basis to challenge the findings. When you go to the majority opinion and read the 30 or 40 pages on what happened on Jan. 6 and what Donald Trump did before and during Jan. 6, there's no dispute. We saw it on television, and we know what happened. He engaged in an insurrection. He wanted this to happen, and not only that, there's another provision that talks about giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. He did that, he was an enemy of the Constitution. If this decision gets overturned, it's not going to be on the basis of the factual findings."


Retired conservative federal Judge J. Michael Luttig called the ruling a “masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law” that “will stand the test of the time.”


Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the ruling “follows pretty much directly from the text of the Constitution. So you know, someone like Donald Trump who claims to be a strict textualist when it comes to the Constitution has been hoisted on his own petard.”

Katyal predicted that the Supreme Court may vote to uphold the ruling, noting that the court ruled against his post-2020 election challenges and executive privilege claims.

“So, you know, I think that a fair-minded reading of this provision really compels this result,” he told MSNBC, adding that the Colorado Supreme Court “took pains to say, you know – this is just a quote from the opinion – ‘we’re mindful in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.’ And I think that the United States Supreme Court would apply that same standard. Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”

Temidayo Aganda-Williams, a former House Jan. 6 committee investigator and attorney, told CNN that the Supreme Court “will have to look seriously at this and I think this will be tough to overrule.”

But the Supreme Court “may take some off-ramps here,” he added, noting that they may look at whether the plaintiffs in the case may lack standing or whether the state court lacks jurisdiction.

"I think what the American people are owed an opinion that goes to the heart and the merits of the case, which is, one, whether the former president engaged in insurrection against the Constitution,” he said. "I think that's what the court has to answer here."


Still, many legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reject the Colorado court ruling.

“I think this case will be handled quickly, I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said in an interview on CNN. “I do believe it could be 9-0 because I think the law is clear,” he added.

“The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article Three of the 14th Amendment,” he explained. “And in 2010, Chief Justice Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

New York University Law Prof. Melissa Murray said the Colorado opinion was “meticulous” and “important” but leaves the U.S. Supreme Court multiple questions to decide.

"I think one question here is whether or not the Colorado state court had jurisdiction to take this up, and that will be something the court will attend to,” she told MSNBC. “The question of whether or not Section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, or whether it requires some kind of congressional action, like a statute providing a cause of action, is also another issue that the court could decide this on. And the due process issue. There are a number of off-ramps here.

“But, if the Supreme Court takes up the substantive question, determines that the text of Section 3 makes clear it applies to Donald Trump, and that Donald Trump was engaged in an insurrection on January 6th, this is going to set off a domino effect that literally will go throughout the country as more and more states line up to decide whether or not they will disqualify,” she added. “Remember, election law is a creature of state law. The states get to decide the procedures and the mechanisms for their own election — even federal election — and so each state can come to its own conclusion. And so, if the court decides this in a way that goes against Donald Trump, we may find ourselves with a patchwork of ballots on election night in 2024."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/skeptical-now-m-completely-sold-141925810.html

While I don't see the ruling standing in the SCOTUS, this is the only excuse you have for a repugnant man who is unworthy to hold the office of the presidency. That it's always someone esles fault for everything he's done. I remember when Republicans used at actually be the party of personal responsibility. Now they're the party of "What he does is someone elses fault!"

At some point he needs to be held accountable and when somebody actually attempts to do that the only defense you have is to play the victim. If Republicans had done the right thing from the beginning none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't so quit whining.

Hoping the Supreme Court denies trumps appeal.

So if congress has the control how can a state court have control?

So if congress has the control how can a state court have control?[/quote

Correct, there does not need to be a conviction. This amendment was added 150 years ago when it would be hard to go after rich white guys just coming off having slavery abolished.

Also, I heard some of the talking points that the right are already bringing up-That there is a mechanism to remove and it lies in the Senate and they did not vote to convict and of course this is anti democratic-leave it to the voters.

However, article 3 of the 14th is a Qualifying condition to run for president-like being born here or being at least 35 years or older.

Also, I saw some articles online last night that many think that this will not be addressed until after Colorado's primary in the middle of next summer and trump may already have locked up the repub nomination by then. This could get a little messy

Republicans only have themselves to blame. Making poor choices makes everything messy. We have Maine, Michigan, and Oregon pending cases right now. Here come the flood gates.