Once again I ask if congress has the control over it, how can a state court rule on it? And if you feel a state court has the authority to rule on it, why wouldn't the SCOTUS also have that right? That is one of the main purposes of the SCOTUS. To have the final say on the rule of law.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I'm glad you brought that up regarding the qualifying conditions as it was another discussion point of the ruling. Basically said that not being an insurrectionist is a qualifying condition to run for president, just like being 35 years or older, much like you said.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
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.
They’ve convicted hundreds that all said Trump sent them. The court has already RIGHTFULLY determined Trump is guilty… just like anyone with a mind has.
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.
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?
Mad props and kudos Doglover05... Can't praise you enough for the effort and education you've given any that can be bothered and want to understand a little more and dig a little deeper than the MSM talking points and headlines. Sincerely some of the best stuff on the board since I can't remember when, thank you!
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
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.
Sen. Tillis to introduce legislation barring federal funds from states ‘misusing’ 14th Amendment
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is set to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election administration from states “misusing” the 14th Amendment.
“Regardless of whether you support or oppose former President Donald Trump, it is outrageous to see left-wing activists make a mockery of our political system by scheming with partisan state officials and pressuring judges to remove him from the ballot,” Tillis said in a press release announcing the bill’s upcoming introduction Tuesday.
“American voters, not partisan activists, should decide who we elect as our President. The Constitutional Election Integrity Act would put any constitutional challenges in the sole place they belong: the U.S. Supreme Court,” Tillis continued.
The bill aims to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002, adding language to the law stating that the Supreme Court has “sole jurisdiction to decide claims arising out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Tillis’s bill comes on the same day former President Trump was kicked off Colorado’s Republican primary ballot under section three of the 14th Amendment via a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the upper court wrote in its decision. “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.”
Tillis’s fellow GOP lawmakers heavily criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in its wake.
“Regardless of political affiliation, every citizen registered to vote should not be denied the right to support our former president and the individual who is the leader in every poll of the Republican primary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement, adding he trusts the U.S. Supreme Court will “set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next president of the United States.”
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.
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?
It cAn’T bE lEgAl iF iT dEnIeS dEaR lEaDeR… smh. Thanks DL05, for all you’ve added to this thread.
Sen. Tillis to introduce legislation barring federal funds from states ‘misusing’ 14th Amendment
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is set to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election administration from states “misusing” the 14th Amendment.
“Regardless of whether you support or oppose former President Donald Trump, it is outrageous to see left-wing activists make a mockery of our political system by scheming with partisan state officials and pressuring judges to remove him from the ballot,” Tillis said in a press release announcing the bill’s upcoming introduction Tuesday.
“American voters, not partisan activists, should decide who we elect as our President. The Constitutional Election Integrity Act would put any constitutional challenges in the sole place they belong: the U.S. Supreme Court,” Tillis continued.
The bill aims to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002, adding language to the law stating that the Supreme Court has “sole jurisdiction to decide claims arising out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Tillis’s bill comes on the same day former President Trump was kicked off Colorado’s Republican primary ballot under section three of the 14th Amendment via a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the upper court wrote in its decision. “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.”
Tillis’s fellow GOP lawmakers heavily criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in its wake.
“Regardless of political affiliation, every citizen registered to vote should not be denied the right to support our former president and the individual who is the leader in every poll of the Republican primary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement, adding he trusts the U.S. Supreme Court will “set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next president of the United States.”
Republicans are coming out en masse to protest the Colorado SC decision. I think they know if Trump gets disqualified rightfully for insurrection, many of them will follow. Traitors to the man.
I have no idea where this is headed, but if Trump is erased from the Colorado ballot, I don't think he will lose all that many votes.
I think almost everybody who would have voted for him will still vote for him via write in vote. This is a little different that writing in Pat Paulson or your dog groomer. It might even solidify the Colorado base and bring in more votes....not likely, but it could.
I know the state AG has said even the write in votes wouldn't count, but that is a mine field....talk about voter nullification. I wonder what would happen if the electoral college voters cast their vote for Trump anyway? They aren't bound to vote for whom the people voted.
Interesting times for sure.
Last edited by Ballpeen; 12/20/2305:29 PM.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I think he's done in Colorado, but I think he would have been done there anyway. What I am most paying attention to is where it goes from here. Namely, whether it stands up in SCOTUS, and then, if that actually happens (which I don't think it will), whether this becomes a watershed moment for other swing states, here it could really make a difference.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
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.
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?
Mad props and kudos Doglover05... Can't praise you enough for the effort and education you've given any that can be bothered and want to understand a little more and dig a little deeper than the MSM talking points and headlines. Sincerely some of the best stuff on the board since I can't remember when, thank you!
You understood all those posts!?
"I'll take your word at face value. I have never met you but I assume you have a face..lol"
I have no idea where this is headed, but if Trump is erased from the Colorado ballot, I don't think he will lose all that many votes.
I think almost everybody who would have voted for him will still vote for him via write in vote. This is a little different that writing in Pat Paulson or your dog groomer. It might even solidify the Colorado base and bring in more votes....not likely, but it could.
I know the state AG has said even the write in votes wouldn't count, but that is a mine field....talk about voter nullification. I wonder what would happen if the electoral college voters cast their vote for Trump anyway? They aren't bound to vote for whom the people voted.
Interesting times for sure.
Trump has to be disqualified just like those confederates in the statues that were a STAIN ERASED.
Engaged in insurrection is different than convicted of insurrection. The wording in the 14th amendment is engaged. That makes a difference. Precision in wording is pretty important at to a strict constitutionalist. In this case conservatives who favor the strict interpretation are in a quandary.
This will be interesting, and may cascade if the US Supreme Court does not take it up.
It’s going to take some wrangling to get Trump out of this one. I suspect another Bush v Gore or Dobbs type decision.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
The comments about the post civil war are laughable and so are the comments about communism.
Weak. Weak. And a bit mindless. Constitution issues are supposed to stand the test of time, unless it is an ooopsy, see prohibition or merits a lifetime of analysis. See second amendment.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
A lot of them. And I gained insight & angles to waht is contained within the ruling. I also appreciated how the ruling was laid out to try to preempt a SC review/ruling on the decision. To me, what we have the benefit of is someone with a legal mind cutting through the irelevant bits and highlighting what is at the crux of some of the decisions and thought processes. I think it took a lot of time and effort and even if you don't agree with the opinions presented - I think everyone should be grateful for hopefully providing the details of what the debate is about as opposed to some general emotive feelings that might be expressed which are 100% unsubtantiated (of which we saw one fine example by Day of the Dawg).
If I have time I'll go back and read the entire thread again.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Thank you, my friend. You are one of the more thoughtful and objective posters on this board, so that means a lot.
mgh nailed it. you were spot on dawglover. Spot on ,.
Trump, The Maga crowd, Newsmax, Fox and the rest of the MAGA broadcast team say it, and people just repeat it. I'm pretty sure they don't have a clue what it means.
Good job
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
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.
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?
Mad props and kudos Doglover05... Can't praise you enough for the effort and education you've given any that can be bothered and want to understand a little more and dig a little deeper than the MSM talking points and headlines. Sincerely some of the best stuff on the board since I can't remember when, thank you!
You understood all those posts!?
LOL, I'm not sure I understood all those posts.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Engaged in insurrection is different than convicted of insurrection. The wording in the 14th amendment is engaged. That makes a difference. Precision in wording is pretty important at to a strict constitutionalist. In this case conservatives who favor the strict interpretation are in a quandary.
This will be interesting, and may cascade if the US Supreme Court does not take it up.
It’s going to take some wrangling to get Trump out of this one. I suspect another Bush v Gore or Dobbs type decision.
I'm glad you brought that up as well, as it's another good point. I did not expound on it, but right after they went through defining insurrection, they focused on the "engaged in" language in their next big section, so they honed in on the line of thought you just mentioned.
Regardless of whether it stands or not, they were very deliberate and methodical in this decision. I'm not sure what the Colorado majority's Constitutional views are, but the fact they took Scalia's style to write the opinion, then to painstakingly dissect all the wording, they definitely wrote this with SCOTUS as a prospective audience. One could argue that should always be the case with any court reviewing a Constitutional issue, but this decision went another level up from what I had been used to seeing.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I think this case really rests on Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh, if SCOTUS takes it up, which I imagine they will. It's ironic because they're all Trump appointees. I think Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, and Jackson all affirm. Alito and Thomas will reverse.
I could see Gorsuch crossing the line and siding with Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts and Jackson. Gorsuch is probably the "most" originalist in the court (as was intended by Conservatives when they replaced Scalia with him), but I think he applies it more objectively, meaning that if it is against his own personal views, he still errs in favor of the "originalism." Similar to what Scalia did on the flag-burning case. Side note - Scalia came to my law school to give a speech and that was one of his points: "If it were up to me, I would have thrown that sandal-wearing hippie into jail, but it's not up to me." I think Gorsuch follows that same notion.
I can't fathom to remotely guess how Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh would venture. Roberts himself might not be a guarantee, but if I had to guess, I think he'd affirm.
All just my humble speculation.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
just to be clear, this only applies to the state's republican primary, and doesn't actually affect the general election ballot.
a primary where everyone else is fighting for 2nd place because Trump already had the nomination wrapped up when he announced his reelection bid.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Correct. Just for the republican primary, for now. I don’t think this will be resolved in the SC before Super Tuesday. That is if they take it up at all, but it is a Trump appointed SC. I’m really hoping the SC kicks it back to the states if they want to be consistent with their other rulings. Let the states decide.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb predicted Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule “9-0” in favor of former President Trump in a potential appeal of Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that would kick Trump off the state’s ballot.
“I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” Cobb said in an interview on CNN, adding later, “I do believe it could be 9-0, because I think the law is clear.”
The Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday that Trump should not appear on Colorado’s ballot due to his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Citing the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” the 4-3 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court argued Trump engaged in an insurrection by promoting false claims of election fraud and encouraging supporters to go the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
More from The Hill: Trump kicked off Colorado ballot in 14th Amendment case GOP lawmakers slam Colorado court’s Trump decision Sen. Tillis to introduce legislation barring federal funds from states ‘misusing’ 14th Amendment Ramaswamy pledges to ‘withdraw’ from Colorado ballot amid Trump removal The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the office of the president falls under the insurrection clause, which states those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as a “member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State” cannot engage in a rebellion against it.
“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 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”
Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, has already vowed the Trump campaign will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and includes three justices nominated by Trump.
Best Holiday Deals
Top-rated gifts that will arrive on time Black Friday-caliber deals are still on sale Have a White Elephant party? Here are the best options
BestReviews is reader-supported and may earn an affiliate commission. “The Supreme Court though will not hesitate to move quickly on this; they know what the stakes are. They know what their responsibility is,” Cobb continued. “And they can delay some of these Colorado dates to the extent that they feel they’re obligated to or have to.”
Colorado’s Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4 to allow Trump to first seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. If he does, his name will automatically remain on the ballot until justices resolve the appeal.
Cobb further argued the ruling “vindicates” Trump’s “insistence that this is a political conspiracy to interfere with the election and that … he’s the target and people shouldn’t tolerate that in America.”
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
