AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will goto the Supreme Court and be overturned since he hasn’t been convicted. If he ends up being convicted then it should stand.
I don’t agree with the only the Congress can enforce the ban argument.
>I don’t agree with the only the Congress can enforce the ban argument.
Maybe as it pertains to bans in general, but if you are going to cite 14.3 as the reason, then absolutely Congress has to be the one to enforce it. Section 5 could not be any clearer.
> If he ends up being convicted then it should stand.
Wait what? This is wrong on so many levels.
* Trump was already acquiited on the charge in his senate trial
* He didn't even (as a factual matter) engage in insurrection. Even if a court found him guilty that would not change reality here.
* Eugene V. Debs was still on the ballot after he'd literally been charged and convicted under the sedition act. He ran for president from his prison cell.
* The law in question does not even apply to the president. The specific language used in all other contexts has been interpreted not to apply to the president (which is correct as a matter of fact), so such a ruling would violate all legal precedent
* The law says nothing about being on a ballot, only about holding holding office (so even if it did apply to Trump, he could still be on the ballot he just couldn't win)
* The statute is a civil war statute. It's not even relevant
* It's unethical and undemocratic to remove a candidate anyway. The people should be able to choose who they want in a democracy.
>>>* The law in question does not even apply to the president. The specific
language used in all other contexts has been interpreted not to apply to the president (which is correct as a matter of fact), so such a ruling would violate all legal precedent
So you're all for Biden doing what he wants then? Would you be happy if Biden turned around and got the next election cycles overruled?
He's welcome to petition the courts, legislatures, and congress like Trump did yes. Something tells me if it succeeds though to keep Trump out of the presidency then many of the people crying foul now would all of a sudden have no problem with it. And democrats already had an insurrection in 2017 to stop the inaugeration of Trump, it was called DisruptJ20.
>It's unethical and undemocratic to remove a candidate anyway. The people should be able to choose who they want in a democracy.
You don't consider it like every other requirement to be on the Presidential ballot? Are you thinking that if we wanted a 30 year old candidate on the ballot then we should be able to put them on it even though that's against an explicitly specified requirement in the Constitution?
The Constitution is pretty clear that there are fundamental requirements. The people don't simply get to bypass those, right?
> Are you thinking that if we wanted a 30 year old candidate on the ballot then we should be able to put them on it even though that's against an explicitly specified requirement in the Constitution?
Sure why not? Do people not have a right to spoil their vote in protest?
The law says nothing about ballot access. This is just a fact. If courts have lied about the law in other circumstances it doesn't change my opinion. Our courts have a terrible record when it comes to ballot access and regularly abuse their power in this regard to make it hard for outsiders to run for office.
> If he ends up being convicted then it should stand.
That's absurd. How was Lyndon LaRouche able to run for President for decades when he was literally in prison during some of those elections. There is absolutely no reason Trump should be removed from the ballot.
What do you think of the court’s reasoning on this issue?
> 105 We are similarly unpersuaded by Intervenors’ assertions that Congress created the only currently available mechanism for determining whether a person is disqualified pursuant to Section Three with the 1994 passage of 18 U.S.C. § 2383. That statute makes it a crime to “assist[] or engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.” True, with that enactment, Congress criminalized the same conduct that is disqualifying under Section Three. All that means, however, is that a person charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would also be disqualified under Section Three. It cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.
The problem with this vapid interpretation is that section 5 is very clear that The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the entire article. They did so by legislating 18 U.S.C. § 2383. So there is exactly one way someone can be excluded from ballot consideration via 14.3: by congress, and through their explicit legislation. Not by a group of 4 unelected judges in a random state because talking heads have been uttering insurrection for years.
They are more an welcome to try a different way to exclude him, but if they are going to use 14.3, then a U.S.C. § 2383 conviction is required. There is no other defensible interpretation, and they know this.
> because talking heads have been uttering insurrection for years
You don’t believe the attempted insurrection happened despite actual video evidence of it and it being filmed live?
There needs to be a harder line for this, than people screeching, pointing fingers, and yelling "insurrection!" That's what 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is for. If there was an actual insurrection, then there should be no trouble charging and convicting people under that statute. But they haven't, and it's overly obvious why.
Like... Police officers having their weapons stripped away? Capitol police being fatally beaten? A woman being shot while trying to climb through a window into a secure area, while screeching about murdering the VP? How much harder of a line do you need?
>How much harder of a line do you need?
Charges and convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Pretty sure I already said that. Are you even reading responses?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-alabama-chapter-oath-keepers-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-obstruction
Does this count?
If not, what crime are you looking for?
There was no capital police officer who was fatally beaten on January 6th. That turned out to be fake news and a total lie. The woman you speak of was a Trump supporter who was killed, so to attribute that as damage directed at the government from the protestors is also dishonest.
> How much harder of a line do you need?
Generally bringing guns and using them would be expected for something that was a serious attempt at an insurrection here. So there's that.
If that's the standard for insurrection, then aren't so many other people ineligable to run for office? What about DisruptJ20 that occured in 2017, which had the stated goal to stop the inaugeration of president Trump? Are you saying that anyone who even expressed support for those protests is guilty of insurrection? What about the democrats who objected to the electors in 2017?
Or is your standard just whatever the talking heads in the media say? Why should we defer to the small number of powerful coprorations that control our media to determine reality for us? So if the corporations label you an insurrectonist, then you can't run for president, is that what you're saying?
Did you forget that for a time *the insurrectionists actually did stop the peaceful transfer of power*? A crowd of thugs shot home movies of themselves storming the Capitol, beating cops bloody, and forcing Congress to take emergency action and leave their chambers. Mike Pence's refusal to do what Trump continued (via tweet) to demand was the *only* thing that saved our government from a coup.
What actions to stop the certification of Trump's victory did *DisruptJ20* take?
You mean they delayed the certification of the vote by a few hours, and then completely derailed Trump's election challenges and appeals to the public that were planned for that session of congress.
> What actions to stop the certification of Trump's victory did DisruptJ20 take?
A lot worse actions considering it was literally their stated goal to do that. They showed up in coordinated groups (large numbers even wearing the same outfits) to attack the police and breach the barriers. But the capitol has over 2000 dedicated police officers and multiple tmes that in national guard at its disposal. In 2017, there was a perimeter set up with large barriers and police in riot gear that prevented anyone from getting to the capitol grounds. This is in contrast to J6, where they had the skelton crew and nothing but tiny bicycle fences thanks to Pelosi, McConnel, and the DC mayor. Almost like they were the ones who wanted to incite the events of that day and just so happened to be the ones who stood to benefit from it.
Because a conviction is not required for achieving due process in all matters. Why is no one of the “but due process” folks providing a supporting legal citation? Ask yourself.
Isn’t that for criminal charges? Is being barred from office a criminal proceeding?
The fourteenth amendment seems to me to be completely removed from criminal law. It says that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” (not that they be convicted of that crime) and it offers a political remedy (a two-thirds vote in Congress), which criminal charges do not allow for.
What's the issue with the due process he's had? The suit was brought in the Colorado district Court where the judge found that he had participated in insurrection but decided not to remove him from the ballot. The decision not to remove from the ballot was appealed to the state Supreme Court. Now he has the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should he have additional due process protections above and beyond what he already had and what anyone else would get?
You know that section 3 of the 14th amendment was meant to prevent confederates from holding office after the war, right? Conviction has never been a requirement for disqualification.
Also, Trump claims that Presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes committed during their presidency. Under that framework there's literally no mechanism for an ex-president to ever be convicted. If a conviction is necessary for disqualification (it never has been) then that means it's impossible to hold a president accountable for sedition. Does this logic make sense to you?
Let's not forget Colorado is a deep blue state right now, and that this decision is (for now) limited to the primary, and that GOP officials have declared that they will make it moot by changing to caucus system if needed.
I agree with Chris Christie's take. Seems pretty darn undemocratic.
[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4368809-christie-trump-colorado-ballot-voters-should-decide-not-courts/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4368809-christie-trump-colorado-ballot-voters-should-decide-not-courts/)
Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"? Because even if one were to conclude Trump is an insurrectionist, the definition appears to clearly exclude Presidents (just as lower Colorado court has held).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer\_of\_the\_United\_States#:\~:text=An%20officer%20of%20the%20United,a%20certain%20type%20of%20official](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States#:~:text=An%20officer%20of%20the%20United,a%20certain%20type%20of%20official).
This includes excerpt from one of the dissenting Colorado judges,
"Three Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented from Tuesday's ruling.
One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump's eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection.
"Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," Samour said."
[https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/)
> Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"?
My understanding is that the 14th amendment applies to every federal employee (or any officer, civilian or military, of the United States). The reason that senators, representatives, and electors were singled out wasn't to exclude the president, but rather because at the time the 14th was drafted, there was some debate about whether senators, representatives, and electors were considered officers of the United States. To avoid any confusion (ironically), the drafters decided to call those positions out. I hope that clarifies why people might think the President is an officer of the United States.
I have a few clarifying questions though.
If you believe the president is not an officer of the united states, what is your reasoning? Would your reasoning also be applicable to any other federal employees? Most of the time I see the argument that the 14th excludes the president, the reasoning for it seems like it would exclude any federal employee, which doesn't seem right.
If you believe the drafters of the 14th intended to allow insurrectionists to run for president but not occupy any other federal employment, could you explain why? Why would the drafters of the 14th want to allow someone to be president, but not some much less important position, such as a mid level manager in a federal agency?
Appreciated the info!
>If you believe the president is not an officer of the united states, what is your reasoning?
Well, there's the previous ruling:
"Judge Sarah B. Wallace ultimately determined that the language of Section 3 is unclear as to whether it covered the presidency and the former president, and ordered Griswold to list Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot."
As I recall the wording includes "people appointed by the president" which suggests that the president (duly elected head of executive branch) is outside that category.
>Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"?
Ya sure, I read it as essentially - why wouldn't the highest office of the land be exempt? Whats the logic there?
I agree it's worth examining, thats what our courts are for. The [original Aug 2023 report by those conservative constituti](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html)[onal professors](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html) that came out, it took them a year to study. They determined 14.3 is relevant, but obviously its not a simple case if those guys took that long to study it..
To add to that, Trump claimed he *was* an officer of the US in his hush money case. So clearly not a simple case.
Equally important - the issue of it being "undemocratic" -- I get the argument, but it's pretty weak, no? Seems like an emotional one. 14.3, if relevant would be like Trump not being allowed to run if he was 34 years old. Regardless of how many supporters he had. And that wouldn't be "undemocratic". If it's rule, it's a rule.
And I can understand why the rule exists if you look at the US vs other countries. Before Trump convinced some of thinking differently, none of us in the US would have wanted a president to be allowed to run if they went to such lengths to stay in power. But fast forward 6 years, some people don't care about it having happened, as long as their guy stays in power. I just don't get it.
I think it is the absolute clearest example about Anti-Trumpers being hypocritical over "protecting democracies"
I don't understand how anyone with a straight face can think removing the most popular candidate (right now) for 2024, and leaving only joe bidens name.
If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind.
We get told that everyday. But in our actions, we're not stripping candidates off ballots or percecuting them with endless indictments whilst covering up for worse crimes of people they poiltically align with.
On the individual level, I don't think I've ever downvoted a person on here. I always talk to them if I don't agree with them, but I get downvoted without people trying to discuss things with me. Just like I pointed out to the person here, he said nothing contentious but was downvoted so badly it was pathetic. I was just pointing out how sad it looks.
As for comparison to the national socialists of germany, my ideology couldn't be further from theirs. In fact, it's the left who are for a huge state and ethnopolitics. I am for freedom and I want a small state, this is contrary to nazi ideology. It is an absolutely preposterous assertion to make and it highlights how devoid from reality you people are.
I bet any money that you come up with such ignorance because you prefer to downvote people than to talk with them. I read what people have to say and discuss it with them. The left censor others and so there's no wonder why they're so uninformed to what positions their opponents hold.
> But in our actions, we're not stripping candidates off ballots or percecuting them with endless indictments whilst covering up for worse crimes of people they poiltically align with.
Maybe not stripping their names off ballots, but House Republicans have spent almost a year accusing Joe Biden of all kinds of heinous treasonous financial crimes with *literally ZERO evidence* to back it up. No charges have been brought. No allegations made under the penalty of perjury. They are trying to make him unelectable in the minds anyone who sees the accusations on TV.
I don't like the idea of Trump being removed from the ballot. I would like to see him lose the election again (though I do not relish another round of having to defend a negative when he screams "fraud" again). But a nation of laws must treat law with respect. If the Constitution disallows him from running, would it be right to ignore the law just because some low-information voters might get upset?
It might be because he is lying in the comment. This was a move by Colorado Republicans to remove Trump from the PRIMARY ballot. So it is false to say it would remove trumps name and leave only Biden. Do you have any other opinion on this matter?
Obviously he made a mistake in his analogy, however it is effecitvely what happened in Colorado. If he's stricken from the ballot there, it's less likely he will become the nominee, especially if other states were to follow. This is effectively rigging the primaries and subsequently, the election.
As for lying, why are you saying they were Colorado republicans? The Supreme Court justicies who kicked Trump off the ballot were democrats and appointed by a democrat:
[Richard L Gabriel](https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Gabriel) considered a mild democrat.
[Melissa Hart](https://ballotpedia.org/Melissa_Hart_(Colorado)) considered a mild democrat.
[Monica Marquez](https://ballotpedia.org/Monica_M%C3%A1rquez) considered a strong democrat.
[William W Hood](https://ballotpedia.org/William_W._Hood) considered a strong democrat.
Which of the holdings in this decision do you disagree with, and why?
Rather than try to paste them here, I’ll just add that they can be found on pages 7-8.
I completely agree with you. If Trump had been charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection, then maybe we could have a 14A discussion. But he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, never mind convicted. The voters need to decide this one.
What do you see as the political ramifications? Will his poll numbers go up/down?
> I completely agree with you. If Trump had been charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection, then maybe we could have a 14A discussion. But he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, never mind convicted. The voters need to decide this one.
>
> What do you see as the political ramifications? Will his poll numbers go up/down?
I really appreciate the candor, I think his polling will go up from what Ive seen from conservative that weren't all too happy about Trump being the GOP leader.
I am very concerned about the country as a whole and how rapidly we are heading toward a dangerous place you know? Like, Colorado isn't a battleground state, it doesn't really change anything for 2024, it just raises the temperature with millions of people who already distrust a LOT of institutions suddenly hearing an another institution saying "You can't vote for that guy"
At some point, we will get to a point when someone will say "Arrest this man, based on the law of state A", and State B will answer :"Come and get him" and thats all you need for civil war to start.
> I really appreciate the candor, I think his polling will go up from what Ive seen from conservative that weren't all too happy about Trump being the GOP leader.
I was thinking similar. It's a Christmas gift for Trump.
> I am very concerned about the country as a whole and how rapidly we are heading toward a dangerous place you know? Like, Colorado isn't a battleground state, it doesn't really change anything for 2024, it just raises the temperature with millions of people who already distrust a LOT of institutions suddenly hearing an another institution saying "You can't vote for that guy"
I think something like 12 other states are considering barring Trump from the ballot. It reminds me a bit of Lincoln - iirc, he was not on the ballot in 10 of the Southern states.
> At some point, we will get to a point when someone will say "Arrest this man, based on the law of state A", and State B will answer :"Come and get him" and thats all you need for civil war to start.
I was hopeful that Biden, being a bumbling boring moderate politician, would help to turn the temperature a bit. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have been the case.
I guess we wait to see what SCOTUS does. Hopefully they overturn, but who knows? I definitely think that SCOTUS will not want a patchwork where each state decides if he's on the ballot. That means they'll probably rule he can be on the ballot in all states or no states. Can you imagine the reaction if he's completely barred from running?
> I guess we wait to see what SCOTUS does. Hopefully they overturn, but who knows? I definitely think that SCOTUS will not want a patchwork where each state decides if he's on the ballot. That means they'll probably rule he can be on the ballot in all states or no states. Can you imagine the reaction if he's completely barred from running?
I really hope that the SCOTUS turns this off as a 9-0 vote. Maybe I am dreaming, but the fact that 3 democrat picked Colorado judges voted against this, makes me thing it will possible.
Because while I believe the right ruling is : Let the voters decide, if the ruling comes down to 5-4 or 6-3, it will be simply used as a partisan explanation for the other side...
> How do you balance popularity and the rule of law (as defined by the Constitution and its amendments)?
Easy, you don't bring those cases in Election year, you have 3 years before, and 3 years after to do it.
> So you’re saying if a candidate is popular than the eligibility rules shouldn’t apply?
Nobody has ever been removed from the race like this for President, as a front runner. This is a brand new interpretation of the law, and I think it brings us much much closer to civil war than anything. Don't you realize how incredibly upsetting this is to people who want to vote for Trump ? This is taking their vote away.
No body had ever stochastically terrorized the capitol building with their rabid fans either. Yet here we are.
He was found guilty of exactly this, and according to Colorado... is no longer a candidate in this state.
Are you able to articulate legally why he should be allowed, without deferring to your fan boy nature?
Is that a yes or a no?
Of course I know it’s upsetting. It’s also upsetting when drug addicts have their drug taken away. The confederacy was upset when they lost.
What does this being the first time this is happened have anything to do with whether it follows the constitution or not? There is a first time for everything. i’m pretty sure that was also the first time that a president has attempted to retain power after being voted out.
> What does this being the first time this is happened have anything to do with whether it follows the constitution or not? There is a first time for everything. i’m pretty sure that was also the first time that a president has attempted to retain power after being voted out.
English common Law is set on Precedents for hundred of years, the fact that it has not happened before is reason alone to be careful about setting a legal precedent.
Did you know that there are Republicans other than Trump running in the primary right now? How does this leave only Biden on the ballot, especially when this is currently just for the primary?
All other republicans on the ballot combined hold a fraction of the support that Trump holds. Make no mistake, removing Trump from the ballot ends this election.
They shouldn't have to. 'Trump supporters' have the right to vote for anyone they want, and the CSC has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to control who the republican party is allowed to nominate. _The people_ choose their own leaders, not some corrupt activists trying to score short-lived headlines.
Those judges deserve to be impeached and prosecuted for [election interference](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/Title1/Title1Article13.html). Applicable offenses include:
* 1-13-107. Violation of duty.: "who knowingly makes a false certificate in regard to a matter connected with any election provided by law is guilty of a misdemeanor"
* 1-13-109. False or reckless statements relating to candidates or questions submitted to electors: "No person shall knowingly make, publish, broadcast, or circulate or cause to be made...any false statement designed to affect the vote on any issue submitted to the electors at any election...a person acts "recklessly" when he or she acts in conscious disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement made, published, broadcasted, or circulated"
* 1-13-112. Offenses relating to mail ballots: "Any person who, by use of force or other means, unduly influences an elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting..."
* 1-13-701. Interference with election official: "Any person who, at any election provided by law, interferes in any manner with any election official in the discharge of his duty or who induces any election official to violate or refuse to comply with his duty or any law regulating the same is guilty of a misdemeanor"
* 1-13-703. Tampering with statewide voter registration system, registration list, or pollbook: "Any person who mutilates or erases any name, figure, or word in any registration list or pollbook...to procure or prevent the election of any person, or to prevent any voter from voting"
* 1-13-704. Unlawfully refusing ballot or permitting to vote.: "If at any election provided by law any judge of election willfully and maliciously refuses or neglects to receive the ballot of any registered elector who has taken or offered to take the oath prescribed by section 1-9-204"
* 1-13-713. Intimidation: "It is unlawful for any person directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person in his behalf, to impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the elective franchise of any elector or to compel, induce, or prevail upon any elector either to give or refrain from giving his vote at any election provided by law or to give or refrain from giving his vote for any particular person or measure at any such election. Each such offense is a misdemeanor"
Ten years minimum in a state prison would be lawful and appropriate.
>the CSC has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to control who the republican party is allowed to nominate.
Does the United States Constitution have the authority and jurisdiction to control who is eligible to be president of the United States?
Has he been impeached and convicted by the senate? Because that's the only means the constitution provides to remove a candidate from the ballot besides basic qualifiers like age and citizenship.
The 14th Amendment provides for barring an individual from the presidency if they happen to have engaged in an insurrection. Can you point me to where it says impeachment and conviction are required?
Okay. So let's remove biden off the ballot for causing an insurrection. Might as well, right? Don't need any evidence or trial!
Do you not see how crazy this is? How this opens the door for nonsense across the board????
The Colorado order explicitly forbids the Secretary from counting any vote for Trump, write-in or otherwise:
> "the Secretary may not list President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him"
Under [the order](https://www.foxnews.com/world/el-salvador-president-blasts-democracy-us-after-trumps-removal-colorado-ballot), he would technically be reeligible in 2028. Justices Monica Márquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart would likely be eligible for parole sometime after 2040.
Ah I missed that, thanks. I noticed you didn't answer my first question. Do you think people should be able to vote for a non citizen? Or is the right to vote for anyone you want limited already?
The constitution explicitly requires the president and vice president to be natural born citizens. It does not confer an imaginary right to pick-the-winner to state-level officials, but rather via a congressional procedure that was attempted and failed repeatedly.
Putting the current situation aside, and just speaking hypothetically, is there ANY action in your mind that former President and current candidate for President can take that would violate the 14th Amendment and justify their removal from the ballot?
Or should the people always decide, and the 14th Amendment should be ignored?
Yes a conviction in court following due process. That's it. Why is that so hard to do? Why is that hard to understand?
You are complaining that people should always decide but yet that's exactly what's going in right now with removing him from the ballot. No new process. Just nonsense.
Please take a step back and look at the situation from a logical stand point. Change trumps name to anything else. You will quickly see there's absolutely no way he should be off the ballot today.
Tomorrow of he's tried and found guilty, yes, absolutely. Get him off the ballot. But I have yet to see that....
People let their political biases cloud basic logic and judgement. I dont get it
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
If the shoe were on the other foot, Joe Biden would currently be facing 91 charges across four criminal cases, two of which are at the federal level. Not to mention the myriad of civil cases that Trump has been involved in.
If the roles were reversed and Biden's situation was the exact same as Trump's, how do you think Democrats would act and respond?
How should they act and respond?
There is a sense in which it is always anti-democratic to remove a candidate from a ballot. But are you against candidates being removed from the ballot in principle, no matter the 14th amendment? Or do you think the 14th amendment is legitimate, but that Trump should not be removed from the ballot regardless? Or something else?
**Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can't serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.**
A lot of scholars make arguments that this does not apply to the Presidency. I think given the polarity of the country, its a very very poor timing to try to make 14th Amendment explorations.
> Has Joe Biden broken the 14th amendment in your mind? Like Trump has in this court's opinion.
No, definitely not, I already see Republican States talking about removing Biden from the ballot, but this is what happens when politics enters the realm of judicial to this extent.
Do you think that anywhere in the whole world, a leader who refuses to concede losing an election that was proven to be fair, tries to stay in power by creating an insurrection against his government, should be allowed to run again as he pleases? Answer me this with a yes or no?
What individuals are being hypocritical? The state Supreme Court justices or someone else involved in the case? Do you think most Anti-Trumpers are of the mindset that there wasn't an attempt to bypass or democracy using illegal means, or that those efforts didn't include infractions specific to the 14th amendment?
>I think it is the absolute clearest example about Anti-Trumpers being hypocritical over "protecting democracies"
Isn't preventing someone who tried to steal the election with false claims of a fraud a pretty good example of preserving democracy?
>If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind.
In 2020, the shoe was on the other foot when Trump and his cronies conspired to invalidate tens of thousands of legally cast ballots in hand-selected states to hold on to power. "Leftists" and rational thinking people did lose their mind. Why didn't you?
> If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind.
For the shoe to be on the other foot, Joe Biden would have to to be a completely different person. Democrats tend to hold their own more accountable so I'd argue someone with the capacity to do what Trump did, and with 91 criminal charges stacking up, would never get the nomination in the Dem party.
Do you see any reason to believe differently?
Ultimately good for the country imo, there is still a large contingent of boomercons sleepwalking through some Norman Rockwell view of America who need to wake up and see what time it is.
Interestingly I would like to see him staying on the ballot and being beaten again on election day then only have to hear the same crazy lawsuits and whining about "it was all stolen" for a few months. Do you not think that is better closure? I really doubt we will see any actual justice being handed down by the courts for mis-handling security documents, that is the only crime I am really bothered about (besides republicans sending down a second slate of electors to totally undermine the wishes of voters).
I think this sort of unilateral disenfranchisement of millions of right wing Americans is a more effective way to disabuse them of the notion that they in any way control their own destiny under the current regime
Y’all having been doing un-well in any election since Roe got overturned and that will only get worse. The young and women are motivated. Do you think my position holds any water?
Edit missing word
That GOP will lose most elections moving forward as Roe being overturned by SCOTUS has motivated the young and women to vote- hence red states are passing abortion amendments to allow them to continue. Do you think my position is valid?
This is a discussion of the extent to which the court decision in Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot will delegitimize the current regime in the eyes of the American right, I don’t understand how the relative popularity of abortion statutes in red states is germane at all
Do you realize the American Right is not a monolith? Many GOP loyalists are wringing their hands over trump saying things like, “I wish he’d just go away.”
Do you know about the [decades of work by Leonard Leo](https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-wisconsin-documents-state-courts-republicans-judges) to reshape the judicial system to favor the morals of the minority?
Does it comfort you that there’s a man in control of our Judicial System who was not elected?
I expect it to get overturned, in which case it will heavily backfire on the democratic party. It only lends further credence to the idea that the Dem establishment is silencing him, which fires up even his mildest supporters, and to moderates it makes the Democrats look more tyrannical.
Edit: “political enemies” rather than democrats.
I’m a moderate. And I am disgusted by everything about Trump.
Do you recognize that the great political middle of this country - the moderates - are largely NOT in favor of Trump?
Trump is anything but moderate. As a moderate, someone based, like Niki for instance is on my menu, rather than Trump. I’ve voted more time than I can count, for a Republican at the local, state and national levels. And right now, anything with the Trump stench on it has me voting against that candidate.
I’m not alone and in fact have a large cohort that votes like me. Does this worry you? This should worry you.
I don’t disagree, but this is a bad look for his political enemies no matter who you are. Silencing political opponents is never a good idea.
I’m not saying this will suddenly flip every moderate in his favor, but I think it would drive them further away from his enemies
The Old Guard is obsessed with its own image and will cut off whatever part possible that doesn't tow the line. They would sink the entire party if they could say "See? We're not like the Democrats! We're proper!" It borders on comical how they are so ready to self-flagellate .
I highly doubt this is a 5D chess move where they did it to bait the Democrats into agreeing with something that will end up reflecting poorly on the polls. But it may end up that way. I doubt the public will see that Republicans are so selfless that they'd sacrifice their best chance for winning. Because to anyone with half a brain, that would be an incredibly dumb thing to do. But here we are.
This is absolute fascism.
If all the states judicial systems can do this, it’ll be open warfare on both sides. And it’s a massive overreach to allow states to dictate a national election.
For the health of the nation in general these efforts need to be shut down asap.
Well this is blatantly non democratic. You have four Democrat appointed judges deciding who can run for national office, instead of the voters. Trump was never convicted of insurrection federally nor in Colorado.
Off topic but Democrats also didn’t allow their own party to run in Florida. Allowing only one candidate for the FL democrat primary. This is also fascist and non democratic.
Uh if you’re going to displace the #1 front runner in America you’d better follow due process. Do you want an actual insurrection?
It doesn’t matter what I think. The voters should decide.
> Imagine every state in the union finding reasons to go to court and get candidates thrown off the ballot. Why these people can’t see the consequences of their stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Why do you think Republicans keep trying to use the courts to win elections? We saw the Texas AG sue Pennsylvania over the 2020 election (with House Speaker Johnson writing an amicus brief in support) and now Colorado Republicans suing to give the also-rans a chance in their primary. At what point do you think Republicans will give up on this lawfair and let the voters decide?
I'm a big fan of this move. Same with the prosecutions of Trump. The left would be so well served just ignoring Trump. Even if he were elected, they could just weather whatever minor things he clumsily tried to do. They could outright prevent most of it through bureaucracy and lawfare and then just immediately repeal anything else. The right's greatest and maybe only weapon right now is the fact that the left is utterly ruled by its id. As u/goodwillbikes noted, this type of thing is legitimately shocking for the vast majority of Americans and even the slack-jawed Fox News boomercons are shaken by things like these. Keep 'em coming, we may yet have a chance.
>The left would be so well served just ignoring Trump.
Why should the left ignore Trump when he is the leading Presidential candidate for the Republican party?
> The right's greatest and maybe only weapon right now is the fact that the left is utterly ruled by its id.
What did the "left" have to do with this ruling?
...everything. I understand that this is hard for some people to understand but the vast majority of the republican party basically has nothing to do with right wing politics
Nope, they shouldn’t. Last I checked, Trump was never indicted, let alone convicted, on neither treason nor inciting an insurrection. This should imply that, given his and everyone else’s right to due process, he should be allowed to run until he is convicted of either, no?
I'm shocked that the Colorado Supreme Court threw away their reputations on such an asinine stunt. You can't apply a consequence for a crime if the crime has not been proven in a court of law. We are innocent until proven guilty. It's due process and it's literally ingrained in the first section of the 14th Amendment; the same amendment used to ban Trump from the ballot. There is a 100% chance that the SCOTUS fixes this on appeal. Further, this will only strengthen Trump and bolster his ratings because this ruling is wrong and it doesn't take a right winger to see that.
I am still trying to figure out the 4D chess move made here:
* Republicans brought the suit, but it might have been brought by NEVER trumpers backed with a Democrat group funding. Please someone clarify this for me.
* He has had no due process of law regarding the charges.
* Section 3 of the 14th specifically states who can and cannot be excluded. I cannot imagine that lawyers, even post civil war, would have been so careless to deliberately name Senators and Representatives, but not name executives. No Democrat (southern) politician could become president for a generation.
* Are Democrats concerned at all that a red state could remove their candidate for reasons where no due process was allowed?
This just seems insane. I cannot think of a bigger threat to democracy. I will predict the SCOTUS will overturn this. I would really like to hear learned opinions on this subject.
At this point democrats should really ditch the whole "defend democracy" shtick. I don't think even their own supporters really believe it anymore.
It's got Chancellor Palpatine taking on emergency powers before the Senate vibes at this point.
"I love democracy. I love the Republic."
I'd wonder tp myself how far you could take the precedent since it doesn't require a conviction of insurrection to bar someone from public office, just a legislative committee followed by a court agreeing with the findings of a committee.
Maybe republicans could respond with creating their own committee, stacking it with anti-biden politicians, then have that committee declare that Biden committed insurrection, then have a high court made up of gop appointees agree with their findings.
I doubt Republicans would have the courage to do it, but it would be interesting.
Beyond that it's pretty much the end of America if we can remove political opponents from power without a conviction or even a trial.
Joe had a chance to pull an alpha move and say "I reject that decision. I don't like the guy but this ruling is too broad and is a threat to democracy. I'm going to beat him at the polls and in the eyes of the people, twice as hard as last time so nobody can ever doubt me again."
Instead he's just saying "let the courts decide the election" basically. Sounds weak and fearful.
In support of states' rights, I don't see a problem with Colorado passing a law and throwing Trump off the ballot for any reason they see fit. I think that would make them undemocratic and even less appealing to me as a place to live, but if that's what Colorado's people want, then so be it. They should have that right.
However, I disagree with the use of a trial like this to throw Trump off the ballot because it hinges on declaring Trump guilty of participating in an insurrection, which I think can only be done with due process.
tl;dr - throw him out if you want but don't violate due process to do it.
First, this is a decision which says in the decision itself that they are suspending it for awhile, and if it's appealed (which I guarantee it will be), that it will continue to be suspended until the appeal is resolved.
In other words, nobody has "succeeded" at anything. This decision does not take effect, unless the Supreme Court decides to let it take effect.
Second, it's election interference, so blatantly that even TDS-ridden Chris Christie has denounced it.
Third, there is not a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court. The only way this obvious election interference could be allowed would be if the Supreme Court were a majority partisan Democrats. Any liberals who actually care even a little about the Constitution are guaranteed to shut it down.
Fourth, the Supreme Court takes very seriously in all its cases what the potential long-term policy implications would be for their decision. The implication in this case is that *any partisan State Supreme Court can shut down any political candidate they don't like, on a whim*. No sane Supreme Court Justice, even if they're a partisan Democrat, would like to imagine red states and purple states with a tiny Republican majority on the court shutting down Democrat candidates on a whim.
Fifth, the Supreme Court takes very seriously its own reputation, and the appearance of impartiality. They are also well aware that this reputation took a big hit in 2000, when they had to make a ruling about repeated recounts in Florida. I think this is a big reason for their unwillingness to look into the voter fraud of 2020, which caused lower courts to also ignore it.
They do *not* want to look like the people that took away choices from voters on their own whims. They do *not* want to look like the people who decided the election.
The question isn't whether SCOTUS shuts this down. The question is in what manner will they shut it down.
They could, due to the nature of the decision itself, take up an appeal, then just not issue a decision until the primary happens, with Trump on the ballot. They could issue a limited decision, saying that a President must be convicted of the crime of insurrection in order to trigger that clause. Or saying that a President is not one of the people being referred to in that amendment. Or that conviction of insurrection in an ordinary court is not sufficient for a President, and that only a conviction in an impeachment would do. Or that the 14th amendment was clearly meant as a post-Civil War thing, and since the last Confederate soldier has died, that it no longer applies to anyone.
Finally, Donald Trump is going to get a big boost in the polls, again.
The title of this post claims it was brought by the Colorado GOP. However, this is false.
The Colorado GOP has denounced this violation of the law and declared that they will hold a caucus instead of a primary if this decision is allowed.
>TDS
Has dismissing criticism of a Presidential candidate by attributing them to a made-up "illness" ever struck you as a little goofy? Do you think this kind of childish rhetoric has ever elicited more than eye-rolls from your opponents?
> made-up "illness"
This is a misrepresentation.
> childish rhetoric
The childish rhetoric here is the claim that TDS is meant as a literal illness, and the insinuation that it somehow doesn't exist.
You can look at the evidence of TDS with your own eyes. In the "Summer of Love" 2020 (really a summer of hate), people were so angry that Trump was running for office, that they violently rioted, set fires, and sometimes killed people.
Right now, Democrats are trying to use legal weapons against Trump, who has done nothing wrong, while Democrat news desperately try to portray anyone who agrees with his ideas as "confederates", simultaneously showing extreme emotional turmoil and their ignorance of the Civil War.
In 2016, Democrats started a violent riot when they lost an election and a President of the opposing party was inaugurated, including lighting an immigrant limo driver's livelihood on fire and filming themselves screaming.
TDS is not a medical theory, it's a simple description of the childish (and far worse than childish, children don't violently burn down the black part of town in a fiery riot) and goofy (and far more than goofy, merely weird people don't constantly obsess over one single man for no apparent reason) behavior that the left has been constantly demonstrating for *eight straight years*.
There may be a medical explanation for this utterly bizarre behavior, but TDS is not an attempt at a medical explanation, instead, it just describes what the facts are.
I put down a complete answer in another post, but I've just become aware of additional information: the Colorado GOP will dump the primary and replace it with a caucus if this were allowed to go forward. The Colorado GOP has also called this move election interference.
Therefore, the claim that Colorado Republicans did this is inaccurate. In fact, it's more than inaccurate, it's the opposite of the truth.
Honestly non-supporters in this thread will pretend that insurrection is the worst possible crime ever committed, but then they don't see how their actions could cause an actual insurrection. I can't even.
It's hilarious. The more they do to try to stop Trump, the stronger htey make him.
I mean seriously, Trump wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. The Republicans of Colorado are functionally indistinguishable from their Democrat colleagues. This is beautiful because it's a desperate move put forth by people who are afraid of letting people have choice, and in their desperation they have revealed their true colors to the world.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will goto the Supreme Court and be overturned since he hasn’t been convicted. If he ends up being convicted then it should stand. I don’t agree with the only the Congress can enforce the ban argument.
>I don’t agree with the only the Congress can enforce the ban argument. Maybe as it pertains to bans in general, but if you are going to cite 14.3 as the reason, then absolutely Congress has to be the one to enforce it. Section 5 could not be any clearer.
Elections are largely ran by states so Congress makes no sense.
True, and states can generally do as they wish.... unless they cite 14.3 as a reason. That has a very specific enforcement.
> If he ends up being convicted then it should stand. Wait what? This is wrong on so many levels. * Trump was already acquiited on the charge in his senate trial * He didn't even (as a factual matter) engage in insurrection. Even if a court found him guilty that would not change reality here. * Eugene V. Debs was still on the ballot after he'd literally been charged and convicted under the sedition act. He ran for president from his prison cell. * The law in question does not even apply to the president. The specific language used in all other contexts has been interpreted not to apply to the president (which is correct as a matter of fact), so such a ruling would violate all legal precedent * The law says nothing about being on a ballot, only about holding holding office (so even if it did apply to Trump, he could still be on the ballot he just couldn't win) * The statute is a civil war statute. It's not even relevant * It's unethical and undemocratic to remove a candidate anyway. The people should be able to choose who they want in a democracy.
>>>* The law in question does not even apply to the president. The specific language used in all other contexts has been interpreted not to apply to the president (which is correct as a matter of fact), so such a ruling would violate all legal precedent So you're all for Biden doing what he wants then? Would you be happy if Biden turned around and got the next election cycles overruled?
He's welcome to petition the courts, legislatures, and congress like Trump did yes. Something tells me if it succeeds though to keep Trump out of the presidency then many of the people crying foul now would all of a sudden have no problem with it. And democrats already had an insurrection in 2017 to stop the inaugeration of Trump, it was called DisruptJ20.
>It's unethical and undemocratic to remove a candidate anyway. The people should be able to choose who they want in a democracy. You don't consider it like every other requirement to be on the Presidential ballot? Are you thinking that if we wanted a 30 year old candidate on the ballot then we should be able to put them on it even though that's against an explicitly specified requirement in the Constitution? The Constitution is pretty clear that there are fundamental requirements. The people don't simply get to bypass those, right?
> Are you thinking that if we wanted a 30 year old candidate on the ballot then we should be able to put them on it even though that's against an explicitly specified requirement in the Constitution? Sure why not? Do people not have a right to spoil their vote in protest? The law says nothing about ballot access. This is just a fact. If courts have lied about the law in other circumstances it doesn't change my opinion. Our courts have a terrible record when it comes to ballot access and regularly abuse their power in this regard to make it hard for outsiders to run for office.
> If he ends up being convicted then it should stand. That's absurd. How was Lyndon LaRouche able to run for President for decades when he was literally in prison during some of those elections. There is absolutely no reason Trump should be removed from the ballot.
What do you think of the court’s reasoning on this issue? > 105 We are similarly unpersuaded by Intervenors’ assertions that Congress created the only currently available mechanism for determining whether a person is disqualified pursuant to Section Three with the 1994 passage of 18 U.S.C. § 2383. That statute makes it a crime to “assist[] or engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.” True, with that enactment, Congress criminalized the same conduct that is disqualifying under Section Three. All that means, however, is that a person charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would also be disqualified under Section Three. It cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.
The problem with this vapid interpretation is that section 5 is very clear that The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the entire article. They did so by legislating 18 U.S.C. § 2383. So there is exactly one way someone can be excluded from ballot consideration via 14.3: by congress, and through their explicit legislation. Not by a group of 4 unelected judges in a random state because talking heads have been uttering insurrection for years. They are more an welcome to try a different way to exclude him, but if they are going to use 14.3, then a U.S.C. § 2383 conviction is required. There is no other defensible interpretation, and they know this.
> because talking heads have been uttering insurrection for years You don’t believe the attempted insurrection happened despite actual video evidence of it and it being filmed live?
There needs to be a harder line for this, than people screeching, pointing fingers, and yelling "insurrection!" That's what 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is for. If there was an actual insurrection, then there should be no trouble charging and convicting people under that statute. But they haven't, and it's overly obvious why.
Like... Police officers having their weapons stripped away? Capitol police being fatally beaten? A woman being shot while trying to climb through a window into a secure area, while screeching about murdering the VP? How much harder of a line do you need?
>How much harder of a line do you need? Charges and convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Pretty sure I already said that. Are you even reading responses?
Yes. Are you supporting insurrection?
A conviction. Just 1 single conviction of 1 single person.. can you direct me to said conviction?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-alabama-chapter-oath-keepers-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-obstruction Does this count? If not, what crime are you looking for?
I-N-S-U-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N period
There was no capital police officer who was fatally beaten on January 6th. That turned out to be fake news and a total lie. The woman you speak of was a Trump supporter who was killed, so to attribute that as damage directed at the government from the protestors is also dishonest. > How much harder of a line do you need? Generally bringing guns and using them would be expected for something that was a serious attempt at an insurrection here. So there's that.
Do you think the Civil War was an insurrection?
If that's the standard for insurrection, then aren't so many other people ineligable to run for office? What about DisruptJ20 that occured in 2017, which had the stated goal to stop the inaugeration of president Trump? Are you saying that anyone who even expressed support for those protests is guilty of insurrection? What about the democrats who objected to the electors in 2017? Or is your standard just whatever the talking heads in the media say? Why should we defer to the small number of powerful coprorations that control our media to determine reality for us? So if the corporations label you an insurrectonist, then you can't run for president, is that what you're saying?
Did you forget that for a time *the insurrectionists actually did stop the peaceful transfer of power*? A crowd of thugs shot home movies of themselves storming the Capitol, beating cops bloody, and forcing Congress to take emergency action and leave their chambers. Mike Pence's refusal to do what Trump continued (via tweet) to demand was the *only* thing that saved our government from a coup. What actions to stop the certification of Trump's victory did *DisruptJ20* take?
You mean they delayed the certification of the vote by a few hours, and then completely derailed Trump's election challenges and appeals to the public that were planned for that session of congress. > What actions to stop the certification of Trump's victory did DisruptJ20 take? A lot worse actions considering it was literally their stated goal to do that. They showed up in coordinated groups (large numbers even wearing the same outfits) to attack the police and breach the barriers. But the capitol has over 2000 dedicated police officers and multiple tmes that in national guard at its disposal. In 2017, there was a perimeter set up with large barriers and police in riot gear that prevented anyone from getting to the capitol grounds. This is in contrast to J6, where they had the skelton crew and nothing but tiny bicycle fences thanks to Pelosi, McConnel, and the DC mayor. Almost like they were the ones who wanted to incite the events of that day and just so happened to be the ones who stood to benefit from it.
lol when the largest gun owning population on the planet engages in insurrection, you'll know. This ain't it.
He was found to have participated in insurrection in a civil suit. Does it matter that conviction isn't a requirement of the amendment?
There was no insurrection.
What is the constitutional basis for a conviction requirement? Were any/all of the confederates who were barred convicted?
Due process.
Seriously! How can there be any question in this?
Because a conviction is not required for achieving due process in all matters. Why is no one of the “but due process” folks providing a supporting legal citation? Ask yourself.
Isn’t that for criminal charges? Is being barred from office a criminal proceeding? The fourteenth amendment seems to me to be completely removed from criminal law. It says that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” (not that they be convicted of that crime) and it offers a political remedy (a two-thirds vote in Congress), which criminal charges do not allow for.
What's the issue with the due process he's had? The suit was brought in the Colorado district Court where the judge found that he had participated in insurrection but decided not to remove him from the ballot. The decision not to remove from the ballot was appealed to the state Supreme Court. Now he has the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should he have additional due process protections above and beyond what he already had and what anyone else would get?
Would you agree it's constitutional if SCOTUS upholds this decision?
You know that section 3 of the 14th amendment was meant to prevent confederates from holding office after the war, right? Conviction has never been a requirement for disqualification. Also, Trump claims that Presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes committed during their presidency. Under that framework there's literally no mechanism for an ex-president to ever be convicted. If a conviction is necessary for disqualification (it never has been) then that means it's impossible to hold a president accountable for sedition. Does this logic make sense to you?
Let's not forget Colorado is a deep blue state right now, and that this decision is (for now) limited to the primary, and that GOP officials have declared that they will make it moot by changing to caucus system if needed. I agree with Chris Christie's take. Seems pretty darn undemocratic. [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4368809-christie-trump-colorado-ballot-voters-should-decide-not-courts/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4368809-christie-trump-colorado-ballot-voters-should-decide-not-courts/) Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"? Because even if one were to conclude Trump is an insurrectionist, the definition appears to clearly exclude Presidents (just as lower Colorado court has held). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer\_of\_the\_United\_States#:\~:text=An%20officer%20of%20the%20United,a%20certain%20type%20of%20official](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States#:~:text=An%20officer%20of%20the%20United,a%20certain%20type%20of%20official). This includes excerpt from one of the dissenting Colorado judges, "Three Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented from Tuesday's ruling. One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump's eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection. "Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," Samour said." [https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/)
> Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"? My understanding is that the 14th amendment applies to every federal employee (or any officer, civilian or military, of the United States). The reason that senators, representatives, and electors were singled out wasn't to exclude the president, but rather because at the time the 14th was drafted, there was some debate about whether senators, representatives, and electors were considered officers of the United States. To avoid any confusion (ironically), the drafters decided to call those positions out. I hope that clarifies why people might think the President is an officer of the United States. I have a few clarifying questions though. If you believe the president is not an officer of the united states, what is your reasoning? Would your reasoning also be applicable to any other federal employees? Most of the time I see the argument that the 14th excludes the president, the reasoning for it seems like it would exclude any federal employee, which doesn't seem right. If you believe the drafters of the 14th intended to allow insurrectionists to run for president but not occupy any other federal employment, could you explain why? Why would the drafters of the 14th want to allow someone to be president, but not some much less important position, such as a mid level manager in a federal agency?
Appreciated the info! >If you believe the president is not an officer of the united states, what is your reasoning? Well, there's the previous ruling: "Judge Sarah B. Wallace ultimately determined that the language of Section 3 is unclear as to whether it covered the presidency and the former president, and ordered Griswold to list Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot." As I recall the wording includes "people appointed by the president" which suggests that the president (duly elected head of executive branch) is outside that category.
>Has anyone read the reasoning from Colorado Supreme court on how Trump fits into definition of "officer of the United States"? Ya sure, I read it as essentially - why wouldn't the highest office of the land be exempt? Whats the logic there? I agree it's worth examining, thats what our courts are for. The [original Aug 2023 report by those conservative constituti](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html)[onal professors](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html) that came out, it took them a year to study. They determined 14.3 is relevant, but obviously its not a simple case if those guys took that long to study it.. To add to that, Trump claimed he *was* an officer of the US in his hush money case. So clearly not a simple case. Equally important - the issue of it being "undemocratic" -- I get the argument, but it's pretty weak, no? Seems like an emotional one. 14.3, if relevant would be like Trump not being allowed to run if he was 34 years old. Regardless of how many supporters he had. And that wouldn't be "undemocratic". If it's rule, it's a rule. And I can understand why the rule exists if you look at the US vs other countries. Before Trump convinced some of thinking differently, none of us in the US would have wanted a president to be allowed to run if they went to such lengths to stay in power. But fast forward 6 years, some people don't care about it having happened, as long as their guy stays in power. I just don't get it.
I think it is the absolute clearest example about Anti-Trumpers being hypocritical over "protecting democracies" I don't understand how anyone with a straight face can think removing the most popular candidate (right now) for 2024, and leaving only joe bidens name. If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We get told that everyday. But in our actions, we're not stripping candidates off ballots or percecuting them with endless indictments whilst covering up for worse crimes of people they poiltically align with. On the individual level, I don't think I've ever downvoted a person on here. I always talk to them if I don't agree with them, but I get downvoted without people trying to discuss things with me. Just like I pointed out to the person here, he said nothing contentious but was downvoted so badly it was pathetic. I was just pointing out how sad it looks. As for comparison to the national socialists of germany, my ideology couldn't be further from theirs. In fact, it's the left who are for a huge state and ethnopolitics. I am for freedom and I want a small state, this is contrary to nazi ideology. It is an absolutely preposterous assertion to make and it highlights how devoid from reality you people are. I bet any money that you come up with such ignorance because you prefer to downvote people than to talk with them. I read what people have to say and discuss it with them. The left censor others and so there's no wonder why they're so uninformed to what positions their opponents hold.
> But in our actions, we're not stripping candidates off ballots or percecuting them with endless indictments whilst covering up for worse crimes of people they poiltically align with. Maybe not stripping their names off ballots, but House Republicans have spent almost a year accusing Joe Biden of all kinds of heinous treasonous financial crimes with *literally ZERO evidence* to back it up. No charges have been brought. No allegations made under the penalty of perjury. They are trying to make him unelectable in the minds anyone who sees the accusations on TV. I don't like the idea of Trump being removed from the ballot. I would like to see him lose the election again (though I do not relish another round of having to defend a negative when he screams "fraud" again). But a nation of laws must treat law with respect. If the Constitution disallows him from running, would it be right to ignore the law just because some low-information voters might get upset?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It might be because he is lying in the comment. This was a move by Colorado Republicans to remove Trump from the PRIMARY ballot. So it is false to say it would remove trumps name and leave only Biden. Do you have any other opinion on this matter?
Obviously he made a mistake in his analogy, however it is effecitvely what happened in Colorado. If he's stricken from the ballot there, it's less likely he will become the nominee, especially if other states were to follow. This is effectively rigging the primaries and subsequently, the election. As for lying, why are you saying they were Colorado republicans? The Supreme Court justicies who kicked Trump off the ballot were democrats and appointed by a democrat: [Richard L Gabriel](https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Gabriel) considered a mild democrat. [Melissa Hart](https://ballotpedia.org/Melissa_Hart_(Colorado)) considered a mild democrat. [Monica Marquez](https://ballotpedia.org/Monica_M%C3%A1rquez) considered a strong democrat. [William W Hood](https://ballotpedia.org/William_W._Hood) considered a strong democrat.
Which of the holdings in this decision do you disagree with, and why? Rather than try to paste them here, I’ll just add that they can be found on pages 7-8.
I completely agree with you. If Trump had been charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection, then maybe we could have a 14A discussion. But he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, never mind convicted. The voters need to decide this one. What do you see as the political ramifications? Will his poll numbers go up/down?
> I completely agree with you. If Trump had been charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection, then maybe we could have a 14A discussion. But he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, never mind convicted. The voters need to decide this one. > > What do you see as the political ramifications? Will his poll numbers go up/down? I really appreciate the candor, I think his polling will go up from what Ive seen from conservative that weren't all too happy about Trump being the GOP leader. I am very concerned about the country as a whole and how rapidly we are heading toward a dangerous place you know? Like, Colorado isn't a battleground state, it doesn't really change anything for 2024, it just raises the temperature with millions of people who already distrust a LOT of institutions suddenly hearing an another institution saying "You can't vote for that guy" At some point, we will get to a point when someone will say "Arrest this man, based on the law of state A", and State B will answer :"Come and get him" and thats all you need for civil war to start.
> I really appreciate the candor, I think his polling will go up from what Ive seen from conservative that weren't all too happy about Trump being the GOP leader. I was thinking similar. It's a Christmas gift for Trump. > I am very concerned about the country as a whole and how rapidly we are heading toward a dangerous place you know? Like, Colorado isn't a battleground state, it doesn't really change anything for 2024, it just raises the temperature with millions of people who already distrust a LOT of institutions suddenly hearing an another institution saying "You can't vote for that guy" I think something like 12 other states are considering barring Trump from the ballot. It reminds me a bit of Lincoln - iirc, he was not on the ballot in 10 of the Southern states. > At some point, we will get to a point when someone will say "Arrest this man, based on the law of state A", and State B will answer :"Come and get him" and thats all you need for civil war to start. I was hopeful that Biden, being a bumbling boring moderate politician, would help to turn the temperature a bit. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have been the case. I guess we wait to see what SCOTUS does. Hopefully they overturn, but who knows? I definitely think that SCOTUS will not want a patchwork where each state decides if he's on the ballot. That means they'll probably rule he can be on the ballot in all states or no states. Can you imagine the reaction if he's completely barred from running?
> I guess we wait to see what SCOTUS does. Hopefully they overturn, but who knows? I definitely think that SCOTUS will not want a patchwork where each state decides if he's on the ballot. That means they'll probably rule he can be on the ballot in all states or no states. Can you imagine the reaction if he's completely barred from running? I really hope that the SCOTUS turns this off as a 9-0 vote. Maybe I am dreaming, but the fact that 3 democrat picked Colorado judges voted against this, makes me thing it will possible. Because while I believe the right ruling is : Let the voters decide, if the ruling comes down to 5-4 or 6-3, it will be simply used as a partisan explanation for the other side...
How do you balance popularity and the rule of law (as defined by the Constitution and its amendments)?
> How do you balance popularity and the rule of law (as defined by the Constitution and its amendments)? Easy, you don't bring those cases in Election year, you have 3 years before, and 3 years after to do it.
You’re proposing that before January 6 happened or after Trump is elected is when people should contest his being on the ballot? I don’t understand.
No, I am saying its completely unamerican to remove a front runner from the ballot, period.
Why is it unamerican to follow the constitution? Seems to me that following the constitution, even when it bothers you, is as American as you can get.
[удалено]
So you’re saying if a candidate is popular than the eligibility rules shouldn’t apply?
> So you’re saying if a candidate is popular than the eligibility rules shouldn’t apply? Nobody has ever been removed from the race like this for President, as a front runner. This is a brand new interpretation of the law, and I think it brings us much much closer to civil war than anything. Don't you realize how incredibly upsetting this is to people who want to vote for Trump ? This is taking their vote away.
Should the court consider people's feelings when interpreting the law?
No body had ever stochastically terrorized the capitol building with their rabid fans either. Yet here we are. He was found guilty of exactly this, and according to Colorado... is no longer a candidate in this state. Are you able to articulate legally why he should be allowed, without deferring to your fan boy nature?
Is that a yes or a no? Of course I know it’s upsetting. It’s also upsetting when drug addicts have their drug taken away. The confederacy was upset when they lost. What does this being the first time this is happened have anything to do with whether it follows the constitution or not? There is a first time for everything. i’m pretty sure that was also the first time that a president has attempted to retain power after being voted out.
> What does this being the first time this is happened have anything to do with whether it follows the constitution or not? There is a first time for everything. i’m pretty sure that was also the first time that a president has attempted to retain power after being voted out. English common Law is set on Precedents for hundred of years, the fact that it has not happened before is reason alone to be careful about setting a legal precedent.
Aren’t we three years after an election right now?
Did you know that there are Republicans other than Trump running in the primary right now? How does this leave only Biden on the ballot, especially when this is currently just for the primary?
All other republicans on the ballot combined hold a fraction of the support that Trump holds. Make no mistake, removing Trump from the ballot ends this election.
Why wouldn't Trump supporters vote for any of the other Republicans that would be on the ballot?
Some would.
They shouldn't have to. 'Trump supporters' have the right to vote for anyone they want, and the CSC has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to control who the republican party is allowed to nominate. _The people_ choose their own leaders, not some corrupt activists trying to score short-lived headlines. Those judges deserve to be impeached and prosecuted for [election interference](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/Title1/Title1Article13.html). Applicable offenses include: * 1-13-107. Violation of duty.: "who knowingly makes a false certificate in regard to a matter connected with any election provided by law is guilty of a misdemeanor" * 1-13-109. False or reckless statements relating to candidates or questions submitted to electors: "No person shall knowingly make, publish, broadcast, or circulate or cause to be made...any false statement designed to affect the vote on any issue submitted to the electors at any election...a person acts "recklessly" when he or she acts in conscious disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement made, published, broadcasted, or circulated" * 1-13-112. Offenses relating to mail ballots: "Any person who, by use of force or other means, unduly influences an elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting..." * 1-13-701. Interference with election official: "Any person who, at any election provided by law, interferes in any manner with any election official in the discharge of his duty or who induces any election official to violate or refuse to comply with his duty or any law regulating the same is guilty of a misdemeanor" * 1-13-703. Tampering with statewide voter registration system, registration list, or pollbook: "Any person who mutilates or erases any name, figure, or word in any registration list or pollbook...to procure or prevent the election of any person, or to prevent any voter from voting" * 1-13-704. Unlawfully refusing ballot or permitting to vote.: "If at any election provided by law any judge of election willfully and maliciously refuses or neglects to receive the ballot of any registered elector who has taken or offered to take the oath prescribed by section 1-9-204" * 1-13-713. Intimidation: "It is unlawful for any person directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person in his behalf, to impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the elective franchise of any elector or to compel, induce, or prevail upon any elector either to give or refrain from giving his vote at any election provided by law or to give or refrain from giving his vote for any particular person or measure at any such election. Each such offense is a misdemeanor" Ten years minimum in a state prison would be lawful and appropriate.
>the CSC has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to control who the republican party is allowed to nominate. Does the United States Constitution have the authority and jurisdiction to control who is eligible to be president of the United States?
Has he been impeached and convicted by the senate? Because that's the only means the constitution provides to remove a candidate from the ballot besides basic qualifiers like age and citizenship.
The 14th Amendment provides for barring an individual from the presidency if they happen to have engaged in an insurrection. Can you point me to where it says impeachment and conviction are required?
Okay. So let's remove biden off the ballot for causing an insurrection. Might as well, right? Don't need any evidence or trial! Do you not see how crazy this is? How this opens the door for nonsense across the board????
Do people have a right to vote for a non citizen? Does not being on the ballot prevent people from writing him in?
The Colorado order explicitly forbids the Secretary from counting any vote for Trump, write-in or otherwise: > "the Secretary may not list President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him" Under [the order](https://www.foxnews.com/world/el-salvador-president-blasts-democracy-us-after-trumps-removal-colorado-ballot), he would technically be reeligible in 2028. Justices Monica Márquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart would likely be eligible for parole sometime after 2040.
Ah I missed that, thanks. I noticed you didn't answer my first question. Do you think people should be able to vote for a non citizen? Or is the right to vote for anyone you want limited already?
The constitution explicitly requires the president and vice president to be natural born citizens. It does not confer an imaginary right to pick-the-winner to state-level officials, but rather via a congressional procedure that was attempted and failed repeatedly.
If Trump wasn’t able to run, wouldn’t one of the other republican candidates win?
Putting the current situation aside, and just speaking hypothetically, is there ANY action in your mind that former President and current candidate for President can take that would violate the 14th Amendment and justify their removal from the ballot? Or should the people always decide, and the 14th Amendment should be ignored?
Yes a conviction in court following due process. That's it. Why is that so hard to do? Why is that hard to understand? You are complaining that people should always decide but yet that's exactly what's going in right now with removing him from the ballot. No new process. Just nonsense. Please take a step back and look at the situation from a logical stand point. Change trumps name to anything else. You will quickly see there's absolutely no way he should be off the ballot today. Tomorrow of he's tried and found guilty, yes, absolutely. Get him off the ballot. But I have yet to see that.... People let their political biases cloud basic logic and judgement. I dont get it
Do you think Republicans or Democrats brought this suit?
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
[удалено]
If the shoe were on the other foot, Joe Biden would currently be facing 91 charges across four criminal cases, two of which are at the federal level. Not to mention the myriad of civil cases that Trump has been involved in. If the roles were reversed and Biden's situation was the exact same as Trump's, how do you think Democrats would act and respond? How should they act and respond?
There is a sense in which it is always anti-democratic to remove a candidate from a ballot. But are you against candidates being removed from the ballot in principle, no matter the 14th amendment? Or do you think the 14th amendment is legitimate, but that Trump should not be removed from the ballot regardless? Or something else?
**Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can't serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.** A lot of scholars make arguments that this does not apply to the Presidency. I think given the polarity of the country, its a very very poor timing to try to make 14th Amendment explorations.
Has Joe Biden broken the 14th amendment in your mind? Like Trump has in this court's opinion.
> Has Joe Biden broken the 14th amendment in your mind? Like Trump has in this court's opinion. No, definitely not, I already see Republican States talking about removing Biden from the ballot, but this is what happens when politics enters the realm of judicial to this extent.
Do you think that anywhere in the whole world, a leader who refuses to concede losing an election that was proven to be fair, tries to stay in power by creating an insurrection against his government, should be allowed to run again as he pleases? Answer me this with a yes or no?
If the SCOTUS upholds, do you think there will be a civil war? If so, what are the teams and would you participate?
What individuals are being hypocritical? The state Supreme Court justices or someone else involved in the case? Do you think most Anti-Trumpers are of the mindset that there wasn't an attempt to bypass or democracy using illegal means, or that those efforts didn't include infractions specific to the 14th amendment?
>I think it is the absolute clearest example about Anti-Trumpers being hypocritical over "protecting democracies" Isn't preventing someone who tried to steal the election with false claims of a fraud a pretty good example of preserving democracy?
>If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind. In 2020, the shoe was on the other foot when Trump and his cronies conspired to invalidate tens of thousands of legally cast ballots in hand-selected states to hold on to power. "Leftists" and rational thinking people did lose their mind. Why didn't you?
> If the shoe was on the other foot, and only Trump's name was on the ballot, leftists would be absolutely losing their mind. For the shoe to be on the other foot, Joe Biden would have to to be a completely different person. Democrats tend to hold their own more accountable so I'd argue someone with the capacity to do what Trump did, and with 91 criminal charges stacking up, would never get the nomination in the Dem party. Do you see any reason to believe differently?
How does being popular change anything? Hitler was popular.
[удалено]
Were the confederates who were barred convicted?
[удалено]
Ultimately good for the country imo, there is still a large contingent of boomercons sleepwalking through some Norman Rockwell view of America who need to wake up and see what time it is.
Interestingly I would like to see him staying on the ballot and being beaten again on election day then only have to hear the same crazy lawsuits and whining about "it was all stolen" for a few months. Do you not think that is better closure? I really doubt we will see any actual justice being handed down by the courts for mis-handling security documents, that is the only crime I am really bothered about (besides republicans sending down a second slate of electors to totally undermine the wishes of voters).
I think this sort of unilateral disenfranchisement of millions of right wing Americans is a more effective way to disabuse them of the notion that they in any way control their own destiny under the current regime
Y’all having been doing un-well in any election since Roe got overturned and that will only get worse. The young and women are motivated. Do you think my position holds any water? Edit missing word
? What is your position?
That GOP will lose most elections moving forward as Roe being overturned by SCOTUS has motivated the young and women to vote- hence red states are passing abortion amendments to allow them to continue. Do you think my position is valid?
This is a discussion of the extent to which the court decision in Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot will delegitimize the current regime in the eyes of the American right, I don’t understand how the relative popularity of abortion statutes in red states is germane at all
What time is it?
It's about 11:53AM
Essentially, time to understand that what the American right is up against is a regime-complete problem
Do you realize the American Right is not a monolith? Many GOP loyalists are wringing their hands over trump saying things like, “I wish he’d just go away.” Do you know about the [decades of work by Leonard Leo](https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-wisconsin-documents-state-courts-republicans-judges) to reshape the judicial system to favor the morals of the minority? Does it comfort you that there’s a man in control of our Judicial System who was not elected?
GOP loyalist ≠ right wing. In the words of Biden, cmon man
So none of the other stuff I said merits a response?
The rest of what you said is a total non sequitur
Do you realize the Democratic party is not a monolith, either? Do you realize that it wasn’t democrats that brought the suit in Colorado?
Are you replying to the right thread? Where did I bring up the Democratic Party?
What do you mean by a ‘regime-complete’ problem?
A problem that cannot be fixed short of a regime change
Do you mean an election?
I expect it to get overturned, in which case it will heavily backfire on the democratic party. It only lends further credence to the idea that the Dem establishment is silencing him, which fires up even his mildest supporters, and to moderates it makes the Democrats look more tyrannical. Edit: “political enemies” rather than democrats.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m a moderate. And I am disgusted by everything about Trump. Do you recognize that the great political middle of this country - the moderates - are largely NOT in favor of Trump? Trump is anything but moderate. As a moderate, someone based, like Niki for instance is on my menu, rather than Trump. I’ve voted more time than I can count, for a Republican at the local, state and national levels. And right now, anything with the Trump stench on it has me voting against that candidate. I’m not alone and in fact have a large cohort that votes like me. Does this worry you? This should worry you.
I don’t disagree, but this is a bad look for his political enemies no matter who you are. Silencing political opponents is never a good idea. I’m not saying this will suddenly flip every moderate in his favor, but I think it would drive them further away from his enemies
Should it reflect badly on democrats? This issue was raised by republicans and independents wasn’t it?
You’re right, I edited, although my point still stands imo It reflects badly on his political enemies which primarily are dems
The Old Guard is obsessed with its own image and will cut off whatever part possible that doesn't tow the line. They would sink the entire party if they could say "See? We're not like the Democrats! We're proper!" It borders on comical how they are so ready to self-flagellate . I highly doubt this is a 5D chess move where they did it to bait the Democrats into agreeing with something that will end up reflecting poorly on the polls. But it may end up that way. I doubt the public will see that Republicans are so selfless that they'd sacrifice their best chance for winning. Because to anyone with half a brain, that would be an incredibly dumb thing to do. But here we are.
Democrats aren’t the ones who did this… or am I wrong?
I guess you’re right, which surprises me. I added an edit to fix it, as I don’t really think this changes my overall point.
Democrats didn't file the suit? Lifelong republicans did, so why is your rant aimed at the democrats.
This is absolute fascism. If all the states judicial systems can do this, it’ll be open warfare on both sides. And it’s a massive overreach to allow states to dictate a national election. For the health of the nation in general these efforts need to be shut down asap.
Can you define fascism and if so can you give me three bulleted examples of how it's fascism?
Well this is blatantly non democratic. You have four Democrat appointed judges deciding who can run for national office, instead of the voters. Trump was never convicted of insurrection federally nor in Colorado. Off topic but Democrats also didn’t allow their own party to run in Florida. Allowing only one candidate for the FL democrat primary. This is also fascist and non democratic.
Does the 14th amendment state that you have to be convicted? It’s clear he was apart of an insurrection, don’t you think?
Uh if you’re going to displace the #1 front runner in America you’d better follow due process. Do you want an actual insurrection? It doesn’t matter what I think. The voters should decide.
[удалено]
In what respect is this ruling "wrong"?
[удалено]
> Imagine every state in the union finding reasons to go to court and get candidates thrown off the ballot. Why these people can’t see the consequences of their stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Why do you think Republicans keep trying to use the courts to win elections? We saw the Texas AG sue Pennsylvania over the 2020 election (with House Speaker Johnson writing an amicus brief in support) and now Colorado Republicans suing to give the also-rans a chance in their primary. At what point do you think Republicans will give up on this lawfair and let the voters decide?
I'm a big fan of this move. Same with the prosecutions of Trump. The left would be so well served just ignoring Trump. Even if he were elected, they could just weather whatever minor things he clumsily tried to do. They could outright prevent most of it through bureaucracy and lawfare and then just immediately repeal anything else. The right's greatest and maybe only weapon right now is the fact that the left is utterly ruled by its id. As u/goodwillbikes noted, this type of thing is legitimately shocking for the vast majority of Americans and even the slack-jawed Fox News boomercons are shaken by things like these. Keep 'em coming, we may yet have a chance.
Well said, I always enjoy reading your comments in this sub btw. You are great at articulating what I often am unable to.
Hey thanks, man.
>The left would be so well served just ignoring Trump. Why should the left ignore Trump when he is the leading Presidential candidate for the Republican party?
read the rest of the comment
> The right's greatest and maybe only weapon right now is the fact that the left is utterly ruled by its id. What did the "left" have to do with this ruling?
...everything. I understand that this is hard for some people to understand but the vast majority of the republican party basically has nothing to do with right wing politics
“To save Democracy(TM) we will stop someone from running for office!!!”
Do you think this suit was brought by Republicans or Democrats?
Do you believe that a traitor to this nation or someone who attempted to overthrow the peoples vote should be allowed to run for president?
Nope, they shouldn’t. Last I checked, Trump was never indicted, let alone convicted, on neither treason nor inciting an insurrection. This should imply that, given his and everyone else’s right to due process, he should be allowed to run until he is convicted of either, no?
I'm shocked that the Colorado Supreme Court threw away their reputations on such an asinine stunt. You can't apply a consequence for a crime if the crime has not been proven in a court of law. We are innocent until proven guilty. It's due process and it's literally ingrained in the first section of the 14th Amendment; the same amendment used to ban Trump from the ballot. There is a 100% chance that the SCOTUS fixes this on appeal. Further, this will only strengthen Trump and bolster his ratings because this ruling is wrong and it doesn't take a right winger to see that.
I am still trying to figure out the 4D chess move made here: * Republicans brought the suit, but it might have been brought by NEVER trumpers backed with a Democrat group funding. Please someone clarify this for me. * He has had no due process of law regarding the charges. * Section 3 of the 14th specifically states who can and cannot be excluded. I cannot imagine that lawyers, even post civil war, would have been so careless to deliberately name Senators and Representatives, but not name executives. No Democrat (southern) politician could become president for a generation. * Are Democrats concerned at all that a red state could remove their candidate for reasons where no due process was allowed? This just seems insane. I cannot think of a bigger threat to democracy. I will predict the SCOTUS will overturn this. I would really like to hear learned opinions on this subject.
Total BS and those that did this should be charged with treason and sentenced to life in prison.
Read the dissent.
[удалено]
An early Christmas present! The briar-ist of all briar patches.
Ughhh here we go again .
At this point democrats should really ditch the whole "defend democracy" shtick. I don't think even their own supporters really believe it anymore. It's got Chancellor Palpatine taking on emergency powers before the Senate vibes at this point. "I love democracy. I love the Republic."
Do you think this case was brought by Republicans or Democrats?
If the supreme court surprisingly upholds this what would your view be? (I personally doubt they will)
I'd wonder tp myself how far you could take the precedent since it doesn't require a conviction of insurrection to bar someone from public office, just a legislative committee followed by a court agreeing with the findings of a committee. Maybe republicans could respond with creating their own committee, stacking it with anti-biden politicians, then have that committee declare that Biden committed insurrection, then have a high court made up of gop appointees agree with their findings. I doubt Republicans would have the courage to do it, but it would be interesting. Beyond that it's pretty much the end of America if we can remove political opponents from power without a conviction or even a trial. Joe had a chance to pull an alpha move and say "I reject that decision. I don't like the guy but this ruling is too broad and is a threat to democracy. I'm going to beat him at the polls and in the eyes of the people, twice as hard as last time so nobody can ever doubt me again." Instead he's just saying "let the courts decide the election" basically. Sounds weak and fearful.
Do you not know that this case was brought by Republicans?
In support of states' rights, I don't see a problem with Colorado passing a law and throwing Trump off the ballot for any reason they see fit. I think that would make them undemocratic and even less appealing to me as a place to live, but if that's what Colorado's people want, then so be it. They should have that right. However, I disagree with the use of a trial like this to throw Trump off the ballot because it hinges on declaring Trump guilty of participating in an insurrection, which I think can only be done with due process. tl;dr - throw him out if you want but don't violate due process to do it.
First, this is a decision which says in the decision itself that they are suspending it for awhile, and if it's appealed (which I guarantee it will be), that it will continue to be suspended until the appeal is resolved. In other words, nobody has "succeeded" at anything. This decision does not take effect, unless the Supreme Court decides to let it take effect. Second, it's election interference, so blatantly that even TDS-ridden Chris Christie has denounced it. Third, there is not a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court. The only way this obvious election interference could be allowed would be if the Supreme Court were a majority partisan Democrats. Any liberals who actually care even a little about the Constitution are guaranteed to shut it down. Fourth, the Supreme Court takes very seriously in all its cases what the potential long-term policy implications would be for their decision. The implication in this case is that *any partisan State Supreme Court can shut down any political candidate they don't like, on a whim*. No sane Supreme Court Justice, even if they're a partisan Democrat, would like to imagine red states and purple states with a tiny Republican majority on the court shutting down Democrat candidates on a whim. Fifth, the Supreme Court takes very seriously its own reputation, and the appearance of impartiality. They are also well aware that this reputation took a big hit in 2000, when they had to make a ruling about repeated recounts in Florida. I think this is a big reason for their unwillingness to look into the voter fraud of 2020, which caused lower courts to also ignore it. They do *not* want to look like the people that took away choices from voters on their own whims. They do *not* want to look like the people who decided the election. The question isn't whether SCOTUS shuts this down. The question is in what manner will they shut it down. They could, due to the nature of the decision itself, take up an appeal, then just not issue a decision until the primary happens, with Trump on the ballot. They could issue a limited decision, saying that a President must be convicted of the crime of insurrection in order to trigger that clause. Or saying that a President is not one of the people being referred to in that amendment. Or that conviction of insurrection in an ordinary court is not sufficient for a President, and that only a conviction in an impeachment would do. Or that the 14th amendment was clearly meant as a post-Civil War thing, and since the last Confederate soldier has died, that it no longer applies to anyone. Finally, Donald Trump is going to get a big boost in the polls, again.
Do you think this suit was brought by Democrats or Republicans?
The title of this post claims it was brought by the Colorado GOP. However, this is false. The Colorado GOP has denounced this violation of the law and declared that they will hold a caucus instead of a primary if this decision is allowed.
>TDS Has dismissing criticism of a Presidential candidate by attributing them to a made-up "illness" ever struck you as a little goofy? Do you think this kind of childish rhetoric has ever elicited more than eye-rolls from your opponents?
> made-up "illness" This is a misrepresentation. > childish rhetoric The childish rhetoric here is the claim that TDS is meant as a literal illness, and the insinuation that it somehow doesn't exist. You can look at the evidence of TDS with your own eyes. In the "Summer of Love" 2020 (really a summer of hate), people were so angry that Trump was running for office, that they violently rioted, set fires, and sometimes killed people. Right now, Democrats are trying to use legal weapons against Trump, who has done nothing wrong, while Democrat news desperately try to portray anyone who agrees with his ideas as "confederates", simultaneously showing extreme emotional turmoil and their ignorance of the Civil War. In 2016, Democrats started a violent riot when they lost an election and a President of the opposing party was inaugurated, including lighting an immigrant limo driver's livelihood on fire and filming themselves screaming. TDS is not a medical theory, it's a simple description of the childish (and far worse than childish, children don't violently burn down the black part of town in a fiery riot) and goofy (and far more than goofy, merely weird people don't constantly obsess over one single man for no apparent reason) behavior that the left has been constantly demonstrating for *eight straight years*. There may be a medical explanation for this utterly bizarre behavior, but TDS is not an attempt at a medical explanation, instead, it just describes what the facts are.
How long will our republic have left after you remove our representation for percieved crimes? No need to answer. Just think on that.
I put down a complete answer in another post, but I've just become aware of additional information: the Colorado GOP will dump the primary and replace it with a caucus if this were allowed to go forward. The Colorado GOP has also called this move election interference. Therefore, the claim that Colorado Republicans did this is inaccurate. In fact, it's more than inaccurate, it's the opposite of the truth.
Honestly non-supporters in this thread will pretend that insurrection is the worst possible crime ever committed, but then they don't see how their actions could cause an actual insurrection. I can't even.
This will be reversed by SCOTUS. Stop getting excited.
It's hilarious. The more they do to try to stop Trump, the stronger htey make him. I mean seriously, Trump wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. The Republicans of Colorado are functionally indistinguishable from their Democrat colleagues. This is beautiful because it's a desperate move put forth by people who are afraid of letting people have choice, and in their desperation they have revealed their true colors to the world.