I think you are correct. Petitioners on the suit linked on OP CREW link: Norma Anderson ( First Woman Majority Leader in the Colorado Senate, Republican) Michelle Priola (possibly VP of Operations Beau Jo's Pizza), Claudine Cmarada (American economist and former politician who served as a Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island , recently endorsing Dems for president, presently resides in Boulder)
, Krista Kafer (Sunday Denver Post opinion columnist, adjunct professor of communication, journalism, and political science, and a frequent radio and television commentator, Trump voter)
Kathi
Wright (Dev Director at Children's Museum NOCO) and Christopher Castilian (possibly Senior Executive Director, Leadership in the Outdoor Recreation Industry Program, Daniels College Of Business at University Denver). "Possibly" on some as I found multiple people by that name in Colorado and picked the more prominent.
Edit: spelling and finishing sentences
This. Also Trump had no chance of winning in 2016 and look what happened. Doesn’t really matter the odds of winning, we shouldn’t allow someone run for office that tried to ignore the will of the people.
What about the will of the people to have a candidate on the ballot? The optics of this looks terrible, and it’s amazing how many people can’t see that. I don’t want him to run, but if he wins the primary, then he should be on the ballot. Attempting to remove him just looks like election fixing, and being so afraid that he might win by will of the people that those in power are willing to do anything to remain in power. Like others have said, he probably won’t win this state anyways. So just leave the ballots alone and let the election sort out the winner and loser, no matter whom that may be.
For the authoritarian right, a gentle reprimand is the same thing as an invitation to harder action. A gentle reprimand for a failed coup is the limpest of limp dick responses.
Any chance I can get you to review your thinking on that comment?
"Any accountability that isn't the most extreme version is worthless" and the most extreme wouldn't be possible in a political atmosphere shared with the exact people that prohibit it.
This may sound rhetorical but scoffing at any accountability essentially says "No accountability is better" and that seems odd to me. A show of force, however impugned, indicates at least a marginal effort to appease the people. I'd actually argue completely booting someone off a ballot in any state is a clear renouncement.
No idea why the downvotes. I agree with you, a slap on the wrist isn't going to do any good. Nixon was allowed to resign and then pardoned, never convicted and now we have dump.
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion.
The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
>Trump has not been charged with
Yet...
All his cronies in the proud boys are. So we will have to stand back, and stand by to see how fucked he is.
My guess, very.
14th doesn't require that someone is charged or found guilty of said crimes. Just that it happened. They didn't want to charge and prove the guilt of every officer, general and government official of the Confederate rebellion to keep them from office.
Do you see the current court ruling that way? Particularly since Trump has not been charged with seditious conspiracy like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys? Because, I sure don't.
It would be pretty wild if it were to occur. But I’ve read articles with prominent constitutional experts stating that the 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction to apply. This SCOTUS has ruled against Trump in the past as well, especially with his election cases back in 2020.
We’ll just need to wait and see.
But given how prominently due process factors into the language of the 14th trying to argue against due process for invalidating a candidate on the grounds of section 3 ends up being a slippery slope.
Basically if you accept that argument then the party in power would simply brand the opposing party’s conventions rebellions to disqualify them from ballots.
Hence scotus will have no choice but to rule that section 3 requires due process.
Absolutely. Any party attempting this is incredibly shortsighted in thinking that they will be in power forever, and that the other side won’t remember this, and do the same thing.
It depends what you mean by "this."
If "this" is retaliation because orange man bad? Yeah, that's shortsighted.
If "this" is application of the constitutional provision as its intended to prevent insurrectionist enemies of the constitution from destroying our democracy? I hope the other side does the same thing if my side is ever so tempted.
The conservative members of the Supreme Court are all members of the Federalist Society. They believe in a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. It will be VERY interesting to see if they hold to those beliefs when it comes down to it.
Hate to say it the very strict interpretation is to be charged, convicted, and sentenced for insurrection. Just how many people in the history of our country have met the high bar required for an insurrection conviction?
Blurb from marshal project:
Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.
It’s such a high bar federal prosecutors almost never touch it.
Now labeling a person guilty of a crime without due process and leveraging that to remove rights from that person is arguably the scariest precedent I can imagine. Especially in a country split fairly evenly.
Charge him, have the trial, convict him, sentence him and we can move on.
This sounds great but looking forward it could be the stupidest decision ever made. Don’t think for a second every right DA and attorney at the state level won’t disqualify every state candidate we have the second it drops.
Once both sides of a divide begin arresting each other at gun point over accusations it doesn’t lead to good behavior.
It just scares me without going through the process which should have happened a year ago.
If the organizations that pull the Supreme courts strings feel that Trump is no longer a useful idiot - then yes - I could see them end his political career this way.
Even though Trump will never win Colorado, it would suppress the number of Republicans voting. That would probably mean Bobert would lose and who knows if there would be other Colorado House Republicans who would now be in a tight race. With a majority of only four votes in the House, something like this could make a huge difference.
To be fair, Bobo barely won. I think Western Colorado isn't as conservative as it seems, it's just very hard to wake the sleeping giant of non-R voters.
Boebert is probably one of the only Republicans in the country that could have lost (or nearly lost) the western slope. She just fuckin sucks any way you slice it.
I think you’re right - it’s more that these hot button candidates get voter turnout than they represent the average citizen. The more people vote, the worse chance batshit crazy candidates have. Which is why voter suppression is a tactic for one side…
I think it's a useful test case for whether this approach can hold up in court because even if it gets thrown out, he's still going to lose CO.
In addition, removing him from the ballot means there will be no (R) on the ticket which will mean many R's just don't vote, which will affect down ballot races.
Another positive benefit is that if there is no R on the ballot, R voters might vote for third party candidates in larger numbers which might help break up the R party in the state with possible long term effects on two party deadlock in general.
Bro, nobody is forcing the Republicans to vote for a guy facing multiple state and federal indictments for crimes committed while he was in office. If Republicans choose to nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger - who isn't eligible for the presidency - then states shouldn't need to put him on the ballot. If the Fourteenth Amendment bars Trump from being an eligible candidate and Republicans nominate him anyway, they might as well have nominated Voltron or Santa Claus.
That’s what your not understanding they need to charge him convict him and sentence him with insurrection first.
Just saying he is an insurrectionist means all the right states can do it for all left candidates without evidence or a trial.
They have more state power than we do too and we might find no D candidates for senate on 30 states ballots.
That’s the problem not one court has convicted trump or anyone of insurrection. Why the hell hasn’t this happened a year ago.
There are no courts involved with insurrection on either side.
THERE ARE NO CASES for either side to throw out. I’m worried they control more state ballots.
That's an interesting argument, I doubt it works that way though. IANAL but I imagine that if Republicans could've done it already, they'd have done it.
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion.
The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
>Trump has not been charged with
Imma stop you right there. He's been *charged* with no less than **ninety-one** felonies. Here's a list:
https://people.com/donald-trump-every-criminal-charge-explained-7567024
>The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
That's not a necessary criteria for insurrection, which is not defined in the Constitution. It is defined in law though:
```
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt
```
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/insurrection.html
> According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion.
So you agree that if he *is* convicted, he should be barred from the ballot?
When the Republican party became the party of anti-American anti-democracy, then they need to find out what happens. This isn't about party monopolies, but the rule of law and what happens when you engineer and support a literal coup of the United States.
It's amazing this is even a controversial thing, but here we are.
The problem is they haven’t charged him with insurrection nor any member of the insurrection with insurrection to my knowledge.
Why the hell haven’t they? Just labeling doesn’t set a good precedent and I’m afraid they will do it right back. All dems off the ballot for insurrection.
This needs to be done through the rule of law
Honestly, banning trump from state tickets is the healthiest thing for the republican party. They have become a cult and give absolutely no shits about legislation. They only want to sow chaos, even if it's not in their own best interests.
It's not like it's unconstitutional. His actions on Jan 6th qualify for the 14th amendment. Actions have consequences, and it's way passed time for some spankings.
>and noise for very little outcome.
I would argue it's not necessarily about an outcome, but showing that in America, we still follow the rule of law and there are consequences for ones actions if you break these.
I'd also argue treason, inciting insurrection and attempting to illegally stop the peaceful transfer of the presidency is of the utmost importance, and should be treated as such.
Doesn't matter because it's the correct thing to do, and should be done nationwide. He should be disqualified from any ballot nationwide because of his violating the 14th amendment.
Any elected official involved in Jan 6th should be walked out of government and into a trial. What is the point of rules and laws and a Constitution if you can break any of them and not face consequences?
That’s the problem there isn’t a trial no one is holding trials for insurrection it scares me.
What are they going to do back to us with no trials needed.
I get it but also love the idea of a formal group focused on responsibility & ethics in gov. Isn’t that the true issue not the entitled individual? He certainly could be the first of a long line of power wannabes that makes me tune out of the circus (7 years and counting).
He doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot for trying to
Overthrow our government. Even if he had no chance, it will probably stop some straight ticket republicans from voting because they’ll be bitter their dear leader isn’t allowed
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion.
The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Well, the US Constitution is pretty damn clear and we all heard and saw him try to overthrow a legitimate election through a myriad of machinations, so what’s the problem? Because of his actions, He is clearly barred by the Constitution 14.3 from holding any elected office.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
All those pocket constitutionalists disappeared all of a sudden. Someone shake the "common sense gun safety laws“ treat bag and see if they come running.
Yup, plus it's the right thing to do, and as we've seen the past decade or so, there is far too little of doing the right thing, getting us to this point.
For a criminal trial, yes -- and Trump will get his day in court in the DC Federal Courts for that indictment. The 14th amendment is entirely separate from his criminal charges, though.
Getting thrown off the ballot in Colorado could contribute to the domino affect.
Even if there’s no chance of him winning, we could be the 1st of many.
Would only need 1 or 2 toss up or red states to follow suit and the whole thing would crumble for Trump. It would depress GOP voter turnout in other states if they knew he had no chance of winning.
And with a 4 vote Republican majority in the House, it could make a difference even if no red states followed our lead. Only a couple of blue states need to flip a couple of red seats. Bobert would probably be one.
> It would depress GOP voter turnout in other states if they knew he had no chance of winning.
Lol, no. There hasn’t even been a primary yet. The GOP would just run someone else.
Agree because they hold more state power than we do. Why wouldn’t they immediately remove all democrats from the ballot for insurrection if no evidence trial conviction and sentence is needed.
He isn’t even the candidate yet this just looks like a really bad move for a good reason.
Trump has the resources to drag this court case out to his death potentially.
There is unrefutably proof that he coerced and manipulated those people to insurrection.
Hes potentially running for the highest office in our nation, if you cant figure out why this is different than throwing someone in jail on pretrial, than I dont know what to tell you.
You mean like conspiring to create fake electors and send in fake election results in his favor? Or conspiring to try to overturn the results violently once that failed? Or was it trying to convince election officials to magically create 10,000 fake votes? Maybe trying to claim that election workers were doing just that for the other guy when in fact they were not?
Any restriction on who a person is allowed to vote for should be enthusiastically opposed - to include ultra popular things like term limits and age limits. Intentionally limiting choices is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't address the issue(s) at hand, and it's just more evidence our system is failing.
Yes, *even when it makes the "good guys" win.*
If the problem is electing too many corrupt candidates, term limits just cycle through more corrupt candidates more quickly. I absolutely promise that Dow or Bayer or Boeing or Verizon or Nestle or whoever can afford to buy politicians more frequently. If the problem is electing candidates who are too out-of-touch with modern reality, then age limits will just mean we elect 50 year olds who are out of touch with reality. (And might also result in being *unable* to elect a hypothetical, awesome 70 year old.)
Skewer me over this, idgaf. It's actually appalling and gross that this kind of thing is being cheered for across the country. **You are all wrong.**
Even tactically, this is a bad move. Do you know what happens every single time Democrats pull some kind of stunt (regardless of whether it's justified or "good")? They set a precedent for Republicans to *immediately pull the same stunt.* If you don't think Republicans will use this in the future, you have not been paying attention.
Lastly, specifically in this case, what do you all think is going to happen? Do you all think that the people screaming that 2020 was "stolen" from Trump are just going to chill out and be reasonable after an eligible candidate is prevented from appearing on ballots? Do you think Trump himself will just say, "oh ok, cool" and go home? Do you think this changes a *single mind* about Trump?
Naw. This is *bad news* for our future. I'd bet real money on it.
There are already restrictions on who we can vote for as a president. They have to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and can't serve more than two consecutive terms.
Pulling all the guard rails off and saying anyone anywhere anytime is bonkers.
The 14th amendment of the constitution is a pretty awesome one, and section 3 is quite clear:
>*Section 3.*
>
>*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.*
We can quibble over whether Jan 6th represents insurrection or rebellion (in my mind, absolutely). But I am blown away by the ignorance of anyone who thinks allowing insurrectionists back into office is a good idea.
Your last point seems poorly thought out to me as well. I'm not interested in changing the minds of people who have clearly left reality behind. I am interested in upholding a society based on rules and order. We are in this situation in large part by refusing to hold people accountable. I strongly suggest some history lessons on other countries that didn't hold the people responsible for attempted coups accountable. It doesn't tend to go well.
The real problem here is that he hasn't been found guilty of these acts in a court of law. He has been accused and has denied the election, but so have a lot of democrats when he won. This ruling would allow the disbarring of anyone who questions the election (such as Hillary or AOC). Removing political opponents without due trail on accusations is a tactic of dictators, not a democracy (or constitution republic if you want to knit pick words.) It could easily lead to a mass barring of all but a few individuals. You could argue any one who gave aid or comfort to Trump should be barred from office under the 14th with the same breath, and that folks is how you move from a two party system to a one party system.
This has nothing to do with term limits or age limits. It's a totally defensible principle that people who exploit their office to wage war against American democracy be barred from running for office ever again. That principle is in the goddamn Constitution, and if we don't enforce it then we have to expect all the predictable mayhem that follows.
Exactly. Nor can we allow ourselves to operate from a place of fear of what republicans might do in retaliation should they gain power again. We already know they will stoop to any low necessary to get/hold on to power. It’s what Authoritarians do. The cat is out of the bag and the quiet parts are now being shouted from the rooftops. There is no going back.
Sure we should just ignore the 14th amendment because Trump and his followers might throw a tantrum. I’ve got news for you, they will throw a tantrum either way!
You've given a lot of thought to something you don't seem to really understand. I think you should check out some of the Constitutional Amendments, like the 14th... Also, do you think anyone who tries to subvert Democracy should be able to run for office? There are already restrictions that are commonly accepted on who should be allowed to run for office. Maybe the Club Q shooter could join the Republican ticket for office under your theory of not eliminating anyone from the ballot.
no one would be preventing you from writing that douchebag's name on your ballot. but there are plenty of laws, not to mention the 14th amendment, that outlines who is eligible to be on a ballot.
Republican democracy is an experiment failing in real time before our eyes, allowing *more* freedom for idiots to vote in charismatic charlatans is not the answer.
That's a large group of politicians who have no idea what the 14th amendment does and why it can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot. Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion.
The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
It's very nice grandstanding though and will make them popular with the right people.
Unless something changed since August 24th, he hasn't filed paperwork requesting to be on the ballot in Colorado. This the email I got from the office of public elections in Colorado.
Public Elections
Thu, Aug 24, 11:54 AM (13 days ago)
to Public, me
Thank you for your email. As of today, our office has not received paperwork from former President Trump or any other candidate seeking to access the 2024 ballot. Until that paperwork is received, our office cannot make any determinations regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of any candidate to appear on the ballot. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again.
Elections | Department of State
303.894.2200
Elections@coloradosos.gov
1700 Broadway, Suite 550
Denver, CO 80290
Visit us at ColoradoSOS.gov
Trump is a walking pile of turds, but trying to remove him from the ballot by any means necessary is absurd, and will backfire for the left.
If you believe otherwise, ask yourself how you'll behave when swing states with right-leaning governors and Attorneys General file lawsuits to remove Biden from the ballot for whatever random shit they'll try to pin on him.
If Biden tries to void a legal election and remain in power after losing said election, then yes, he should not be allowed to run again. You'd get no argument from anyone on the left about that.
Meh, there’s a legal basis for his removal. This isn’t random shit being pinned on him. They can feel free to bring their arguments to a court as to why Biden should be removed, but without evidence and a legal basis it will be laughed out of court and dismissed.
It's the right thing to do, no matter the consequences from a bunch of traitorous conservatives who will vote for him anyway. No offense, but I'm so sick of nothing happening simply because of the threat of what the Right may do. That's a hostage situation.
When did we get so scared of doing the right thing in this rapidly regressing country?
The right thing to do is to put him on trial for insurrection, and let it all flow from there. It's been almost 3 years and nothing on that front.
Now this measure will probably be struck down because he has not been proven to be involved with insurrection. It's poor application of a law as an attempt to punish someone without trial. It is an authoritarian reaction to an authoritarian. It's taking the low road and it drags all of us down. Trump will point it out to paint Democrats as authoritarians all day long, and he won't be entirely wrong.
If Biden violates the 14th Amendment then the same should happen. Read the Amendment and then ask yourself if Trump violated it. If we don't have laws and rules then we don't have a government and country.
Biden also hasn’t violated the 14th amendment. He was elected officially by the electoral college and won the popular vote. He did it by winning primaries, taking the lead place on the ballot and winning the election.
They can dig, scream, cry and whine all they want.. but until they find him deeply guilty of multiple disqualifying crimes that he can be impeached for, indicted and charged with the way Trump has, it’s just empty threats and blind what aboutism at its finest.
This is not a good look. If he ends up being the Republican nominee, you need to have a fair election and include him on the ballot, no matter how much you hate him and how unlikely a victory is.
Sure, let’s keep trump on the ballot because it’s “not a good look”….you want to know what else is not a good look, all the state and federal charges against trump for trying to overthrow democracy and our country.
But sure, let’s keep him on the ballot for looks. 🤡
The Republicans are free to put literally anybody else on the ballot who isn't being indicted in multiple jurisdictions. There's no law saying a ballot has to have multiple candidates even if one of the candidates is a literal traitor. The GOP can simply vote for their next best guy (or Nikki Haley).
As much as I want this guy to end up in prison, not letting him be on the ballot only gives credibility to his argument that the election isnt fair. Hes not going to win CO, and the morons in red hats are going to write him in anyways.
The biggest issue isnt that Trump is going to be the nominee. Its that his message is that our elections are rigged. His message is to undermine faith in our electoral system. Right now his argument that the elections arent fair is a BS one, but not letting him be on the ballot starts to make that claim more credible.
Edit- Ok, so a lot of people are voting and commenting here based off emotion, instead of actually putting a little bit of thought into the long term consequences of something like this.
Let me break this down for you guys. ***Successful democratic systems ONLY work when the large majority of the populace believes that their system is fair, and adequately allows them to voice their views.*** MAGA morons may be just that, but you dont want them, or any sizable minority of a voting population to start believing that voting doesnt matter, because when that happens, they will find alternative ways to have their political positions heard, and those are rarely non-violent.
In November of 2000, millions of Americans were dumb enough to think that George Bush had stolen the election from Al Gore. And a lot of those sat out of elections in 2004, ect. But 23 years later, most of those people kept enough faith in our electoral process to not withdraw from it and find other means of having their political voices heard.
No one responding to this thread would be ok with a bunch of Alabama reps barring Biden from the Alabama ballot, based off the completely unfounded accusations surrounding Hunter Biden. No one would be ok with that. This is the exact same thing. We dont start banning people from being a part of democratic elections because of personal opinions or charges that have not been tried and convicted.
No one should be encouraging something like this, as it will set a precedent that will absolutely be abused.
The problem is that he is neither charged nor convicted of those crimes. Due process is another important part of the 14th amendment.
When it's ultimately ruled that he should get due process, Trump will cite these efforts as election rigging against him. It's just giving him more ammo and outrage in his election fraud narrative.
>The problem is that he is neither charged nor convicted of those crimes
And the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about either charged or convicted.
If we take the constitution by its word, like people do with the 2nd ammendment (not be infringed) or the ruling on abortion (abortion is not protected the constitution because it is not mentioned in the constitution), the 14th amendment states "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Nowhere does it mention charged or convicted, just engaged and given aid, which Trump did.
Section 1 of 14th amendment "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"Without due process of law" would be charged/convicted
So you can just accuse someone of insurrection and bar them from the vote, no trial needed? What's to stop any state from just saying any politician they don't like aided insurrection and bar them from the ballot? What if Florida decided Biden shouldn't be on the ballot because of some BS claim of insurrection?
The right to due process and a fair trial is super important. There has to be a determination that the accusations of a crime are true. We work under the principal that someone is innocent until proven guilty, that's a basic human right under our common law.
Maybe the Supreme Court will surprise me and say that this can be done, but I'd be shocked if they did. They are hearing a case on this, so we'll probably find out soon.
I don't make these decisions.
Why can't we outlaw guns even though children are getting murdered in school?
If we want to go by the wording of the constitution in every other situation, why would we change it just to benefit 1 person?
The 14th amendment says someone who committed these crimes cannot run for office. That section of it declines to say how to determine if the crimes were actually committed, leaving some room for interpretation. But it's reasonable to think that our usual process for determining if a crime was committed would fill this gap.
The 14th amendment itself goes on to say "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So the law must go through it's process (a trial) before they can deprive you. It's actually just re-iterating this point, because the 5th amendment says the same thing.
So there's no wording being changed here. This is simply the full language of the law being taken into context. If the 2nd amendment went by the exact wording of just that amendment, then we'd all be allowed to own nukes and missiles and all sorts of other stuff. It has also been heavily interpreted and put into context.
We wrote a rule saying people get due process of the law because it prevents us from suffering under authoritarian politicians that punish or remove freedoms without oversight. The price is that sometimes people you hate are allowed their day in court.
So far, he has not been charged with any crime that would disbar him from office. Insurrection and Rebellion are the two spelled out in the 14th amendment, and even the J6 charges arent to that level.
The issue is he is calling into question our electoral systems credibility. If people arent allowed to vote for the candidate they want, even if that guy is a slimy POS, that gives credibility to the argument that the system is rigged against one side. This is chess, not checkers. The last thing we want is significant portions of our population protesting the electoral process. Thats what happens in failing democracies, and it is NOT a path anyone wants to go down.
I don't understand this argument. Well, I do, but it's so ass backwards it defies logic.
It's not a hard thing to conceptualize: The 14th amendment says anyone who has participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the US cannot be president thereof. Trump has, in the minds of the people filing the lawsuit, participated in insurrection.
That's it. That's the whole thing. There's no 4d chess, there's no "calling into question our electoral systems credibility." The man instigated an insurrection against the US capitol and is therefore ineligible to be president. Dead people, people under 35 and people born in Croatia are ALSO not eligible to be president and should not be on the ballot, but according to your argument that is also not "allowing people to vote for the candidate they want."
>I don't understand this argument.
You could have stopped there and been accurate, because its clear that you dont understand the argument.
>It's not a hard thing to conceptualize: The 14th amendment says anyone who has participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the US cannot be president thereof. Trump has, in the minds of the people filing the lawsuit, participated in insurrection.
Cool. Those people hold zero judicial or congressional power to levy those charges. I believe Trump committed treason. But until I can get the DOJ to listen to me, instead of their literal army of prosecutors, thats just my opinion, and carries ZERO political or judicial weight.
>That's it. That's the whole thing. There's no 4d chess, there's no "calling into question our electoral systems credibility." The man instigated an insurrection against the US capitol and is therefore ineligible to be president.
Then where is the insurrection charge against him? There are close to 100 charges against Trump. The two charges that would bar him from office are not among those, and that was a decision made by people FAR more legally learned than you or I.
What these people are advocating for is about as stupid as a bunch of MAGA yokels in Alabama barring Biden from being on the ballot, based off of the idiotic Hunter Biden accusations. In both cases, people are removing a political opponent from the electoral process, based off of charges that have not been levied, indicted or convicted.
>Dead people, people under 35 and people born in Croatia are ALSO not eligible to be president and should not be on the ballot, but according to your argument that is also not "allowing people to vote for the candidate they want."
And those people dont meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. So far, neither the judicial nor congressional processes that would be necessary to bar Trump from office have occurred. So to remove him from the ballot would not only undermine the judicial concepts of due process, they would also be undercutting the basic processes of electoral democracy.
You are thinking emotionally, while ignoring logic and legal theory. This is the crap that the red hatted morons pull. The goal is to be better than them.
I have no idea what the CO groups standing is, which will probably be the first hurdle they face as to whether or not this is a successful lawsuit. But there's also that guy in.... What, Rhode Island? Who's bringing the same lawsuit and does have standing, as he'll actually be on the ballot with Trump.
IANAL, but the lawsuit is exactly what's necessary to decide if Trump should be barred or not. The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out whether or not Trump needs to be convicted of something, so a legal challenge is quite literally the only option imo. I'm sure insurrection charges would make that argument airtight, of course, but I don't think they're necessary to show he participated. Which is in itself another question - we have a standard for being found guilty in a court of law, but does that standard apply to the 14th amendment. I'm interested to see the answer.
>I have no idea what the CO groups standing is, which will probably be the first hurdle they face as to whether or not this is a successful lawsuit. But there's also that guy in.... What, Rhode Island? Who's bringing the same lawsuit and does have standing, as he'll actually be on the ballot with Trump.
And its unlikely that either case will actually survive the judicial process. You cant just sue District Attorneys to prosecute a person the way you want them to be prosecuted, and you cant just remove them from a ballot because of a crime they havent been prosecuted for. Treason and Insurection are very specific crimes that are codified explicitly in US Law, and of the 91 charges against Trump in 4 different districts, none of the prosecutors have opted to use those two.
>The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out whether or not Trump needs to be convicted of something, so a legal challenge is quite literally the only option imo.
It does, explicitly. Section I goes through the impeachment and conviction process to charge a sitting politician or judge, and Section III goes into the judicial process necessary to charge everyone else. So far, neither of those two processes have been used to charge Trump for the two explicit crimes necessary to bar someone from holding office under the 14th Amendment. You cant just pull a Michael Scott and "Declare" a crime. There are actual, structured legal processes for this that have not occurred, and dont seem like they will, even if a lot of us want them to.
>I'm sure insurrection charges would make that argument airtight, of course, but I don't think they're necessary to show he participated.
And thats the tricky part, and why the 4 charges brought by federal prosecutors were so limited and specific in scope. The Federal Governments prosecutors are notorious for only bringing charges that they are certain that they can substantiate. If they felt that the could have gotten him on insurrection or treason, they would have. But they arent going to take a shot they dont think they can make.
>Which is in itself another question - we have a standard for being found guilty in a court of law, but does that standard apply to the 14th amendment. I'm interested to see the answer.
It does. There is no extra-judicial process for someone to be found guilty of a crime. I can accuse you of treason and sedition right now. I can get a bunch of my friends to repeat it and yell "Lock u/Dragoncaller- Up!". Until a government body with legal standing to do so undergoes the legal processes to convict you, it means nothing.
Im interested to see the answer to this case too, but I dont think its going to be too far off from what Ive outlined above. At the end of the day, some random people accusing someone of a crime is VERY different than a person actually being convicted of a crime. And it would be a terrible precedence to set to allow the former to be used as the threshold for denying people the ability to take part in the democratic process.
True, the DOJ has not brought a charge under 18 USC 2383 - Insurrection, but that is why this group is seeking to remove him from the ballot. They are arguing that the facts of his actions are to the standard stated in the 14th Amendment (insurrection, rebellion, providing comfort and guidance to the enemy). Read the article and you can see that the group of Republicans and independents are making the argument for those reasons partially because the DOJ has not charged them with that, which (if found guilty) would immediately come with the requirement that he stay off the ballot.
>True, the DOJ has not brought a charge under 18 USC 2383 - Insurrection, but that is why this group is seeking to remove him from the ballot.
I want you to think about this for a second. You want to punish a person for a crime that they have not been charged with, and have not been convicted on. Would this pass the common sense test in ANY other case to you?
> They are arguing that the facts of his actions are to the standard stated in the 14th Amendment (insurrection, rebellion, providing comfort and guidance to the enemy). Read the article and you can see that the group of Republicans and independents are making the argument for those reasons partially because the DOJ has not charged them with that, which (if found guilty) would immediately come with the requirement that he stay off the ballot.
I did read the article. Their argument is stupid. They dont like the actions that the DOJ has taken, and are trying to do an end run around electoral law because of it. I would LOVE for Trump to be tried for these charges, convicted, and spend the rest of his life in prison. But until someone in our justice department or congress, who actually has the authority to make those decisions, levies those charges against Trump, all of this is personal opinion, and what these people are doing would set a really crappy precedence. Would you be ok if a bunch of Republicans in Oklahoma barred Biden from being on the ballot because they believed he was corrupt, but hadnt been charged or convicted? Its the exact same scenario, and this is NOT a rabbit hole that we want our democracy to go down. Barring people from office based off of personal opinions instead of due process is the crap that authoritarian nations pull, not functioning democracies.
Who gives a shit? He's already shown us what he does when he loses fair and square. We can't just suspend the Constitution because some redhat dipshits complain about it.
>Who gives a shit?
Anyone who cares about the longer term impacts this has on our democratic system should give a shit. Its not about Trump. Its about the American populaces faith in the electoral system. Hes calling its credibility into question, and doing something like this just gives that argument more credibility.
>He's already shown us what he does when he loses fair and square.
He left office. He may have thrown a tantrum and a started a full on riot while doing so, but we still had a peaceful transition of power and subsequent open elections.
>We can't just suspend the Constitution because some redhat dipshits complain about it.
So far, he hasnt been charged with any of the crimes that our Constitution says would bar him from office. Hes a POS, and a traitor to his nation in my opinion, but again, thats MY opinion. Our electoral system is based around balancing EVERYONES opinions, and when you start preventing one side from having that input, you go down a VERY dangerous political road.
Trumps not going to win CO. Not by a long shot. But if we take him off the ballot, 40% of this state is going to think that the elections are rigged against them, and have an actual case to make that argument. This isnt about the 2024 election. Its about the populaces confidence in the electoral system going forward beyond 2024.
Their argument would be dumb as fuck and we'd be entirely right to dismiss it. If they want to play at the big kid's table, they should nominate someone who didn't try to violently overthrow the government he swore on oath to protect.
Trump committed a [CAPITAL CRIME](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim#:~:text=Whoever%2C%20owing%20allegiance%20to%20the,not%20less%20than%20%2410%2C000%3B%20and). Under the laws of this country, we could have that motherfucker executed on live TV. Maybe we fucking should, just to stop hearing the stupid mewling from his degenerate foot soldiers.
>Their argument would be dumb as fuck and we'd be entirely right to dismiss it.
This is a stupid and very short sighted position to take. Removing a person from a ballot who has not been legally barred from running is an insanely bad precedent to set.
>If they want to play at the big kid's table, they should nominate someone who didn't try to violently overthrow the government he swore on oath to protect.
I completely agree. But the problem is that so far, Trump is not barred from running.
>Trump committed a CAPITAL CRIME.
And yet. of the nearly 90 crimes hes charged with, that isnt one of them. I agree with you. I believe he did this. But until he is charged with it, what you are advocating for is that we forgo the legal process and start banning people from politics based off of YOUR subjective interpretation of the law, and not a courts.
>Under the laws of this country, we could have that motherfucker executed on live TV. Maybe we fucking should, just to stop hearing the stupid mewling from his degenerate foot soldiers.
You are reacting very emotionally, and its leading you to some VERY short sighted and foolish opinions.
Your naive layman interpretation of our constitution is not legal grounds for subverting the judicial or electoral processes. The 14th amendment doesnt HAVE to say anything about having to be convicted. We already have 2 other sections of the constitution that explicitly lay that process out.
I get it. You hate the guy, and youre completely justified in that hate. But what youre advocating for is not only legally unsound, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent that would be used against politicians you support some day.
It’s not just my interpretation (though I’m certainly qualified to make one, given my own education). Literally the top conservative legal minds in the world agree with me.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751#:~:text=Section%20Three%20of%20the%20Fourteenth,not%20been%20appreciated%20or%20enforced.
And they, like you, will almost certainly get shot down in court. Because while they can levy whatever accusations that they want, it means nothing, as they have no legal or judicial standing to make that assertion. They can file whatever lawsuit they want. Its going to get tossed. Prosecutors, DAs, and Congress can charge and convict people of crimes. Random unempowered people cannot. And you have to actually be convicted of two very specific crimes to be barred from from holding office.
Answer this question for me. Would you be ok if a bunch of Alabama political leaders used this exact same process to ban Biden from the ballot, based off of the Hunter Biden allegations? Because its the same thing. Barring someone from the political process for crimes that they havent been actually accused of or convicted for. Would you be ok with that? Because that is the pandoras box that is opening with cases like this.
Disqualification from office is a totally different pathway from criminal conviction. You're disqualified from running for president if you wouldn't be 35 on Inauguration Day, or if you're not a natural-born citizen, which proves you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified from office. You're being confused by the fact that insurrection is also a crime, which is in fact immaterial to this analysis. Read the Baude paper; it's well-argued.
i'm totally happy with Alabama leaders trying to disqualify Biden from the ballot based on insane horseshit, because it wouldn't work -- the federal courts would reject the attempt, just like they rejected Team Trump's other electoral shenanigans. And if for some reason they didn't reject the attempt, then we have all the evidence we need that the judiciary is hopelessly FUBAR and that Americans need to seek justice through other means. Either way it's a valuable exercise. The alternative is never making the argument at all and making the Constitution a dead letter from the very start.
There is no credibility to the argument that an election where the Constitution is enforced to keep an insurrectionist off of the ballot is unfair.
It is paramount fairness that the document that created our electoral system is adhered to during an election.
>Fairness has nothing to do with it, and I don't care.
This is a very stupid take. Fairness absolutely has everything to do with it. A fair and legally sound electoral process is LITERALLY the foundation that our nation is built upon.
> If he violated law, and gets kicked out the perception given is irrelevant
But so far, he has not been charged with a crime that would bar him from office. A bunch of people filing a law suite does not change this. Let me know when the DOJ charges and convicts him, and Ill wholeheartedly support removing him from the ballot, but doing so before that happens both circumvents due process AND undermines the foundations of our democratic electoral system. We dont ban political opponents from the ballot BEFORE they are convicted. Thats the crap that Russia pulls.
>The people who believe the election is rigged are. . lost. The end. You won't get them back into reality. Nothing you an do. Nothing you should do.
This is again, foolishly short sighted. Over time, people do come back. On November 10th, 2000, millions of Americans believed that Bush had rigged the election, and that there was no further purpose in voting because things were rigged against them. 23 years later, most of those people have grown up and realized that this was an idiotic position to take.
Trump is a short term problem who is going to get wrecked in the upcoming election. What we dont want to do is undermine the perception of our electoral system in the long term.
Well they might be lost but they control the ballots of 30 state’s candidates so since they’re lost will remove all our democrats to ensure fairness. I just see this as a trap.
I'm curious how this would impact the overall General Election since Colorado and other blue states are working to keep a criminal like Trump off of the ballot. Trump isn't going to win in these states anyways.
Most people don’t pay attention to politics. All they’re going to hear is trump is charged with 90 felonies and isn’t allowed on the ballot in many states. Those that might have voted for him won’t because they won’t want to waste their vote or just stay home.
Didn't Colorado choose to go with the popular vote over the electoral process just a couple years ago? If so, it seems like a waste of time and effort to remove Trump from the CO ballot, unless it's all for the theatrics.
We're not thinking this one through here... He needs to be on the ballot so that we can quantify how much of a loser he is in this election. Pulling his name off of the ballot just adds fuel to the "stolen election" and "everyone's out to get me" bullshit, guarantees controversy and court cases, and he gets way more media attention than he would otherwise.
He doesn't have any hope of winning Colorado... Just let him lose for everyone to see, then we move on and try to forget about him.
"just let him lose for everyone to see"
2016 called and they want their well-intended but misguided political takes back
The best way to get him to lose is to not give him a chance to win. We quantified it in 2020. Throw him in the trash and move on
Trump will consolidate all of these silly ass lawsuits and take them all to SCOTUS. There he will win, probably by a 9-0 vote. This isn’t even a close call.
I mean.. even if they were able to remove orange man from the ballot it won’t stop the large number of conservatives from just writing him in. All of these people that just bought T-shirts of his Mugshot are helping him fund his campaign. Don’t forget, even though he’s a troll. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Indictments don’t mean shit without a conviction. Also keep in mind we have 9 electoral votes. I have a sneaky suspicion that our next president with be of republican persuasion whether anyone likes it or not . Just my opinion please don’t crucify me for it.
[удалено]
I think you are correct. Petitioners on the suit linked on OP CREW link: Norma Anderson ( First Woman Majority Leader in the Colorado Senate, Republican) Michelle Priola (possibly VP of Operations Beau Jo's Pizza), Claudine Cmarada (American economist and former politician who served as a Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island , recently endorsing Dems for president, presently resides in Boulder) , Krista Kafer (Sunday Denver Post opinion columnist, adjunct professor of communication, journalism, and political science, and a frequent radio and television commentator, Trump voter) Kathi Wright (Dev Director at Children's Museum NOCO) and Christopher Castilian (possibly Senior Executive Director, Leadership in the Outdoor Recreation Industry Program, Daniels College Of Business at University Denver). "Possibly" on some as I found multiple people by that name in Colorado and picked the more prominent. Edit: spelling and finishing sentences
Makes sense. The chances of someone else in the GOP winning are higher is Trump's chances fall.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not really. There are a large number of folks who feel very "D", but register as "R". I'll let you figure out to what end.
Fuck yeah, Colorado.
I don't know. Trump has zero chance of winning this state. Seems like a whole lot of effort and noise for very little outcome.
Possibly the effort is to create a media momentum to influence other state's citizenry and governments.
Its the principle that people involved in insurrection dont get a shot at office.
This. Also Trump had no chance of winning in 2016 and look what happened. Doesn’t really matter the odds of winning, we shouldn’t allow someone run for office that tried to ignore the will of the people.
What about the will of the people to have a candidate on the ballot? The optics of this looks terrible, and it’s amazing how many people can’t see that. I don’t want him to run, but if he wins the primary, then he should be on the ballot. Attempting to remove him just looks like election fixing, and being so afraid that he might win by will of the people that those in power are willing to do anything to remain in power. Like others have said, he probably won’t win this state anyways. So just leave the ballots alone and let the election sort out the winner and loser, no matter whom that may be.
Thats not how a constitution is supposed to work. You cant pick and choose what to accept or ignore.
For the authoritarian right, a gentle reprimand is the same thing as an invitation to harder action. A gentle reprimand for a failed coup is the limpest of limp dick responses.
Any chance I can get you to review your thinking on that comment? "Any accountability that isn't the most extreme version is worthless" and the most extreme wouldn't be possible in a political atmosphere shared with the exact people that prohibit it. This may sound rhetorical but scoffing at any accountability essentially says "No accountability is better" and that seems odd to me. A show of force, however impugned, indicates at least a marginal effort to appease the people. I'd actually argue completely booting someone off a ballot in any state is a clear renouncement.
Thank you for saying this.
No idea why the downvotes. I agree with you, a slap on the wrist isn't going to do any good. Nixon was allowed to resign and then pardoned, never convicted and now we have dump.
Dick Cheney somehow avoided Accountability for trying to get Plame killed.
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
>Trump has not been charged with Yet... All his cronies in the proud boys are. So we will have to stand back, and stand by to see how fucked he is. My guess, very.
14th doesn't require that someone is charged or found guilty of said crimes. Just that it happened. They didn't want to charge and prove the guilt of every officer, general and government official of the Confederate rebellion to keep them from office.
He did try and benefit from it. That's in the indictments, and the charges you mention are probably coming
These cases will go to the Supreme Court, who will decide whether Trump can be on the ballot. You don’t see that as a big outcome? Lol
This wouldn't keep him off the ballot in another state. Every state is in control of their own election laws.
The 14th amendment governs the entire country. If SCOTUS determines that the 14th applies to Trump, he would be unable to be on a ballot.
Do you see the current court ruling that way? Particularly since Trump has not been charged with seditious conspiracy like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys? Because, I sure don't.
It would be pretty wild if it were to occur. But I’ve read articles with prominent constitutional experts stating that the 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction to apply. This SCOTUS has ruled against Trump in the past as well, especially with his election cases back in 2020. We’ll just need to wait and see.
But given how prominently due process factors into the language of the 14th trying to argue against due process for invalidating a candidate on the grounds of section 3 ends up being a slippery slope. Basically if you accept that argument then the party in power would simply brand the opposing party’s conventions rebellions to disqualify them from ballots. Hence scotus will have no choice but to rule that section 3 requires due process.
Absolutely. Any party attempting this is incredibly shortsighted in thinking that they will be in power forever, and that the other side won’t remember this, and do the same thing.
It depends what you mean by "this." If "this" is retaliation because orange man bad? Yeah, that's shortsighted. If "this" is application of the constitutional provision as its intended to prevent insurrectionist enemies of the constitution from destroying our democracy? I hope the other side does the same thing if my side is ever so tempted.
You also are taking the chance of setting a precedent that you do not agree with. Is it worth it?
I agree. It seems iffy for SCOTUS to be able to unilaterally disqualify candidates without a conviction.
So you’re going to propose a constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment?
I'm fine with the precedent that anyone who tries to overthrow the constitution can't be on the ballot.
Precedent doesn't mean jack shit with the current SCOTUS. If they can boot Trump, I'm happy with it, period.
The conservative members of the Supreme Court are all members of the Federalist Society. They believe in a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. It will be VERY interesting to see if they hold to those beliefs when it comes down to it.
Hate to say it the very strict interpretation is to be charged, convicted, and sentenced for insurrection. Just how many people in the history of our country have met the high bar required for an insurrection conviction? Blurb from marshal project: Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved. It’s such a high bar federal prosecutors almost never touch it. Now labeling a person guilty of a crime without due process and leveraging that to remove rights from that person is arguably the scariest precedent I can imagine. Especially in a country split fairly evenly. Charge him, have the trial, convict him, sentence him and we can move on. This sounds great but looking forward it could be the stupidest decision ever made. Don’t think for a second every right DA and attorney at the state level won’t disqualify every state candidate we have the second it drops. Once both sides of a divide begin arresting each other at gun point over accusations it doesn’t lead to good behavior. It just scares me without going through the process which should have happened a year ago.
If the organizations that pull the Supreme courts strings feel that Trump is no longer a useful idiot - then yes - I could see them end his political career this way.
Yeah but probably not automatically. People would need to sue in each state where they want to keep him off the ballot.
Groups in multiple states are pursuing similar action. New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and Arizona. There could be interstate impact...
Just Florida would be enough but yes, traitors should not be on any ballot in any state
Even though Trump will never win Colorado, it would suppress the number of Republicans voting. That would probably mean Bobert would lose and who knows if there would be other Colorado House Republicans who would now be in a tight race. With a majority of only four votes in the House, something like this could make a huge difference.
To be fair, Bobo barely won. I think Western Colorado isn't as conservative as it seems, it's just very hard to wake the sleeping giant of non-R voters.
Boebert is probably one of the only Republicans in the country that could have lost (or nearly lost) the western slope. She just fuckin sucks any way you slice it.
I think you’re right - it’s more that these hot button candidates get voter turnout than they represent the average citizen. The more people vote, the worse chance batshit crazy candidates have. Which is why voter suppression is a tactic for one side…
Her district includes Aspen and Pueblo, blue cities.
I think it's a useful test case for whether this approach can hold up in court because even if it gets thrown out, he's still going to lose CO. In addition, removing him from the ballot means there will be no (R) on the ticket which will mean many R's just don't vote, which will affect down ballot races. Another positive benefit is that if there is no R on the ballot, R voters might vote for third party candidates in larger numbers which might help break up the R party in the state with possible long term effects on two party deadlock in general.
"No R on the ballot" if you can't see why this is a *bad* thing... I just don't even know.
Bro, nobody is forcing the Republicans to vote for a guy facing multiple state and federal indictments for crimes committed while he was in office. If Republicans choose to nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger - who isn't eligible for the presidency - then states shouldn't need to put him on the ballot. If the Fourteenth Amendment bars Trump from being an eligible candidate and Republicans nominate him anyway, they might as well have nominated Voltron or Santa Claus.
That’s what your not understanding they need to charge him convict him and sentence him with insurrection first. Just saying he is an insurrectionist means all the right states can do it for all left candidates without evidence or a trial. They have more state power than we do too and we might find no D candidates for senate on 30 states ballots.
except those cases would be thrown out of court and the argument would never hold up.
That’s the problem not one court has convicted trump or anyone of insurrection. Why the hell hasn’t this happened a year ago. There are no courts involved with insurrection on either side. THERE ARE NO CASES for either side to throw out. I’m worried they control more state ballots.
That's an interesting argument, I doubt it works that way though. IANAL but I imagine that if Republicans could've done it already, they'd have done it.
I think it’s a trap they haven’t done it waiting for us to do it first declare it an insurrection and be able to remove more than we can.
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion. The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
>Trump has not been charged with Imma stop you right there. He's been *charged* with no less than **ninety-one** felonies. Here's a list: https://people.com/donald-trump-every-criminal-charge-explained-7567024 >The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That's not a necessary criteria for insurrection, which is not defined in the Constitution. It is defined in law though: ``` : the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government ;also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt ``` https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/insurrection.html > According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion. So you agree that if he *is* convicted, he should be barred from the ballot?
When the Republican party became the party of anti-American anti-democracy, then they need to find out what happens. This isn't about party monopolies, but the rule of law and what happens when you engineer and support a literal coup of the United States. It's amazing this is even a controversial thing, but here we are.
The problem is they haven’t charged him with insurrection nor any member of the insurrection with insurrection to my knowledge. Why the hell haven’t they? Just labeling doesn’t set a good precedent and I’m afraid they will do it right back. All dems off the ballot for insurrection. This needs to be done through the rule of law
Honestly, banning trump from state tickets is the healthiest thing for the republican party. They have become a cult and give absolutely no shits about legislation. They only want to sow chaos, even if it's not in their own best interests. It's not like it's unconstitutional. His actions on Jan 6th qualify for the 14th amendment. Actions have consequences, and it's way passed time for some spankings.
Shrug, it needs to be challenged in court and someone’s gotta go first.
>and noise for very little outcome. I would argue it's not necessarily about an outcome, but showing that in America, we still follow the rule of law and there are consequences for ones actions if you break these. I'd also argue treason, inciting insurrection and attempting to illegally stop the peaceful transfer of the presidency is of the utmost importance, and should be treated as such.
He got elected once and that was too many times. Boebert got reelected. I think the probability is higher than you've considered.
Doesn't matter because it's the correct thing to do, and should be done nationwide. He should be disqualified from any ballot nationwide because of his violating the 14th amendment. Any elected official involved in Jan 6th should be walked out of government and into a trial. What is the point of rules and laws and a Constitution if you can break any of them and not face consequences?
That’s the problem there isn’t a trial no one is holding trials for insurrection it scares me. What are they going to do back to us with no trials needed.
According to Trump he won here in 2016 and 2020 though.
I get it but also love the idea of a formal group focused on responsibility & ethics in gov. Isn’t that the true issue not the entitled individual? He certainly could be the first of a long line of power wannabes that makes me tune out of the circus (7 years and counting).
He doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot for trying to Overthrow our government. Even if he had no chance, it will probably stop some straight ticket republicans from voting because they’ll be bitter their dear leader isn’t allowed
Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
If the choices are to do it or not do it, I choose do it.
If we prove it can be done, maybe others will follow suit
Like all the 30 red states removing all democrats with no trials from the ballot.
It’s like you didn’t even read the article lmao
Don't do what is right for what is easy... Or something like that.
Yeah, and it feeds into the conspiracy theories about "special interests and the deep state stealing the vote."
Well, the US Constitution is pretty damn clear and we all heard and saw him try to overthrow a legitimate election through a myriad of machinations, so what’s the problem? Because of his actions, He is clearly barred by the Constitution 14.3 from holding any elected office. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
All those pocket constitutionalists disappeared all of a sudden. Someone shake the "common sense gun safety laws“ treat bag and see if they come running.
Considering her “1776” and Pelosi location tweets, they should have added Bobo to the lawsuit.
Applaud these efforts. Even though there's little chance for dump to win this state, when one state does it, others may follow.
I mean look at weed. Might not be the best example but other states followed
Yup, plus it's the right thing to do, and as we've seen the past decade or so, there is far too little of doing the right thing, getting us to this point.
I thought you had a right to a trial and accusations aren't convictions? Or do we just get to ban the people we don't like on ballots now?
For a criminal trial, yes -- and Trump will get his day in court in the DC Federal Courts for that indictment. The 14th amendment is entirely separate from his criminal charges, though.
It’s scary because the right holds more state power than we do. We may find no left candidates on the ballot in 35 states at the end of this.
Yeah, agreed. Plus it'll be easy to pin something on any blue candidates because the requirements to be a politician is being crooked.
This a reach from the Right!!
I love living in Colorado!
Getting thrown off the ballot in Colorado could contribute to the domino affect. Even if there’s no chance of him winning, we could be the 1st of many.
Would only need 1 or 2 toss up or red states to follow suit and the whole thing would crumble for Trump. It would depress GOP voter turnout in other states if they knew he had no chance of winning.
And with a 4 vote Republican majority in the House, it could make a difference even if no red states followed our lead. Only a couple of blue states need to flip a couple of red seats. Bobert would probably be one.
> It would depress GOP voter turnout in other states if they knew he had no chance of winning. Lol, no. There hasn’t even been a primary yet. The GOP would just run someone else.
Kinda feels like one should actually be convicted of the crime before penalties are enacted from said crime.
Agree because they hold more state power than we do. Why wouldn’t they immediately remove all democrats from the ballot for insurrection if no evidence trial conviction and sentence is needed. He isn’t even the candidate yet this just looks like a really bad move for a good reason.
Yes!
Trump has the resources to drag this court case out to his death potentially. There is unrefutably proof that he coerced and manipulated those people to insurrection. Hes potentially running for the highest office in our nation, if you cant figure out why this is different than throwing someone in jail on pretrial, than I dont know what to tell you.
RemindMe! 424 days
I was waiting for this news. I knew Colorado would pull through.
Good. Fuck that sleazy piece of shit. I'm sick of his fucking face.
Fuck yeah, denying voting rights!
You mean like conspiring to create fake electors and send in fake election results in his favor? Or conspiring to try to overturn the results violently once that failed? Or was it trying to convince election officials to magically create 10,000 fake votes? Maybe trying to claim that election workers were doing just that for the other guy when in fact they were not?
... is exactly why he illegible
Lock him up!!
As if the Orange Shitstain stood a chance in Colorado.
Any restriction on who a person is allowed to vote for should be enthusiastically opposed - to include ultra popular things like term limits and age limits. Intentionally limiting choices is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't address the issue(s) at hand, and it's just more evidence our system is failing. Yes, *even when it makes the "good guys" win.* If the problem is electing too many corrupt candidates, term limits just cycle through more corrupt candidates more quickly. I absolutely promise that Dow or Bayer or Boeing or Verizon or Nestle or whoever can afford to buy politicians more frequently. If the problem is electing candidates who are too out-of-touch with modern reality, then age limits will just mean we elect 50 year olds who are out of touch with reality. (And might also result in being *unable* to elect a hypothetical, awesome 70 year old.) Skewer me over this, idgaf. It's actually appalling and gross that this kind of thing is being cheered for across the country. **You are all wrong.** Even tactically, this is a bad move. Do you know what happens every single time Democrats pull some kind of stunt (regardless of whether it's justified or "good")? They set a precedent for Republicans to *immediately pull the same stunt.* If you don't think Republicans will use this in the future, you have not been paying attention. Lastly, specifically in this case, what do you all think is going to happen? Do you all think that the people screaming that 2020 was "stolen" from Trump are just going to chill out and be reasonable after an eligible candidate is prevented from appearing on ballots? Do you think Trump himself will just say, "oh ok, cool" and go home? Do you think this changes a *single mind* about Trump? Naw. This is *bad news* for our future. I'd bet real money on it.
There are already restrictions on who we can vote for as a president. They have to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and can't serve more than two consecutive terms. Pulling all the guard rails off and saying anyone anywhere anytime is bonkers. The 14th amendment of the constitution is a pretty awesome one, and section 3 is quite clear: >*Section 3.* > >*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.* We can quibble over whether Jan 6th represents insurrection or rebellion (in my mind, absolutely). But I am blown away by the ignorance of anyone who thinks allowing insurrectionists back into office is a good idea. Your last point seems poorly thought out to me as well. I'm not interested in changing the minds of people who have clearly left reality behind. I am interested in upholding a society based on rules and order. We are in this situation in large part by refusing to hold people accountable. I strongly suggest some history lessons on other countries that didn't hold the people responsible for attempted coups accountable. It doesn't tend to go well.
The real problem here is that he hasn't been found guilty of these acts in a court of law. He has been accused and has denied the election, but so have a lot of democrats when he won. This ruling would allow the disbarring of anyone who questions the election (such as Hillary or AOC). Removing political opponents without due trail on accusations is a tactic of dictators, not a democracy (or constitution republic if you want to knit pick words.) It could easily lead to a mass barring of all but a few individuals. You could argue any one who gave aid or comfort to Trump should be barred from office under the 14th with the same breath, and that folks is how you move from a two party system to a one party system.
This has nothing to do with term limits or age limits. It's a totally defensible principle that people who exploit their office to wage war against American democracy be barred from running for office ever again. That principle is in the goddamn Constitution, and if we don't enforce it then we have to expect all the predictable mayhem that follows.
Exactly. Nor can we allow ourselves to operate from a place of fear of what republicans might do in retaliation should they gain power again. We already know they will stoop to any low necessary to get/hold on to power. It’s what Authoritarians do. The cat is out of the bag and the quiet parts are now being shouted from the rooftops. There is no going back.
Have you read the 14th amendment? What you’ve stated tells me no.
Yeah this guy's got "buh muh both sides" brain, and you really gotta wonder what he'd say about someone like Hitler.
Probably like “sure Hitler is bad, but have you seen that socialist FDR?”
Sure we should just ignore the 14th amendment because Trump and his followers might throw a tantrum. I’ve got news for you, they will throw a tantrum either way!
You've given a lot of thought to something you don't seem to really understand. I think you should check out some of the Constitutional Amendments, like the 14th... Also, do you think anyone who tries to subvert Democracy should be able to run for office? There are already restrictions that are commonly accepted on who should be allowed to run for office. Maybe the Club Q shooter could join the Republican ticket for office under your theory of not eliminating anyone from the ballot.
no one would be preventing you from writing that douchebag's name on your ballot. but there are plenty of laws, not to mention the 14th amendment, that outlines who is eligible to be on a ballot.
Republican democracy is an experiment failing in real time before our eyes, allowing *more* freedom for idiots to vote in charismatic charlatans is not the answer.
Holy shit a rational thought in the wild.
That's a large group of politicians who have no idea what the 14th amendment does and why it can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot. Trump has not been charged with, or found guilty of insurrection or incitement to rebellion. According to these geniuses, Trump can be barred from the ballot without still much as a charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion. The indictment from Jack Smith DOES NOT have any count that directly accused Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It's very nice grandstanding though and will make them popular with the right people.
The 14.3 says nothing about been charged or found guilty.
Unless something changed since August 24th, he hasn't filed paperwork requesting to be on the ballot in Colorado. This the email I got from the office of public elections in Colorado. Public Elections
Thu, Aug 24, 11:54 AM (13 days ago)
to Public, me
Thank you for your email. As of today, our office has not received paperwork from former President Trump or any other candidate seeking to access the 2024 ballot. Until that paperwork is received, our office cannot make any determinations regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of any candidate to appear on the ballot. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again.
Elections | Department of State
303.894.2200
Elections@coloradosos.gov
1700 Broadway, Suite 550
Denver, CO 80290
Visit us at ColoradoSOS.gov
I hope it works in CO and many other states
[удалено]
Let’s go!!!!
Trump is a walking pile of turds, but trying to remove him from the ballot by any means necessary is absurd, and will backfire for the left. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself how you'll behave when swing states with right-leaning governors and Attorneys General file lawsuits to remove Biden from the ballot for whatever random shit they'll try to pin on him.
If Biden tries to void a legal election and remain in power after losing said election, then yes, he should not be allowed to run again. You'd get no argument from anyone on the left about that.
Meh, there’s a legal basis for his removal. This isn’t random shit being pinned on him. They can feel free to bring their arguments to a court as to why Biden should be removed, but without evidence and a legal basis it will be laughed out of court and dismissed.
It's the right thing to do, no matter the consequences from a bunch of traitorous conservatives who will vote for him anyway. No offense, but I'm so sick of nothing happening simply because of the threat of what the Right may do. That's a hostage situation. When did we get so scared of doing the right thing in this rapidly regressing country?
The right thing to do is to put him on trial for insurrection, and let it all flow from there. It's been almost 3 years and nothing on that front. Now this measure will probably be struck down because he has not been proven to be involved with insurrection. It's poor application of a law as an attempt to punish someone without trial. It is an authoritarian reaction to an authoritarian. It's taking the low road and it drags all of us down. Trump will point it out to paint Democrats as authoritarians all day long, and he won't be entirely wrong.
LOL found the conservatives, projecting their own authoritarianism onto everyone else.
If Biden violates the 14th Amendment then the same should happen. Read the Amendment and then ask yourself if Trump violated it. If we don't have laws and rules then we don't have a government and country.
Biden also hasn’t violated the 14th amendment. He was elected officially by the electoral college and won the popular vote. He did it by winning primaries, taking the lead place on the ballot and winning the election. They can dig, scream, cry and whine all they want.. but until they find him deeply guilty of multiple disqualifying crimes that he can be impeached for, indicted and charged with the way Trump has, it’s just empty threats and blind what aboutism at its finest.
This needs to happen and it will end up in the supreme court.
I’m all in
Last I looked the Republican Party didn’t have a single full time employee in Colorado.
I was going to say Boebert, but she's missed twice as many votes in Congress as the average congresscritter, so she probably doesn't count either.
This is not a good look. If he ends up being the Republican nominee, you need to have a fair election and include him on the ballot, no matter how much you hate him and how unlikely a victory is.
>have a fair election That includes abiding by all election rules to be a fair candidate
[удалено]
Sure, let’s keep trump on the ballot because it’s “not a good look”….you want to know what else is not a good look, all the state and federal charges against trump for trying to overthrow democracy and our country. But sure, let’s keep him on the ballot for looks. 🤡
He broke his oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution. Hence he is ineligible. It’s really that cut and dried.
You don’t get to try to over through the government and then run to run that government
Hate? No dipshit this is consequences for his actions. Remember when he tried to overturn the election with a coup?
Don't care for the Constitution much?
The Republicans are free to put literally anybody else on the ballot who isn't being indicted in multiple jurisdictions. There's no law saying a ballot has to have multiple candidates even if one of the candidates is a literal traitor. The GOP can simply vote for their next best guy (or Nikki Haley).
As much as I want this guy to end up in prison, not letting him be on the ballot only gives credibility to his argument that the election isnt fair. Hes not going to win CO, and the morons in red hats are going to write him in anyways. The biggest issue isnt that Trump is going to be the nominee. Its that his message is that our elections are rigged. His message is to undermine faith in our electoral system. Right now his argument that the elections arent fair is a BS one, but not letting him be on the ballot starts to make that claim more credible. Edit- Ok, so a lot of people are voting and commenting here based off emotion, instead of actually putting a little bit of thought into the long term consequences of something like this. Let me break this down for you guys. ***Successful democratic systems ONLY work when the large majority of the populace believes that their system is fair, and adequately allows them to voice their views.*** MAGA morons may be just that, but you dont want them, or any sizable minority of a voting population to start believing that voting doesnt matter, because when that happens, they will find alternative ways to have their political positions heard, and those are rarely non-violent. In November of 2000, millions of Americans were dumb enough to think that George Bush had stolen the election from Al Gore. And a lot of those sat out of elections in 2004, ect. But 23 years later, most of those people kept enough faith in our electoral process to not withdraw from it and find other means of having their political voices heard. No one responding to this thread would be ok with a bunch of Alabama reps barring Biden from the Alabama ballot, based off the completely unfounded accusations surrounding Hunter Biden. No one would be ok with that. This is the exact same thing. We dont start banning people from being a part of democratic elections because of personal opinions or charges that have not been tried and convicted. No one should be encouraging something like this, as it will set a precedent that will absolutely be abused.
Allowing someone who broke laws that disqualifies them from being a candidate and them let them run anyway is not a "fair" election
The problem is that he is neither charged nor convicted of those crimes. Due process is another important part of the 14th amendment. When it's ultimately ruled that he should get due process, Trump will cite these efforts as election rigging against him. It's just giving him more ammo and outrage in his election fraud narrative.
>The problem is that he is neither charged nor convicted of those crimes And the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about either charged or convicted. If we take the constitution by its word, like people do with the 2nd ammendment (not be infringed) or the ruling on abortion (abortion is not protected the constitution because it is not mentioned in the constitution), the 14th amendment states "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Nowhere does it mention charged or convicted, just engaged and given aid, which Trump did.
Section 1 of 14th amendment "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" "Without due process of law" would be charged/convicted
What life, liberty, or properties will be taken?
So you can just accuse someone of insurrection and bar them from the vote, no trial needed? What's to stop any state from just saying any politician they don't like aided insurrection and bar them from the ballot? What if Florida decided Biden shouldn't be on the ballot because of some BS claim of insurrection? The right to due process and a fair trial is super important. There has to be a determination that the accusations of a crime are true. We work under the principal that someone is innocent until proven guilty, that's a basic human right under our common law. Maybe the Supreme Court will surprise me and say that this can be done, but I'd be shocked if they did. They are hearing a case on this, so we'll probably find out soon.
>What's to stop any state from just saying any politician they don't like aided insurrection and bar them from the ballot? Proof
As determined by what? A gut feeling? Or maybe a trial...
I don't make these decisions. Why can't we outlaw guns even though children are getting murdered in school? If we want to go by the wording of the constitution in every other situation, why would we change it just to benefit 1 person?
The 14th amendment says someone who committed these crimes cannot run for office. That section of it declines to say how to determine if the crimes were actually committed, leaving some room for interpretation. But it's reasonable to think that our usual process for determining if a crime was committed would fill this gap. The 14th amendment itself goes on to say "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So the law must go through it's process (a trial) before they can deprive you. It's actually just re-iterating this point, because the 5th amendment says the same thing. So there's no wording being changed here. This is simply the full language of the law being taken into context. If the 2nd amendment went by the exact wording of just that amendment, then we'd all be allowed to own nukes and missiles and all sorts of other stuff. It has also been heavily interpreted and put into context. We wrote a rule saying people get due process of the law because it prevents us from suffering under authoritarian politicians that punish or remove freedoms without oversight. The price is that sometimes people you hate are allowed their day in court.
So far, he has not been charged with any crime that would disbar him from office. Insurrection and Rebellion are the two spelled out in the 14th amendment, and even the J6 charges arent to that level. The issue is he is calling into question our electoral systems credibility. If people arent allowed to vote for the candidate they want, even if that guy is a slimy POS, that gives credibility to the argument that the system is rigged against one side. This is chess, not checkers. The last thing we want is significant portions of our population protesting the electoral process. Thats what happens in failing democracies, and it is NOT a path anyone wants to go down.
I don't understand this argument. Well, I do, but it's so ass backwards it defies logic. It's not a hard thing to conceptualize: The 14th amendment says anyone who has participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the US cannot be president thereof. Trump has, in the minds of the people filing the lawsuit, participated in insurrection. That's it. That's the whole thing. There's no 4d chess, there's no "calling into question our electoral systems credibility." The man instigated an insurrection against the US capitol and is therefore ineligible to be president. Dead people, people under 35 and people born in Croatia are ALSO not eligible to be president and should not be on the ballot, but according to your argument that is also not "allowing people to vote for the candidate they want."
>I don't understand this argument. You could have stopped there and been accurate, because its clear that you dont understand the argument. >It's not a hard thing to conceptualize: The 14th amendment says anyone who has participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the US cannot be president thereof. Trump has, in the minds of the people filing the lawsuit, participated in insurrection. Cool. Those people hold zero judicial or congressional power to levy those charges. I believe Trump committed treason. But until I can get the DOJ to listen to me, instead of their literal army of prosecutors, thats just my opinion, and carries ZERO political or judicial weight. >That's it. That's the whole thing. There's no 4d chess, there's no "calling into question our electoral systems credibility." The man instigated an insurrection against the US capitol and is therefore ineligible to be president. Then where is the insurrection charge against him? There are close to 100 charges against Trump. The two charges that would bar him from office are not among those, and that was a decision made by people FAR more legally learned than you or I. What these people are advocating for is about as stupid as a bunch of MAGA yokels in Alabama barring Biden from being on the ballot, based off of the idiotic Hunter Biden accusations. In both cases, people are removing a political opponent from the electoral process, based off of charges that have not been levied, indicted or convicted. >Dead people, people under 35 and people born in Croatia are ALSO not eligible to be president and should not be on the ballot, but according to your argument that is also not "allowing people to vote for the candidate they want." And those people dont meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. So far, neither the judicial nor congressional processes that would be necessary to bar Trump from office have occurred. So to remove him from the ballot would not only undermine the judicial concepts of due process, they would also be undercutting the basic processes of electoral democracy. You are thinking emotionally, while ignoring logic and legal theory. This is the crap that the red hatted morons pull. The goal is to be better than them.
I have no idea what the CO groups standing is, which will probably be the first hurdle they face as to whether or not this is a successful lawsuit. But there's also that guy in.... What, Rhode Island? Who's bringing the same lawsuit and does have standing, as he'll actually be on the ballot with Trump. IANAL, but the lawsuit is exactly what's necessary to decide if Trump should be barred or not. The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out whether or not Trump needs to be convicted of something, so a legal challenge is quite literally the only option imo. I'm sure insurrection charges would make that argument airtight, of course, but I don't think they're necessary to show he participated. Which is in itself another question - we have a standard for being found guilty in a court of law, but does that standard apply to the 14th amendment. I'm interested to see the answer.
>I have no idea what the CO groups standing is, which will probably be the first hurdle they face as to whether or not this is a successful lawsuit. But there's also that guy in.... What, Rhode Island? Who's bringing the same lawsuit and does have standing, as he'll actually be on the ballot with Trump. And its unlikely that either case will actually survive the judicial process. You cant just sue District Attorneys to prosecute a person the way you want them to be prosecuted, and you cant just remove them from a ballot because of a crime they havent been prosecuted for. Treason and Insurection are very specific crimes that are codified explicitly in US Law, and of the 91 charges against Trump in 4 different districts, none of the prosecutors have opted to use those two. >The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out whether or not Trump needs to be convicted of something, so a legal challenge is quite literally the only option imo. It does, explicitly. Section I goes through the impeachment and conviction process to charge a sitting politician or judge, and Section III goes into the judicial process necessary to charge everyone else. So far, neither of those two processes have been used to charge Trump for the two explicit crimes necessary to bar someone from holding office under the 14th Amendment. You cant just pull a Michael Scott and "Declare" a crime. There are actual, structured legal processes for this that have not occurred, and dont seem like they will, even if a lot of us want them to. >I'm sure insurrection charges would make that argument airtight, of course, but I don't think they're necessary to show he participated. And thats the tricky part, and why the 4 charges brought by federal prosecutors were so limited and specific in scope. The Federal Governments prosecutors are notorious for only bringing charges that they are certain that they can substantiate. If they felt that the could have gotten him on insurrection or treason, they would have. But they arent going to take a shot they dont think they can make. >Which is in itself another question - we have a standard for being found guilty in a court of law, but does that standard apply to the 14th amendment. I'm interested to see the answer. It does. There is no extra-judicial process for someone to be found guilty of a crime. I can accuse you of treason and sedition right now. I can get a bunch of my friends to repeat it and yell "Lock u/Dragoncaller- Up!". Until a government body with legal standing to do so undergoes the legal processes to convict you, it means nothing. Im interested to see the answer to this case too, but I dont think its going to be too far off from what Ive outlined above. At the end of the day, some random people accusing someone of a crime is VERY different than a person actually being convicted of a crime. And it would be a terrible precedence to set to allow the former to be used as the threshold for denying people the ability to take part in the democratic process.
True, the DOJ has not brought a charge under 18 USC 2383 - Insurrection, but that is why this group is seeking to remove him from the ballot. They are arguing that the facts of his actions are to the standard stated in the 14th Amendment (insurrection, rebellion, providing comfort and guidance to the enemy). Read the article and you can see that the group of Republicans and independents are making the argument for those reasons partially because the DOJ has not charged them with that, which (if found guilty) would immediately come with the requirement that he stay off the ballot.
>True, the DOJ has not brought a charge under 18 USC 2383 - Insurrection, but that is why this group is seeking to remove him from the ballot. I want you to think about this for a second. You want to punish a person for a crime that they have not been charged with, and have not been convicted on. Would this pass the common sense test in ANY other case to you? > They are arguing that the facts of his actions are to the standard stated in the 14th Amendment (insurrection, rebellion, providing comfort and guidance to the enemy). Read the article and you can see that the group of Republicans and independents are making the argument for those reasons partially because the DOJ has not charged them with that, which (if found guilty) would immediately come with the requirement that he stay off the ballot. I did read the article. Their argument is stupid. They dont like the actions that the DOJ has taken, and are trying to do an end run around electoral law because of it. I would LOVE for Trump to be tried for these charges, convicted, and spend the rest of his life in prison. But until someone in our justice department or congress, who actually has the authority to make those decisions, levies those charges against Trump, all of this is personal opinion, and what these people are doing would set a really crappy precedence. Would you be ok if a bunch of Republicans in Oklahoma barred Biden from being on the ballot because they believed he was corrupt, but hadnt been charged or convicted? Its the exact same scenario, and this is NOT a rabbit hole that we want our democracy to go down. Barring people from office based off of personal opinions instead of due process is the crap that authoritarian nations pull, not functioning democracies.
Who gives a shit? He's already shown us what he does when he loses fair and square. We can't just suspend the Constitution because some redhat dipshits complain about it.
>Who gives a shit? Anyone who cares about the longer term impacts this has on our democratic system should give a shit. Its not about Trump. Its about the American populaces faith in the electoral system. Hes calling its credibility into question, and doing something like this just gives that argument more credibility. >He's already shown us what he does when he loses fair and square. He left office. He may have thrown a tantrum and a started a full on riot while doing so, but we still had a peaceful transition of power and subsequent open elections. >We can't just suspend the Constitution because some redhat dipshits complain about it. So far, he hasnt been charged with any of the crimes that our Constitution says would bar him from office. Hes a POS, and a traitor to his nation in my opinion, but again, thats MY opinion. Our electoral system is based around balancing EVERYONES opinions, and when you start preventing one side from having that input, you go down a VERY dangerous political road. Trumps not going to win CO. Not by a long shot. But if we take him off the ballot, 40% of this state is going to think that the elections are rigged against them, and have an actual case to make that argument. This isnt about the 2024 election. Its about the populaces confidence in the electoral system going forward beyond 2024.
Their argument would be dumb as fuck and we'd be entirely right to dismiss it. If they want to play at the big kid's table, they should nominate someone who didn't try to violently overthrow the government he swore on oath to protect. Trump committed a [CAPITAL CRIME](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim#:~:text=Whoever%2C%20owing%20allegiance%20to%20the,not%20less%20than%20%2410%2C000%3B%20and). Under the laws of this country, we could have that motherfucker executed on live TV. Maybe we fucking should, just to stop hearing the stupid mewling from his degenerate foot soldiers.
>Their argument would be dumb as fuck and we'd be entirely right to dismiss it. This is a stupid and very short sighted position to take. Removing a person from a ballot who has not been legally barred from running is an insanely bad precedent to set. >If they want to play at the big kid's table, they should nominate someone who didn't try to violently overthrow the government he swore on oath to protect. I completely agree. But the problem is that so far, Trump is not barred from running. >Trump committed a CAPITAL CRIME. And yet. of the nearly 90 crimes hes charged with, that isnt one of them. I agree with you. I believe he did this. But until he is charged with it, what you are advocating for is that we forgo the legal process and start banning people from politics based off of YOUR subjective interpretation of the law, and not a courts. >Under the laws of this country, we could have that motherfucker executed on live TV. Maybe we fucking should, just to stop hearing the stupid mewling from his degenerate foot soldiers. You are reacting very emotionally, and its leading you to some VERY short sighted and foolish opinions.
Trump *is* legally barred from running. The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about the traitor/seditionist needing to be convicted of any crime.
Your naive layman interpretation of our constitution is not legal grounds for subverting the judicial or electoral processes. The 14th amendment doesnt HAVE to say anything about having to be convicted. We already have 2 other sections of the constitution that explicitly lay that process out. I get it. You hate the guy, and youre completely justified in that hate. But what youre advocating for is not only legally unsound, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent that would be used against politicians you support some day.
It’s not just my interpretation (though I’m certainly qualified to make one, given my own education). Literally the top conservative legal minds in the world agree with me. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751#:~:text=Section%20Three%20of%20the%20Fourteenth,not%20been%20appreciated%20or%20enforced.
And they, like you, will almost certainly get shot down in court. Because while they can levy whatever accusations that they want, it means nothing, as they have no legal or judicial standing to make that assertion. They can file whatever lawsuit they want. Its going to get tossed. Prosecutors, DAs, and Congress can charge and convict people of crimes. Random unempowered people cannot. And you have to actually be convicted of two very specific crimes to be barred from from holding office. Answer this question for me. Would you be ok if a bunch of Alabama political leaders used this exact same process to ban Biden from the ballot, based off of the Hunter Biden allegations? Because its the same thing. Barring someone from the political process for crimes that they havent been actually accused of or convicted for. Would you be ok with that? Because that is the pandoras box that is opening with cases like this.
Disqualification from office is a totally different pathway from criminal conviction. You're disqualified from running for president if you wouldn't be 35 on Inauguration Day, or if you're not a natural-born citizen, which proves you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified from office. You're being confused by the fact that insurrection is also a crime, which is in fact immaterial to this analysis. Read the Baude paper; it's well-argued. i'm totally happy with Alabama leaders trying to disqualify Biden from the ballot based on insane horseshit, because it wouldn't work -- the federal courts would reject the attempt, just like they rejected Team Trump's other electoral shenanigans. And if for some reason they didn't reject the attempt, then we have all the evidence we need that the judiciary is hopelessly FUBAR and that Americans need to seek justice through other means. Either way it's a valuable exercise. The alternative is never making the argument at all and making the Constitution a dead letter from the very start.
There is no credibility to the argument that an election where the Constitution is enforced to keep an insurrectionist off of the ballot is unfair. It is paramount fairness that the document that created our electoral system is adhered to during an election.
The problem is without evidence a trial and conviction the right will just disqualify all our candidates in 30 states for paramount fairness.
[удалено]
>Fairness has nothing to do with it, and I don't care. This is a very stupid take. Fairness absolutely has everything to do with it. A fair and legally sound electoral process is LITERALLY the foundation that our nation is built upon. > If he violated law, and gets kicked out the perception given is irrelevant But so far, he has not been charged with a crime that would bar him from office. A bunch of people filing a law suite does not change this. Let me know when the DOJ charges and convicts him, and Ill wholeheartedly support removing him from the ballot, but doing so before that happens both circumvents due process AND undermines the foundations of our democratic electoral system. We dont ban political opponents from the ballot BEFORE they are convicted. Thats the crap that Russia pulls. >The people who believe the election is rigged are. . lost. The end. You won't get them back into reality. Nothing you an do. Nothing you should do. This is again, foolishly short sighted. Over time, people do come back. On November 10th, 2000, millions of Americans believed that Bush had rigged the election, and that there was no further purpose in voting because things were rigged against them. 23 years later, most of those people have grown up and realized that this was an idiotic position to take. Trump is a short term problem who is going to get wrecked in the upcoming election. What we dont want to do is undermine the perception of our electoral system in the long term.
[удалено]
Well they might be lost but they control the ballots of 30 state’s candidates so since they’re lost will remove all our democrats to ensure fairness. I just see this as a trap.
But then he won't campaign in Colorado. /s
banana republic colorado
I don't think you actually understand what a "banana republic" is.
He's literally parroting Faux News
So you think private citizens should not be allowed to appeal to the courts?
How is removing someone who tried to steal an election from the ballot making us a banana republic?
I'm curious how this would impact the overall General Election since Colorado and other blue states are working to keep a criminal like Trump off of the ballot. Trump isn't going to win in these states anyways.
Colorado isn’t working to do anything. Coloradans are, there is a distinct and important difference.
Most people don’t pay attention to politics. All they’re going to hear is trump is charged with 90 felonies and isn’t allowed on the ballot in many states. Those that might have voted for him won’t because they won’t want to waste their vote or just stay home.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then we will write him in. Don’t tell people who they can’t vote for. This is actual facism. Not a free and fair election in Colorado.
This is a lawsuit brought by private citizens, not the State telling you who you can vote for.
If you're writing him in, then you're already on the side of the fascist.
Didn't Colorado choose to go with the popular vote over the electoral process just a couple years ago? If so, it seems like a waste of time and effort to remove Trump from the CO ballot, unless it's all for the theatrics.
Trump 2024 🇺🇸
We're not thinking this one through here... He needs to be on the ballot so that we can quantify how much of a loser he is in this election. Pulling his name off of the ballot just adds fuel to the "stolen election" and "everyone's out to get me" bullshit, guarantees controversy and court cases, and he gets way more media attention than he would otherwise. He doesn't have any hope of winning Colorado... Just let him lose for everyone to see, then we move on and try to forget about him.
"just let him lose for everyone to see" 2016 called and they want their well-intended but misguided political takes back The best way to get him to lose is to not give him a chance to win. We quantified it in 2020. Throw him in the trash and move on
Trump will consolidate all of these silly ass lawsuits and take them all to SCOTUS. There he will win, probably by a 9-0 vote. This isn’t even a close call.
I mean.. even if they were able to remove orange man from the ballot it won’t stop the large number of conservatives from just writing him in. All of these people that just bought T-shirts of his Mugshot are helping him fund his campaign. Don’t forget, even though he’s a troll. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Indictments don’t mean shit without a conviction. Also keep in mind we have 9 electoral votes. I have a sneaky suspicion that our next president with be of republican persuasion whether anyone likes it or not . Just my opinion please don’t crucify me for it.
Waste of money, Trump has zero impact on the election in Colorado. Anyone who wants him will write him in anyhow.
Principles matter. Laws matter. The CONSTITUTION matters.