States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[MT15]

I'm not scrambling, but I can tell you are excited.

Grim was being sarcastic by mocking people who support this move while also saying it's to protect democracy.

No, you actually cannot tell anything about me at all. Do not assume that you can.

Please expand on this: exactly how does the statement ‘democracy is on the line. Now is not the time for voting’ express sarcasm? He didn’t say anything more than that one line. That is the exact total of his statement. Why did you think it needed to be included?

 

[SaintForLife]

Michael Tracey seems to think it’s a great argument that Trump didn’t commit insurrection because he has not yet been charged with it. So does that mean I can rob a bank, yet if I don’t get charged with robbing the bank it didn’t really happen?

It‘s a nonsensical argument. We all saw what happened and we are finding out what Trump and his fellow criminals did or did not do. Nobody should ever listen to Michael Tracey.

It wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot. We can see that by the videos that have been released recently. The January 6th committee wanted the public to think it was violence the entire time where in reality it was violent for a small portion. I know if anyone mentions that yall get upset and claim I'm supporting the violence.

I don't agree with his commentary. I'm posting it to show how parts of the supposed insurrection didn't look like one at all.





I just recently saw some videos that showed the Capitol Police firing tear gas and I believe rubber bullets into the crowd that was calm and nonviolent. Why would they do that to people who were gathered peacefully? It seems like they were trying to anger the crowd and get a reaction.

 

[SaintForLife]

Once again you are twisting words. I said the originalists on the Supreme Court will have a hard time with this case. That’s because it is applying an Amendment as it was meant to be applied. Plus it checks the states’ rights box that they love so much.

They may well overturn this decision, but doing so has the risk that it will expose them for not actually believing in their own ideology and just being totally political actors.

This case will be a challenge for them.

That sounds like something Andrew Weissmann would say.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm aware that Jack Smith doesn't have anything to do with Trump's ballot eligibility. My question to you is if he clearly incited or participated in an insurrection as the left claims, why wouldnt Jack Smith charge him with that. I'm guessing he wouldn't be able to prove it.

Another fair argument is that it was a riot and not an insurrection.

What do you think about the judges opinion that the Colorado Supreme Court overturned?

Those charges have their own elements beyond the mere participating in insurrection so you can’t presume they’re exactly the same - and yes, a prosecutor has to think about proof beyond a reasonable doubt on criminal conviction principles. Section 3 ineligibility isn’t a criminal conviction.

The “office” question is interesting and the lower court’s rationale appears solid but as I said before, it’s really impossible to try to weigh in on these finer legal points without reading the arguments and authorities. It certainly could be that simple and SCOTUS holds similarly. But there’s obviously a differing opinion that the higher court took.

 

[superchuck500]

It wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot. We can see that by the videos that have been released recently. The January 6th committee wanted the public to think it was violence the entire time where in reality it was violent for a small portion. I know if anyone mentions that yall get upset and claim I'm supporting the violence.

I don't agree with his commentary. I'm posting it to show how parts of the supposed insurrection didn't look like one at all.





I just recently saw some videos that showed the Capitol Police firing tear gas and I believe rubber bullets into the crowd that was calm and nonviolent. Why would they do that to people who were gathered peacefully? It seems like they were trying to anger the crowd and get a reaction.

Riot is a generic term. What’s the difference between a riot and an insurrection if the point of the riot is to use violence and threat of violence to disrupt or even overturn the constitutional process for concluding a presidential election and establishing the next president by electoral vote?

The purpose of the riot matters. That’s like saying “it wasn’t an assassination attempt, that was just a guy shooting a gun at the man who happened to be president.”

 

[SaintForLife]

No, you actually cannot tell anything about me at all. Do not assume that you can.

Please expand on this: exactly how does the statement ‘democracy is on the line. Now is not the time for voting’ express sarcasm? He didn’t say anything more than that one line. That is the exact total of his statement. Why did you think it needed to be included?

How can I expand on it? There isn't much more to it than what I said and I agree with the tweet.

 

[MT15]

How can I expand on it? There isn't much more to it than what I said and I agree with the tweet.

You agree with this: “Democracy is on the line. Now is not the time for voting.”?

what is it the time for doing then?

 

[MT15]

That sounds like something Andrew Weissmann would say.

So?

 

[MT15]

The purpose of the riot matters. That’s like saying “it wasn’t an assassination attempt, that was just a guy shooting a gun at the man who happened to be president.”

Can we write this across the sky in 60 foot tall letters? lol

Also, how facile is the argument that “it wasn’t violent all the time, so it couldn’t be an insurrection”?
I mean what is that even supposed to prove? It wasn’t violent until it was. So?

Also, a riot implies a certain spontaneity, at least to me. If you come to DC armed, and with a plan to interrupt the electoral vote count, that isn’t a riot. It’s an insurrection.

 

[efil4]

Can we write this across the sky in 60 foot tall letters? lol

He completely ignores the whole reason the crowd was at the Capitol in the first place.

 

[MT15]

Evidently the dissents in the CO SC ruling weren‘t taking issue with the fact that Trump engaged in an Insurrection. They were focused on other matters.

 

[SaintForLife]

So?

Was it him?

 

[SaintForLife]

Riot is a generic term. What’s the difference between a riot and an insurrection if the point of the riot is to use violence and threat of violence to disrupt or even overturn the constitutional process for concluding a presidential election and establishing the next president by electoral vote?

The purpose of the riot matters. That’s like saying “it wasn’t an assassination attempt, that was just a guy shooting a gun at the man who happened to be president.”

It's hard to take that argument seriously when people claim that the BLM riot when they tried to take over the federal courthouse wasn't an insurrection. I don't think it was an insurrection or January 6th. But according to the logic the left uses then the BLM riots trying to take over the federal courthouse would be an insurrection.

What do you think about the videos that have been released recently that showed the Capital Police firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the peaceful crowd that was gathered in front of the Capital. It seems like they were trying to provoke a reaction.

Do the police usually open doors and lead the insurrectionists through buildings like the videos I showed above?

 

[SaintForLife]

You agree with this: “Democracy is on the line. Now is not the time for voting.”?

what is it the time for doing then?

No I don't agree that democracy is on the line. He said that because he's mocking Democrats that claim democracy is on the line while supporting authoritarian measures like removing a presidential candidate from the ballot.

 

[J-DONK]

It's hard to take that argument seriously when people claim that the BLM riot when they tried to take over the federal courthouse wasn't an insurrection. I don't think it was an insurrection or January 6th. But according to the logic the left uses then the BLM riots trying to take over the federal courthouse would be an insurrection.

What do you think about the videos that have been released recently that showed the Capital Police firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the peaceful crowd that was gathered in front of the Capital. It seems like they were trying to provoke a reaction.

Do the police usually open doors and lead the insurrectionists through buildings like the videos I showed above?

WP did a huge contrast of both protest. I don't know what to say about your use of the logic of "The cops wouldn't have hit you if you weren't doing wrong."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2021/blm-protest-capitol-riot-police-comparison/

 

[SaintForLife]

WP did a huge contrast of both protest. I don't know what to say about your use of the logic of "The cops wouldn't have hit you if you weren't doing wrong."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2021/blm-protest-capitol-riot-police-comparison/

Oh the Washington Post? You might have well have posted a DNC press release since there isn't much difference.

Here are a few examples of why I don't trust the Washington Post:

Media Tracker

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

also don't forget the fake electors. that shouldn't be left out of the insurrection, it definitely is part of it, it can't be ignored.

 

[MT15]

Was it him?

No, those were my thoughts. I haven’t heard him talk about it.