Trump Kicked Off Colorado’s 2024 Ballot Under 14th Amendment

[Polds4OSU]

I don't have any idea how he would rule.

I haven't done a deep dive into the ruling.

There are lot's of conceivable defense or objections that would be available because there is so little case law interpreting Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

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.

1. The position of President doesn't hold "an office" by arguing that those terms apply only to appointed persons not elected officials. That may have some validity because they specifically enumerate Senator or Representative in Congress distinct and separate from the "office language".

2. That someone other than the Colorado Supreme Court gets to decide the "insurrection issue" and someone accused of insurrection has his Due Process rights violated without a full blown trial proving insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. That because Congress can remove such disability, that it impliedly is the only one that determine that such disability exists.

4. That this is a non-judiciable "political question" to be left up to the "people" instead of the courts....a very rare, but not unheard of ruling of the courts.

5. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of as well.

 

[CowboyJD]

View attachment 2855

I really DNGAF(lip) to argue with random twitter posts.

I was respectfully asked a question by a poster and I answered.

All I'll say about this is that inconsistent legal arguments in different cases by the same party in both or arguments in the alternative are very common and not at all unusual or significant.

 

[Donnyboy]

2. That someone other than the Colorado Supreme Court gets to decide the "insurrection issue" and someone accused of insurrection has his Due Process rights violated without a full blown trial proving insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.

My very liberal lawyer friend that would love nothing more than to see the worst for Trump said he doesn't think it will stand due to this.....

He is pretty rabbit hole-ish and went into this at a level my shadetree pontificator knowledge as opposed to actual legal counsel knowledge didn't fully understand but thought that alone would get it changed.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

My very liberal lawyer friend that would love nothing more than to see the worst for Trump said he doesn't think it will stand due to this.....

He is pretty rabbit hole-ish and went into this at a level my shadetree pontificator knowledge as opposed to actual legal counsel knowledge didn't fully understand but thought that alone would get it changed.

"Shadetree Pontificator" <- new insult for me to try.

 

[CowboyJD]

My very liberal lawyer friend that would love nothing more than to see the worst for Trump said he doesn't think it will stand due to this.....

He is pretty rabbit hole-ish and went into this at a level my shadetree pontificator knowledge as opposed to actual legal counsel knowledge didn't fully understand but thought that alone would get it changed.

The truth is there is essentially zero legal precedent to base any legal predictions on.

That’s one of the things that makes it interesting to me. A potentially huge constitutional issue which has never really been ruled upon even by analogy with some other provision. It’s wide open to what might happen.

 

[PF5]

Crazies gonna crazy!

Violent online rhetoric heats up after Colorado ballot ruling on Trump npr

Violent rhetoric is up in some online spaces where supporters of former President Donald Trump are reacting to news that he is ineligible to appear on Colorado's primary ballot.

Personal information, including phone numbers and addresses, of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled against Trump are circulating on some far-right platforms. So, too, are calls for his base to take up arms.

"We saw trending the terms 'insurrection' and 'civil war' really within hours of the Colorado decision," said Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit public interest research group based in Washington, D.C.

To extremism researchers who monitor online spaces for indications of planned violence, the uptick is not surprising. Since Trump left the White House and as he has come under greater legal pressure relating to his personal businesses and the events of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, these spikes have become somewhat predictable and more frequent.

"Each incident, each indictment of former President Trump, every negative development that's related to him, every time even something happens with President Biden or the Democratic Party, where people think that the Bidens have gotten away with it, has contributed to this environment [where his supporters think] that the current government is out to get supporters of Trump," said Katherine Keneally, who heads threat analysis and prevention at the nonprofit Institute for Strategic Dialogue-U.S., which monitors the threat landscape online.

Keneally said the most incendiary posts were found on alt-tech platforms such as Gab, Truth Social and Patriots.win. But Jones said it was also worth noting that some of the chatter bled onto X, formerly known as Twitter.

"We're seeing the normalization of violent rhetoric, the dehumanization, this idea that democracy is broken," he said.

Both experts said that they have, so far, not seen anything online to suggest a credible or imminent threat. But they said that in an environment where an increasing proportion of Americans believe violence may be warranted to save the country, vigilance is still needed. As an example, they cited the case of a man who attacked an FBI field office in Cincinnati after the FBI executed a search warrant at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

And even separate from the concern over violence, there is also growing alarm that the normalization of threats, harassment and vitriolic attacks may be eroding American democracy.

"One of the goals of this type of inciting rhetoric or encouraging or even allowing dangerous speech to flourish is that you can make people feel less comfortable participating in day-to-day democracy," said Shannon Hiller, executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University. "The proliferation of violent rhetoric like this and the unwillingness of leaders to condemn it can create that chilling effect."