Can Trump be on State ballots?

[c.d.]

The fact that the Hearings were public is completely irrelevant. They were hearings not a court of law. There was no cross examination of witnesses. The Committee had absolutely zero authority to bring charges against anyone let alone put anyone in prison.

"The facts are these: Trump, by every single definition committed crimes that by any legal definition amount to insurrection."

Uh no. How did you determine this? Doesn't this require a court of law to make that determination?

And no, the act has not been proven. Don't let you hatred of Trump (which I share) blind you on this.

c.d.

[Ally]

No it doesn't require a court of law, it requires a court of common sense. If the founding fathers required a CONVICTION in a court of law, they would have said that a conviction was required. They did not. What they said was, because most Confederates, who were guilty of insurrection were not going to be tried and imprisoned for their crimes, but allowed to return back to their homes, they put into place an amendment to the actual constitution that said anyone who had participated in an insurrection (not convicted of insurrection) but merely the ACT itself, barred one from office.

You may not like it. But that is the law of the land. And the fact is, every single person who has been tried of the January 6th, has been convicted. Once again, the fact that Republicans have ballsacks smaller than your average gnat and won't do their duty is the failing of their party and proof of their general anti-American stances. They put their own selfish self-interest above actual Democracy.

The act has been proven. We aren't talking about going to jail. If I see someone do something with my own eyes and everyone in the world sees it, then it's a fact. You can deny it, lots of people do, but it doesn't change the fact. People deny the earth is round. Doesn't change the fact.

Once again: The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction in a court of law. If they wanted that, then they'd have tried the people they were barring from office. They didn't. They wrote an amendment that said "The act" alone. That's the law. There's a lot of laws I don't agree with. Doesn't change the fact that that's the law. A conviction is not required.

This is not about my "hatred" of Trump. This is about the LAW. And the law, once again, does. not. require. a. conviction. in. a. court. of. law.

[rjpalmer]

If you take Trump off of the ballot because of unproven (as in a court of law) allegations then ANY candidate can be taken off the ballot for unproven allegations.

Isn't that a little bit alarmist? The relevant section of the 14th Amendment only applies to previously elected officials who broke the oath of office by engaging in insurrection. It can't be applied to anyone for any reason.

And since it's the law, might it be a "slippery slope" NOT to enforce the law? Not enforcing laws leads to lawlessness.

Where I would agree is that the law (ie., the amendment) is vague, so it is likely to land in the Supreme Court, which last I checked, has several members who were heavily funded by the Federalist Society, and have the goodies and loan forgiveness history to prove it.

[c.d.]

"The relevant section of the 14th Amendment only applies to previously elected officials who broke the oath of office by engaging in insurrection. It can't be applied to anyone for any reason."

Yes, that is what I meant. I should have been clearer. Now the question becomes how do you go about proving that someone engaged in insurrection? Is a mere allegation sufficient?

c.d.

[Ally]

"A mere allegation" backed up by recorded phone calls, emails, the person's own tweets and words, and the eye-witness accounts of everyone who was there that day. One person making a random accusation is evidence of nothing. Dozens of written communications, recorded phone calls and eye witness accounts however seem to be, in my mind, enough. But I am not going to decide. A judge will.

A trial by jury isn't necessary for all things. Sometimes, a judge hears the evidence, weighs the preponderance of the evidence, and a judge decides. In dozens of cases throughout the country on any given day, judges, not juries are deciding on injunctions, TROs, and a thousand other "civil restrictions". This is what will happen here. A Judge, who is versed in law, and the evaluation of evidence, will decide. This is not illegal, or unusual.

[c.d.]

Yes, I agree. My objection had to do with taking Trump off of the ballot without benefit of a trial or a determination by a judge. "Common sense" or mere opinion is not sufficient to do so. To me, that can only lead to a whole hell of a lot of problems down the road.

So it appears we are in agreement. Cool. We can let it go and move on to other things.

c.d.

[Ally]

Well... I mean this entire thread started as a discussion about the court case and the judge who is set to rule on the proceedings. It's not like I was ever advocating that I personally would be going around the states and erasing his name from the ballots with my trusty number 2 pencil.

And to be clear, I have no actual hopes that any judge will ACTUALLY do it. Judges tend to not want to shoot their heads above the parapet in this manner. The overriding factor in preventing justice from being served is as always, the intellectual and intestinal fortitude of humans rarely stands the challenge of being persuaded against its own selfish best interests in the short-term, even if the long-term costs are staggering.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have never operated under the delusion that America was a country of law, truth, justice, etc

Nor is any other country in its entirety and so it's a matter of degree.

Once over, the United States was built upon solid principles.

There is a reason why the average American was better fed, better educated, healthier and more involved in the democratic process than the average European, for centuries.

These days, you've become just another European nation thinking you're justified in waltzing into other people's countries and poking your nose where it's not wanted (and stealing their resources).

Once upon a time, the United States was viewed as the next step in human freedom, certainly by sections of society here in England, and while not all men were equal; on the whole it certainly was a progressive and refreshing concept.

Blame what you're seeing today on Alexander McQueen and associates (1970s).

'No reason to be cynical about your own country given it has a history to compare favourably with most other countries, but from an outsider looking in: you've lost your way since the 1970s and Donald Trump is not the reason for that.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

There is a reason why the average American was better fed, better educated, healthier and more involved in the democratic process than the average European, for centuries.

Hi Fleetwood,

Apologies if I'm quoting you out of context here, perhaps I've got the wrong end of your stick, but...

For centuries? The USA is relatively young, and in those years from independence to say, about the 60's, a huge demographic wasn't better fed, educated or involved in the democratic process at all. Not were they ahead of the curve compared to their European counterparts. The not insignificant populace of women, indigenous and black people in those centuries might disagree. The not insignificant populace of poor people might disagree now, the ones denied basic medical care based on wealth and value. Education isn't free, as it once was in the UK and still is in much of Europe. Who is the 'average American ' you state in those forgone centuries? Many, many Americans had it good, particularly in the post WWII period, where prosperity was booming. Was it the 'average American' though? How many were denied food, education and representation? How many are still denied it now?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

Apologies if I'm quoting you out of context here, perhaps I've got the wrong end of your stick, but...

For centuries? The USA is relatively young, and in those years from independence to say, about the 60's, a huge demographic wasn't better fed, educated or involved in the democratic process at all. Not were they ahead of the curve compared to their European counterparts. The not insignificant populace of women, indigenous and black people in those centuries might disagree. The not insignificant populace of poor people might disagree now, the ones denied basic medical care based on wealth and value. Education isn't free, as it once was in the UK and still is in much of Europe. Who is the 'average American ' you state in those forgone centuries? Many, many Americans had it good, particularly in the post WWII period, where prosperity was booming. Was it the 'average American' though? How many were denied food, education and representation? How many are still denied it now?

I don't think you have the wrong end of the stick.

I suppose your average American is the every day person not in a position of power.

When I said 'for centuries', 250 years or so is a long time, and the average American was better fed, better educated, healthier and more involved in the democratic process during that period. It is demonstrable.

They had a better system which was more inclusive, and, aye, you can point to 'not all men' but it was a more inclusive society for the vast majority, certainly better than elitist Western European nations who fought tooth and nail to intercept any redistribution of wealth and power.

In the event you think 'they weren't ahead of the curve', then you're entirely wrong and haven't read about the history of the United States.

[Pcdunn]

Here's the verdict:

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/court-finds-trump-incited-insurrection-but-rejects-disqualification-from-co-ballot

Yep, he sure did incite insurrection.

Nope, he's not covered by the law against Confedrate loyalists, and may appear on our 2024 ballots in Colorado.

That's three for three fails to get him off the presidential ballot. Win some, lose some.

[Svensson]

My gut tells me that someone can not be removed from the ballot until there is a process that has adjudicated the evidence, not an opinion. In this case, there were two questions:

1. Did Trump participate in an insurrection (or even instigate it as some people say).
2. Does the 14th Amendment apply to Trump being removed from the presidential ballot?

it seems to me, that the judge took the easy way out. By stating that the 14th does not apply to the presidential ballot, question number one becomes a moot point.

To look at it the other way round, this case was not about IF Trump was an inssurectionist. There are other cases that are working their way through the system that will determine that with thier own sets of evidence, witnesses and a defense specifically for that charge. Therefore, the judge could not under any circumstance answer question number one.

However, the judge decided Q2 on the fact that (I am led to believe) that the president is not an elected "officer of the united states". At this point, I am usually bewildered at the insistence to take a 250 year old document (in the case of this amendenment, 150 year old document) to be taken at face value. The Judge let Trump get off on a technicality in that the "officer of the united states" is not neccesarily the president. It would appear to me that this is a semantic interpretation of a 1865 text in the year 2023 and the original interpretation could hve been different. I believe that in 1865, they full well meant ANY office including the president as it makes no sense to create a carve-out for the presidency. Why bar an insurrectionist from running for mayor of Mountain Home but at the same time allow him to run for president? It makes no sense. And it's not like we can go back to 1865 in a time machine to ask the legislators that their exact definition of "officer of the united states" was at the time.

But yes. Let him get convicted in the DC case brought by Jack Smith and then the case to have him removed will be a lot stronger.

But ultimately, I think that there will be too many Republicans who view the fact that he is a convicted fellon to declare open season on him by next April/May. The circus happening right now is nothing compared to what will happen next summer I'm afraid...

[Pcdunn]

Well, well... I was startled to learn today that my state, Colorado, has handed down a State Supreme Court ruling that ex-Presodent Trump is DISQUALIFIED from appearing on the 2024 ballot in Colorado. The court stated the 14th Amendment barred him due to his part in the January 6th 2020 insurrection.

Of course, this only applies in our stubborn Western state, and will certainly be appealed. But, we're not the only state forming similar objections and taking them to *their* supreme courts.

Heard on the CBS national news that at least 25 states are also making this objection on behalf of their ballots. Imagine if his lawyers must battle one by one, while Trump's trial on the January 6th insurrection opens in March 2024.

[Lewis C]

Well, well... I was startled to learn today that my state, Colorado, has handed down a State Supreme Court ruling that ex-Presodent Trump is DISQUALIFIED from appearing on the 2024 ballot in Colorado. The court stated the 14th Amendment barred him due to his part in the January 6th 2020 insurrection.

Of course, this only applies in our stubborn Western state, and will certainly be appealed. But, we're not the only state forming similar objections and taking them to *their* supreme courts.

Heard on the CBS national news that at least 25 states are also making this objection on behalf of their ballots. Imagine if his lawyers must battle one by one, while Trump's trial on the January 6th insurrection opens in March 2024.

Hi Pat,

I think that the US Supreme Court will take up the case, and what they decide will apply to all states, making it unnecessary for Trump's lawyers to battle the case in every state. However, in that case, if the Court rules against Trump, that would be even worse for him than having to battle it state by state.

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pat,

I think that the US Supreme Court will take up the case, and what they decide will apply to all states, making it unnecessary for Trump's lawyers to battle the case in every state. However, in that case, if the Court rules against Trump, that would be even worse for him than having to battle it state by state.

I think you are correct. Trump is already vowing to take his appeal to the US Supreme Court. I suppose he thinks his conservative judges will support him. One observer said Justice Gorsuch is very protective of the Constitution, so may support Colorado's ruling.

Any appeal must be decided quickly. Colorado's ballot for 2024 must be settled in January.