- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Colorado is trying to disqualify Trump from the ballot
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:06 pm to ddbnsb
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:06 pm to ddbnsb
quote:and now, fresh from TDPT ... "Lawrence Tribe knows nothing about the Constitution ...."
"The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation," they wrote. "The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution...."
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 2:20 pm
3
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
and now, fresh from TDPT ... "Lawrence Tribe knows nothing about the Constitution ...."
If and when the USSC decides differently, I will incessantly remind you of how little you know about the Constitution.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:23 pm to WPBTiger
There is zero proof Trump incited anything so how can they use that as a reason for taking him off the ballot?
I also heard that the Dems want Trump to win the nomination so this certainly doesn't add up.
I also heard that the Dems want Trump to win the nomination so this certainly doesn't add up.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
and now, fresh from TDPT ... "Lawrence Tribe knows nothing about the Constitution ...."
Rookie mistake tying credibility to expertise.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:39 pm to AggieHank86
His expertise is only exceeded by his lack of credibility on this topic. He'd call you a fascist if you even considered pissing on Trump if he was on fire. And he probably started the fire in the first place.
He also wrote a book slamming your strict textualist interpretation, fwiw.
He also wrote a book slamming your strict textualist interpretation, fwiw.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 2:42 pm to ddbnsb
quote:
Baude and Paulsen maintain their theory is "self-executing." They say that means that public elections officials don't need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe the argument is valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own. Not only that, the scholars argue, the election officials are legally required to do so. "No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong -- indeed, arguably itself a breach of one's constitutional oath of office -- to abandon one's responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,"
These types are letting their absolute giddiness at the prospect of disqualifying Trump from the ballot undermine their credibility.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 4:45 pm to WPBTiger
he wouldnt win colorado, so really doesnt matter
Posted on 9/7/23 at 5:27 pm to stelly1025
quote:
Tried in Florida and shot down by an Obama appointee.
Not sure which case you are referring to. The only Florida case I'm aware of was in front of Trump-appointed Aileen Cannon, and was dismissed for lack of standing.
The whole question is whether actual charges and a criminal conviction are necessary to disqualify someone for engaging in insurrection.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 1:17 am to Dday63
Judge dismisses 14th Amendment lawsuit against Trump, rules plaintiffs lack standing.
quote:
In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the challenge.
quote:
A federal court judge in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's 2024 presidential candidacy under the 14th Amendment.
quote:
In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment's applicability in Trump's case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked "standing" to bring the challenge.
This post was edited on 9/8/23 at 1:20 am
Posted on 9/8/23 at 1:37 am to WPBTiger
quote:
Colorado
The top shelf example of how California flight will eventually ruin the rest of the country.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:14 am to stelly1025
IT looks like the problem with the Fort Lauderdale case was that the plaintiff sued (only) Trump, rather than the Secretary of State.
Trump did not owe a duty to that plaintiff, a random Florida resident. The plaintiff was essentially seeking an advisory opinion. Hence, "no standing."
In Colorado, the Secretary of State (a named defendant) DOES owe statutory duties to the plaintiffs in THAT case, Colorado residents. The plaintiff is seeking specific relief from the SoS, fulfillment of a statutory duty to exclude "disqualified" candidates from the ballot (including those barred by the federal Constitution)
Remember, "standing" in these cases will almost always be a question of state law, meaning that a ruling in one state will not necessarily be on-point in another jurisdiction.
Trump did not owe a duty to that plaintiff, a random Florida resident. The plaintiff was essentially seeking an advisory opinion. Hence, "no standing."
In Colorado, the Secretary of State (a named defendant) DOES owe statutory duties to the plaintiffs in THAT case, Colorado residents. The plaintiff is seeking specific relief from the SoS, fulfillment of a statutory duty to exclude "disqualified" candidates from the ballot (including those barred by the federal Constitution)
Remember, "standing" in these cases will almost always be a question of state law, meaning that a ruling in one state will not necessarily be on-point in another jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 9/8/23 at 10:29 am
Posted on 9/9/23 at 6:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AGAIN, this is NOT a criminal proceeding. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does NOT require a criminal conviction.
Do you even 5th amendment???
ETA: Rebellion or insurrection is a federal offense that criminalizes inciting, engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws. A rebellion is usually an organized, armed, and often violent resistance to government authority.
This post was edited on 9/9/23 at 6:38 am
Posted on 9/9/23 at 7:01 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
The states that try this will just get anti-Democrat voters to send third party electors, ensuring Trump wins.
Will VP Kamala do her constitutional duty to determine the electors from those states to be of questionable legitimacy and send the vote to Congress?
Or will she just count those for Biden like this fricking traitor?
Posted on 9/9/23 at 7:39 am to Nosevens
quote:
conviction of insurrection
conviction??
hell - has there even been a trial??
or - oh-hell!!! = has there even been an OFFICIAL allegation???
OR - are they ALL DEM "narratives!!" - are they just another of those imaginary "threats to our democraty"
Posted on 9/9/23 at 7:51 am to AggieHank86
Bet you wetting your panties, thinking this is possible. Ever Supreme Court, little bro! 
Posted on 9/9/23 at 8:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The plaintiff is seeking specific relief from the SoS
and how is that 'relief' defined??
ie - how was the plaintiff HARMED by the actions of the accused??
I am imagining a guy walking down the street and overhearing what sounds to be a 'plan to rob a bank' - he then sees the suspects walk into a bank where he has an account - and have a discussion with a teller. But the suspects walk out and with no money - he asks the teller 'what did they ask you?' - the teller says 'they wanted to know about how the safes worked and I told them I didn't know.'
NOW - the person THINKs they were talking about a robbery - they even apparently asked the teller something they would need to know about the bank. But they didn't actually rob the bank. And made no threatening actions. (could they have just been discussing a movie they'd seen - or be writing a script for a movie - or ??? does it matter?" Would it matter if some uninvolved other person in the bank started a heated argument with another teller?
How was the person harmed - what could the officials possibly do to them??
Surely things like this have been discussed in your moot court cases - or not???
how is this scenario different than the 'insurrection' that never happened - it only happened in the interpretations from the minds of easily frightened known liars.
look = I am proudly unaquainted with the 'art of law' - it treat the law as something that should be totally fact based and with actual relevant actions being required to 'break' some law.
I do not think 'thought crimes' of any sort are actually unconstitutional. I can "think" any damned thing I want - and I should be able to share those 'thoughts' with others. I "might" even go so far as to try to "trick" someone I didn't like into 'believing' I was going to do something that I was actually trying to 'set him up' for disappointment and ridicule.
I think my last example was an attempt to describe a 'false flag' scenario - btw - is it ILLEGAL to conduct a 'false flag' operation???? should it be????? can the FBI get away with conducting 'false flag' operations when their only objective is to coax someone they didn't like into breaking some arbitrary law => think of "u no hu" when you answer that one.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 10:00 am to stelly1025
quote:
In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment's applicability in Trump's case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked "standing" to bring the challenge.
Thank you for the link. I was not aware of that case. The article provides some good information on other efforts to enforce the 14th Amendment.
While the judge did not address the 14th Amendment issues, she did say that an individual does not have standing to challenge the candidacy qualifications of another individual.
I think these cases will need to involve other candidates, a Secretary of State, and/or the GOP.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 10:28 am to LSUBALLER
The sooner this gets to SCOTUS, the better.
So far, no modern court has held that a conviction for insurrection is necessary for section 3 of the 14th Amendment to apply.
A New Mexico courts removed Couhy Griffin from his job as County Commissioner based on his participation in the Jan. 6 demonstration. Griffin did not enter the Capitol Building, but he was convicted of misdemeanor trespass for being on Capitol Grounds. New Mexico Supreme Court held that was "engaging in insurrection".
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a case to keep Madison Cawthorn off the ballot in NC to move forward despite no conviction for insurrection. Cawthorn like St his primary, rendering the case moot.
A case to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot in Georgia was dismissed because the Judge found her alleged actions did not amount to "engaging in insurrection". That Judge did not hold a criminal conviction was necessary, he just didn't think her activities were sufficient to disqualify her.
All of that is to say that one can be found to "engage in insurrection" without a criminal conviction for 14th Amendment purposes. To the extent section 3 may be inconsistent with the 5th Amendment or other constitutional provisions, the 14th Amendment supersedes those clauses.
But even with all of that said, I don't think SCOTUS will let this go forward due to the political implications. At the very least SCOTUS will require some type of trial on insurrection.
So far, no modern court has held that a conviction for insurrection is necessary for section 3 of the 14th Amendment to apply.
A New Mexico courts removed Couhy Griffin from his job as County Commissioner based on his participation in the Jan. 6 demonstration. Griffin did not enter the Capitol Building, but he was convicted of misdemeanor trespass for being on Capitol Grounds. New Mexico Supreme Court held that was "engaging in insurrection".
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a case to keep Madison Cawthorn off the ballot in NC to move forward despite no conviction for insurrection. Cawthorn like St his primary, rendering the case moot.
A case to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot in Georgia was dismissed because the Judge found her alleged actions did not amount to "engaging in insurrection". That Judge did not hold a criminal conviction was necessary, he just didn't think her activities were sufficient to disqualify her.
All of that is to say that one can be found to "engage in insurrection" without a criminal conviction for 14th Amendment purposes. To the extent section 3 may be inconsistent with the 5th Amendment or other constitutional provisions, the 14th Amendment supersedes those clauses.
But even with all of that said, I don't think SCOTUS will let this go forward due to the political implications. At the very least SCOTUS will require some type of trial on insurrection.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 10:59 am to Dday63
quote:
I think these cases will need to involve other candidates, a Secretary of State, and/or the GOP.
I think the Dems' hopes to birther Trump are never going to be satisfied or even entertained much by the courts. I think the rhetoric around the 14th will burn out in mainstream media soon and left to the fringes like the birth certificate stuff. I'm already seeing the surprisingly weak rebuttals to the "officer" language out there.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 1:46 pm to GRTiger
quote:
think the rhetoric around the 14th will burn out in mainstream media soon and left to the fringes like the birth certificate stuff.
if&when he loses a verdict in either j6 case or fulton county or MAL he will lose in court.
maybe supremes save him.
One of MAL charges includes not allowed federal office.
if either new york county case or fulton county case gives him a jail sentence he loses anyway. no pardon.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News