- 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: Wednesday or other SCOTUS experts, is this a trap?
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:14 pm to Dday63
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:14 pm to Dday63
quote:It seems due process is at issue here. Which authority has determined that Trump is guilty of insurrection in order to disqualify him? Is that up to each state, or rather up to each state's SOS or Supreme Court to determine?
This is about being qualified to run under the Constitution. This is not Colorado making up its own rules.
The 14th Amendment has added a qualification to running for State and Federal offices. That qualification is essentially not violating an oath you took by engaging in insurrection.
There is an open legal question whether this additional qualification applies to former Presidents and people seeking the office of President, but Colorado has interpreted the Amendment as including Trump.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger applied to be on the CO ballot, the SOS would be right to leave him off the ballot since he was not born in the US. If she planned to include him on the ballot, then the CO courts would need to get involved.
One can certainly argue whether this Constitutional provision applies to POTUS, and whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
But one cannot really argue whether CO should enforce the Constitutionally mandated qualifications for office.
2
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:15 pm to anc
State is trying to defy a Constitutional Amendment (14th) by misinterpreting it.
If a state is challenging an established CA, then the Constitution takes precedence, and the SCOTUS definitely has cause to rule on it.
If a state is challenging an established CA, then the Constitution takes precedence, and the SCOTUS definitely has cause to rule on it.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It seems due process is at issue here. Which authority has determined that Trump is guilty of insurrection in order to disqualify him? Is that up to each state, or rather up to each state's SOS or Supreme Court to determine?
There was a 5 day trial on the issues of whether there was an insurrection and whether Section 3 applies to POTUS. So Trump was given due process.
The Trial court held there was clear and convincing evidence Trump engaged in insurrection, but also held Section 3 dies NOT apply to POTUS, and therefore left Trump on the ballot.
But the issue of enforcement of Section 3 is quite vague. The Federalist Society says it is self executing. Others argue this issue is in the hands of Congress.
Who determines if any Presidential candidate has failed to meet the qualifications for President? What if a candidate is accused of being too young, or not a natural born citizen, or lived outside the country within the last 14 years? Can a single state decide to leave him off the ballot? Is it up to Congress? Do we wait until he is elected and sue to have him removed?
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:37 pm to dafif
quote:
How can a state court determine a federal criminal insurrection statute using the state civil laws for burden of proof?
Federal criminal statutes are not in play here.
A lot of people on this board have been assuming a conviction for insurrection is needed for Section 3 to apply. That simply isn't so. A federal insurrection charge didn't even exist when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
No Court that has ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has even suggested that a criminal conviction was necessary to invoke the disqualification.
A New Mexico court removed a county commissioner from office under the 14th Amendment just for being on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6. The commissioner was only found guilty of criminal trespass.
Posted on 12/19/23 at 10:40 pm to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:
State is trying to defy a Constitutional Amendment (14th) by misinterpreting it.
I don't see how the State is trying to "defy" the 14th Amendment. The State is trying to enforce the Amendment.
But I do think SCOTUS will rule the State is misinterpreting.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 4:13 am to Dday63
quote:
There was a 5 day trial on the issues of whether there was an insurrection and whether Section 3 applies to POTUS. So Trump was given due process.
There was a 30 day impeachment process, with a trial and ACQUITTAL, on this issue.
I guess in your world of ""due process,"" an acquittal IAW the Constitution is irrelevant. But you do you.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 4:20 am to anc
quote:
Wednesday
Posted on 12/20/23 at 4:49 am to anc
I can’t imagine the SCOTUS allowing the Colorado ruling to stand. As we all know, it is the business of courts to ensure free and fair elections. This ruling will be challenged and likely reversed.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:01 am to anc
I hope Clarence Thomas writes the opinion amd puts a picture of his nutsack where his signature belongs.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:02 am to skinny domino
quote:
skinny domino
Why is that funny? One of, if not the best, legal kind here.
She makes slofro look like a toadstool
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:04 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
Wednesday or other SCOTUS experts ...
I literally spit my beer out.
This post was edited on 12/20/23 at 6:16 am
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:14 am to anc
No, …. this is a sign of desperation. Can you smell the fear yet?
This will result in an emergency SC Ruling to stay the Colorado ruling. Likely in January.
Their need for control, to openly deny due process, is a response to fear.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:29 am to Dday63
Gonna be fun watching you Groomers cry like little bitches when SCOTUS slaps this down
Posted on 12/20/23 at 5:59 am to Dday63
quote:
A federal insurrection charge didn't even exist when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Wrong. At the very least it existed in the confiscation act of 1862. That law said that anyone found guilty of engaging in insurrection was ineligible for federal office as well as prison time. Interestingly, the 14th amendment changed the phrasing from “ every person” to what we have in section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Even so it doesn’t matter because the President isn’t included in any of the named positions in section 3.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:19 am to ksayetiger
quote:
Why is that funny?
Because skinny domino is an ignoramous.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:20 am to anc
quote:
Elections are state issues. If SCOTUS reverses this will it give precedent for elections to be federal?
No.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:24 am to beachdude
quote:
It would not surprise me were it 9-0.
It would me.
The very last thing liberal judges care about or use to formulate a ruling or an opinion is what the Constitution actually says.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:31 am to oogabooga68
quote:
With this sort of nefarious, insane ruling from the Democrats, what's to stop States from putting some REALLY restrictive rights on candidates and who can actually vote? Democrats are fking Nazis.
Indeed! My hope is that this REALLY backfired on the Dems with independents. The true Dems are too far gone in their lust for power to see what they are doing. No self awareness at this point.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:32 am to anc
quote:
Elections are state issues. If SCOTUS reverses this will it give precedent for elections to be federal?
Qualifications for being able to run for President are a Constitutional (federal) issue. Shouldn't have the effects you're worried about.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 6:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
It seems due process is at issue here. Which authority has determined that Trump is guilty of insurrection in order to disqualify him?
THAT is the question. I doubt it's the state supreme court
Page 2 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News