- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 12:56 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Is there a law in Colorado that tells the SoS they must exclude everyone convicted or even accused of a particular crime from the ballot? That seems unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and fatally flawed.
State law. Most, if not all states have provisions empowering citizens to compel elected officials to perform their statutory duties.
1
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Justice Thomas should recuse himself, of course, but he won't.
On what basis?
His wife was directly involved in the events being alleged as an insurrection.
Thomas has already declared that he and his wife don't discuss these kinds of things, though, so any "appearance of impropriety" is all in our heads.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:56 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why do you think they chose to list NUMEROUS specific elected positions to which it would be applicable, but NOT President?
That's the first "original language" hurdle I can't get over, without even beginning to address the rest of the nonsense being discussed.
"You've got to read the text!!!" -Hank
...Oh wait.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:57 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I haven't seen anyone argue this.
There are several people ITT who have argued that 14.3 either is no longer operative because it was narrowly aimed at CW vets, or that POTUS is not included in the listed offices, etc.
I apologize, I thought you had said something along those lines a few pages back.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:58 pm to tgerb8
quote:Not to mention Swalwell, Hillary, Feinstein, Schiff... Let's just say "Democrats" to keep it to one page.
I feel like the "given aid or comfort to the enemies of the constitution" definitely fits one of the candidates from 2020..
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:58 pm to Dday63
quote:
His wife was directly involved in the events being alleged as an insurrection.
Thomas has already declared that he and his wife don't discuss these kinds of things, though, so any "appearance of impropriety" is all in our heads.
Hell of a slippery slope you're wanting to head down there, if we are going to start making judges recuse themselves because of things their spouse says.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:59 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:Citizens USUALLY have standing to compel an elected official to fulfill the duties of his office, my igneous little friend.
Standing based on what? By the very nature of elections, a citizen does not have standing to compel a SoS to disenfranchise another citizen in this manner
quote:A (popular) non-citizen declares his candidacy. It looks like LOTS of people will vote for him. A citizen files suit, demanding that the SoS exclude that non-citizen from the ballot. THAT is the correct analogy. The only difference is the basis of disqualification ... non-citizenship versus insurrection.
The underlying premise is that you can vote for whomever you want, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed that same right.
quote:I agree that the plaintiffs in this case will not prevail, IF the judge agrees with my analysis of the "insurrection."
you agree it's BS, or you're trying to have it both ways
You just don't seem to answer that, in our system, SOMEONE has to answer that question. In this case, it will be the court system.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:59 pm to Dday63
quote:
His wife was directly involved in the events being alleged as an insurrection.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:00 pm to Indefatigable
No need to apologize. It's an interesting thought, I just hadn't taken that path or seen it.
It does seem odd to specifically call out Congress but then leave it to the readers to assume civil office includes the president.
It does seem odd to specifically call out Congress but then leave it to the readers to assume civil office includes the president.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:01 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
These lawyers are so drunk on their own delusions of intellectual grandeur.
It's why this country is so fricked up. Lawyers and their implied meanings and legalese shite. Its literally turned what most people see as common sense, upside down.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:01 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Is there a law in Colorado that tells the SoS they must exclude everyone convicted or even accused of a particular crime from the ballot? That seems unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and fatally flawed.
The law in Colorado says that to be a candidate, a person must meet the qualifications of office. The US Constitution says that anyone who has taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" is excluded from holding office.
So, yes, the SoS has an obligation to exclude any candidate who is excluded from holding office under that provision
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:02 pm to GRTiger
quote:In that case, he probably would NOT have standing, and your hypothetical judge would have ruled correctly.quote:No we shouldn't assume that very obvious stipulation for the purposes of this hypothetical.
we assume that O'Rourke is still a Texas resident (I have no idea where he now lives).
Seriously, what is your point? Because you are makin exactly ZERO sense.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:02 pm to GRTiger
quote:
It does seem odd to specifically call out Congress but then leave it to the readers to assume civil office includes the president.
Particularly when POTUS is an elected official who takes a separate constitutional oath than "officers of the United States."
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:03 pm to AggieHank86
quote:That's not the SoS's duty. It's the SoS's prerogative at best.
Citizens USUALLY have standing to compel an elected official to fulfill the duties of his office, my igneous little friend.
quote:
A (popular) non-citizen declares his candidacy. It looks like LOTS of people will vote for him. A citizen files suit, demanding that the SoS exclude that non-citizen from the ballot. THAT is the correct analogy. The only difference is the basis of disqualification ... non-citizenship versus insurrection.
No, there is no room for interpretation. That person is ineligible. Even if they won 100% of the popular vote, they could not be sworn in... of course, here I go again pretending we still have a Constitution.
quote:Stupid shite goes to court all the time, but for now at least the legitimacy and honesty are the issues, and the matter lacks both.
You just don't seem to answer that, in our system, SOMEONE has to answer that question. In this case, it will be the court system.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:04 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Colorado blows
great place but its full of dumb frick white Karens and their lame arse man bun boyfriends.
great place but its full of dumb frick white Karens and their lame arse man bun boyfriends.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:06 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
That's not the SoS's duty. It's the SoS's prerogative at best.
I don't think you are correct here. Colorado law and jurisprudence hold that the SoS is "responsible for ensuring the qualifications of candidates for statewide and federal elections" and for overseeing ballot access.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:07 pm to Dday63
quote:I would argue that "qualificatins of office" are positive ones enumerated by Article II. Otherwise I could, with as much standing, say "you know I think Democrats are Communists and are actively enemies of the Constitution. Why, look at their attitudes towards the first two Amendments! Mr. SoS, I hereby demand that you do your duty and remove all Democrats from all ballots henceforth."
The law in Colorado says that to be a candidate, a person must meet the qualifications of office. The US Constitution says that anyone who has taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" is excluded from holding office.
So, yes, the SoS has an obligation to exclude any candidate who is excluded from holding office under that provision
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:07 pm to GRTiger
quote:The argument exists, based upon the supposition that a14.s3 applies ONLY to those who fought in the Civil War.quote:I haven't seen anyone argue this.
14.3 is inapplicable to Donald Trump or POTUS, regardless of whether he engaged in insurrection.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:07 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Hell of a slippery slope you're wanting to head down there, if we are going to start making judges recuse themselves because of things their spouse says.
Not what she said so much as what she did. But I take an extremely broad view of legal ethics, rather than walking a tight rope. If it looks like it could be unethical, then don't do it
Posted on 9/7/23 at 1:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
A court that wants to apply 14.3 to POTUS will wind their way into POTUS being an officer of the United States in this context.
Sure, I suppose. It just strikes me as such a nonsensically strained reading to think they wouldn't have specifically included the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT if they were going to include Senators, Representatives, ELECTORS of President, etc.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News