re: Colorado is trying to disqualify Trump from the ballot

So is this the kind of thing the GOP Party should be fighting or will they expect Trump to do it, and the the board GOPers will complain about how Trump is using campaign money to fight this? Like they do with how he is supposed to pay for correcting election frickery.

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.

quote:

---

No, there is no room for interpretation. That person is ineligible

---

---

It is like you have no knowledge of history whatsoever.

Chester Arthur was born somewhere, within a few miles either way, near the Canadian border. Some say he was born north of it, and others say he was born south of it.

If his citizenship had been challenged in the context of the election, SOMEONE would have had to make a determination of his place of birth ... and thus his citizenship.

Even something as "simple" as age/birthdate could be subject to similar challenge, based upon claims of a falsified birth certificate.

SOMEONE has to make those decisions. In our system, and assuming due process, that "someone" is the judicial system.

quote:

---

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.

---

@Hank, how would the strict textualist handle that argument?

POTUS isn’t listed in either of (1) the list of prohibited offices, or (2) the former offices the individual held before engaging in insurrection.

quote:

---

I would argue that "qualificatins of office" are positive ones enumerated by Article II

---

And I think your argument would fail, because 14(3) added a new, disqualifying factor, and it is just as valid as Article II.

quote:

---

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."

---

You could, but I don't think that would get very far. Section 3 says "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort to the enemies". You would need to allege specific facts that you can wedge into those terms.

quote:

---

I don't think the SoS in a case where there is a question of fact regarding citizenship should be allowed to play with the facts. That's dangerous ground. "You know, Trump is supposedly a citizen, but I've heard his last name comes from "Drumpf", and that sounds awfully foreign, so to be on the safe side I'll just keep him off the ballot."

---

Again, SOMEONE has to decide.

THAT is the reason for this lawsuit. To let someone make a determination of whether Trump engaged in insurrection.

quote:

---

That's dangerous ground. "You know, Trump is supposedly a citizen, but I've heard his last name comes from "Drumpf", and that sounds awfully foreign, so to be on the safe side I'll just keep him off the ballot."

---

And Trump would sue, and win, and the SoS's career would likely be over. We have plenty of guardrails.

This latest attempt is not crazy. Trump may ultimately prevail, but the legal theory is not crazy.

quote:

---

This latest attempt is not crazy. Trump may ultimately prevail, but the legal theory is not crazy.

---

Dday, you are new, and unfamiliar with Volcanic.

He is a young guy, and young guys often have difficulty accepting that any interpretation of the facts other than their own might be correct.

He thinks that Trump did not did not engage in insurrection, as do I. I accept that a reasonable person might interpret the facts differently. He cannot imagine such a scenario, ever.

quote:

---

I accept that a reasonable person might interpret the facts differently. He cannot imagine such a scenario, ever.

---

I could, if we were to clearly delineate between "reasonable" and "intelligent."

Among my many studies is that of persuasion, and I recognize the manipulation going on here, and with this knowledge, I cannot unsee the incompatibility of the conclusion of "insurrection" with reasonableness, unless the person is simply stupid. They may fancy themselves "reasonable", and may be well versed in speaking as though they are reasonable, but this simply isn't possible. There is no way to honestly arrive at the conclusion that this was an insurrection without a heavy dose of bias or brainwashing - either of which removes one from the category of "reasonable."


ETA and making the leap to implicating Trump.... this is like leaving your dog locked in your room, leaving, coming back home, there's torn paper and cloth and dog poop on the floor, and you're racking your brain trying to figure out who made the mess. I mean maybe with quantum theory there was a non-zero chance that a dimensional portal opened up and another dog entered your room and did it, but reasonable people can tell what happened.

There may be something to the efforts tho

quote:

---

two more legal scholars -- retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe -- made the same case in an article published in The Atlantic.

"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, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup."


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," Bode and Paulsen write.

---

LINK