- 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 9:31 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:31 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Because nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.
What do you think the actual process would look like? Trump is not a named Harvey so he would not present evidence. I cannot fathom how this would work to allow for a lawnmower determination.
Would it be civil standard of proof or criminal?
2
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:31 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:Section 3 has not been utilized often, and certainly never in this exact context.
nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.quote:
Surely you can find precedence (precent?) on enforcing the 14th Am. to back that up ....
That does not mean that it is any less a part of the Constitution, my igneous little friend.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:35 am to Robin Masters
quote:
If 2020 was legit they wouldn’t give a shite if Trump was on the ballot. Right? Right?!?
Biden is much more unpopular now than then.
If the election was stolen why would they care of Trump is on the ballot? They can just steal it again.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:36 am to GumboPot
quote:No one is lowering any bars. Section 3 is not a criminal matter, so the burdens of proof for a criminal proceeding need not apply.quote:So that is the new threshold to be treated as a guilty citizen? Are we really trying to lower the bar for guilty charges for certain activities, like running for president, or is it just lowering the bar for certain people?
AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed
quote:
No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:47 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:38 am to WPBTiger
That awkward feeling the NPR/MSNBC/NYT/CNN Left will have when they wake up and the Culture War has become a hot war and they wonder how the frick we got here.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:39 am to dafif
quote:
Trump is not a named Harvey so he would not present evidence.
I assume you meant Defendant? Trump is a named Defendant. The suit is against the Colorado Secretary of State, and Donald Trump.
And the case is in Colorado State Court.
Let's go ahead and get this issue into the courts!
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:39 am to Azkiger
quote:
If the election was stolen why would they care of Trump is on the ballot? They can just steal it again.
That's a good point.
quote:
Biden is much more unpopular now than then.
Even better point. Their panic is real.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:41 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:39 am to pankReb
quote:1. This is a thread about that lawsuit to disqualify Trump.quote:I'm very obviously talking about the "Try it assholes" post.
A federal lawsuit is not a post on a message board, my friend.
Unless you're saying "Try it assholes" is a federal Lawsuit...
2. Prior poster said "Try it."
3. They already HAVE "tried it," by filing suit.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:40 am to Azkiger
quote:
If the election was stolen why would they care of Trump is on the ballot? They can just steal it again.
No they need another pandemic for ballot stuffing.
quote:
Biden is much more unpopular now than then.
JFC can you people take a narrative and sick with it? Your narrative is, The election had nothing to do with Biden and only hinged on people hating Trump. Try and pay attention please.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:41 am to WPBTiger
These are definitely the actions of people who want him to be on the ballot because they know they can beat him.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:46 am to dafif
quote:There was a long thread on this issue a day or two ago, involving 4-5 of the brighter lawyers on the PT. Worth reading.
Because nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.quote:
What do you think the actual process would look like?
In short, the consensus was the criminal proceedings are not required by Section 3, but that some proceedings consistent with "due process" would be required ... e.g. not just a unilateral decision by a state AG.
quote:I assume you are dictating and not proofreading, so I don't understand the "Harvey" reference (or "lawnmower"), but he IS a named defendant. Check the Complaint, which I linked on p.2.
Trump is not a named Harvey so he would not present evidence
quote:Personally, I think it would be a civil (MLTN) standard, precisely because Section 3 does not include any "criminal" references.
Would it be civil standard of proof or criminal?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:48 am to loogaroo
quote:
Rep. Claudine Schneider, a registered Republican who represented a congressional district in Rhode Island from 1981 to 1991, and endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020
So, a literal RINO
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:48 am to Dday63
quote:I assume that Trump will promptly seek removal to federal court, so I wonder why the Plaintiffs didn't just start the case there (federal question AND diversity, I think, but I've not given that question much thought).
I assume you meant Defendant? Trump is a named Defendant. The suit is against the Colorado Secretary of State, and Donald Trump.
And the case is in Colorado State Court.
Let's go ahead and get this issue into the courts!
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
1. This is a thread about that lawsuit to disqualify Trump.
2. Prior poster said "Try it."
3. They already HAVE "tried it," by filing suit.
Yes. I'm fully aware.
There's an understood "or else" whenever someone says "Try it". This is what I'm referring to. Hint: "empty threat by an anonymous message board poster". It blows my mind how this is confusing to you.
I think you're just so hell bent on wanting to argue with someone that it doesn't allow you to comprehend that someone may not be disagreeing with your posts.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:51 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:54 am to WeeWee
quote:
I guess Colorado doesn’t believe in due process or equal justice for all.
Liberals only require an accusation, unless the defendant is one of them.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:55 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Surely you can find precedence on enforcing the 14th Am. to back that up,
This isn't binding precedence, but the New Mexico courts removed a County commissioner from office just for participating in the Jan. 6 demonstration. He was on the Capitol grounds, but did not enter the building.
Granted, he was found guilty in federal court of misdemeanor trespass, but he wasn't even charged with insurrection or sedition.
The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed his removal from office.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a lawsuit to move forward seeking to keep Madison Cawthorn off the ballot, but that case became moot after he lost his primary.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There was a long thread on this issue a day or two ago, involving 4-5 of the brighter lawyers on the PT. Worth reading.
In short, the consensus was the criminal proceedings are not required by Section 3, but that some proceedings consistent with "due process" would be required ... e.g. not just a unilateral decision by a state AG.
The fact that there is zero precedent and the law clearly needs to be thinly stretched to achieve the desired outcome, not of justice, but of obvious political advantage should disqualify this entire legal remedy. If you have to debate about whether or not you "can" charge your political enemy then the answer about whether or not you should is pretty self evident... for any decent freedom loving person that is.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:59 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 10:03 am to Adajax
Muh black folks told me Trump led the insurrection and ordered them to keep going and ordered the overthrow of the gubment
Posted on 9/7/23 at 10:11 am to GumboPot
quote:
What is the case? Is Trump the only U.S. citizen that does not enjoy the right to presumption of innocence?
I think you’re jumping to a conclusion here. I didn’t say anything about negating his due process rights. That is ongoing in the courts now, and given the multitude of charges and indictments I’m pretty sure there is “there” there.
On top of that, I was conscious in the weeks leading up to J6 and even watched this board (maybe prodded as well) whip itself into a frenzy making plans to go to DC, and talking tough, until the J6 plans fell apart, and all of a sudden it was deep state plot. Trump and his RICO gang made a lot his followers look like clowns, he incited that. Whether anybody here wants to own up to it or not, Trump attempted to have his followers overthrow the central location of the government. It’s disqualifying and traitorous to me, but again due process. We’ll see what happens.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 10:13 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Irrelevant what you think, the logical conclusion is that if Trump really lost by record numbers in 2020 and if Trump really had no shot of winning CO, it wouldn’t be necessary to exclude him from the ballot. Step outside of your corporate media echo chamber and look at what is really happening.
Or, just hear me out, those that attempt to overthrow the government are traitors that should have no place in that government.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 11:25 am
Page 4 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News