So Trump being disqualified for holding office

[Bluethroughu]

For the, adjudicated by Colorado, insurrectionist is nullified?

I thought the Supreme Court said he could be on the ballot, but they did not say he could hold office. The Constitution is clear, no insurrectionist can hold ANY office.

[jimfields33]

1. Since he wasn't charged with that, he's clear to be president.

[Bluethroughu]

5. Colorado had a trial and it went to their Supreme Court

And was upheld as an insurrectionist.

[jimfields33]

13. I've never been so confused on so many trials and legal

situations ever. This guy is a legal nightmare.

[Seeking Serenity]

21. They didn't have a trial. It was a civil, not criminal, matter.

[Polybius]

23. The SC said that they overstepped their boundries

They said only Congress gets to decide.

[magicarpet]

2. Does djt specifically need to be adjudicated,....

.... as an insurrectionist by a federal court of law for this to apply ?

[Bluethroughu]

6. The SCOTUS did not say he could take office, just allowed him to be on the ballot.

Colorado had a trial and found him to be an insurrectionist, and it was upheld all the way to their SC. The SCOTUS did not dispute that, just said he could be on the ballot.

[tritsofme]

8. Ok...so I guess Trump won't be getting Colorado's electoral votes, we know that.

Not sure why you think a Colorado court ruling could have any impact anywhere else?

[Bluethroughu]

10. Becsuse the Constitution does not specify a conviction

To be excluded from holding office.

He did have a trial and was found guilty.
Evidence of insurrection.

[tritsofme]

12. It's not something a single state can decide for the entire country.

I understand some folks are still in the bargaining stage here, but it’s time to move forward.

[Seeking Serenity]

22. No, he wasn't. That's dis- or misinformation.

He did not have a criminal trial in Colorado. The SOS made a ruling, TFG appealed that. The COSC upheld the ruling, which was overturned by SCOTUS.

[Bluethroughu]

28. The trial was about him being on the ballot.

The SCOTUS overturn the COSC decision and allowed him on the ballot, but they did not make a decision on whether, IF HE WON, he would be allowed to take office, because the Constitution clearly says no insurrectionist can hold ANY OFFICE.

[Polybius]

24. Well it should have

They clearly messed up when writing the 14th.

[lastlib]

3. How quaint of you to think that a Constitution would control our Dear Leader......

[Bluethroughu]

7. I know, but why is no one saying sorry insurrectionist...

You may have won the electoral college but you will not hold office?

[lastlib]

18. Agreed! The Felon should never get into a position of power. n/t

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. Individual states can't disqualify a Federal office holder

Trump was never convicted of insurrection. Nor was he convicted and removed for his impeachments. Congress never voted on his qualifications. So he's has not been disqualified under the Constitution.

[Bluethroughu]

9. He was Impeached and not convicted so he was not removed from office,

But the Constitution says no insurrectionist or anyone that gave aid to one, can hold office.

He was convicted by the state of Colorado and it does not say that you need to be convicted of insurrection, in order to be excluded from office.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

11. SCOTUS ruled on the Colorado decision

SCOTUS ruled per curiam(essentially unanimously) that States do not have the power to determine eligibility of Federal office holders. They also ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can only be enforced by Congress. Absent relevant statutes passed by Congress that confers enforcement power to others, even Federal and State courts cannot enforce Section 3.

[Bluethroughu]

14. That is a ridiculous ruling.

I thought is was bought ballot access, not if he was impeached then convicted in Congress, because that is about holding office at the time of committing a crime.

Insurrection says nothing about all that, it does not even say anyone needs a conviction. I guess the founders would have thought the country would stand behind the Constitution over insurrectionists.

I was wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. He wasn't charged

with anything in Colorado nor was he convicted of anything in Colorado.

And even if he had been, individual states can’t determine who is or isn’t eligible to serve as President.

[Bluethroughu]

19. He was removed from the ballot for insurrection.

They showed why he was an insurrectionist.
That's evidence of insurrection.

The Supreme Court allowed him to be on the ballot because they said it was a Federal election and a state could not do this to a candidate.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Yes he was removed from the ballot

But there no trial or conviction as you claimed. Six voter sued, a judge agreed with them, and that’s it.

That neither trial nor a conviction.

[TheProle]

15. We're still in the "Denial" phase?

It's going to take a while to work through these stages of grief at this pace.

[Bluethroughu]

16. It's not easy to get over the nullification of two critical sections of our Constitution.

That give us a remedy against a fascist dictator.

It's not easy, and it will only get harder.

[Meowmee]

25. He was not charged with insurrection although he should have been

[CanonRay]

26. Laws don't apply to him

It's official now.

[nuxvomica]

27. I thought it could at least be used in litigation but no

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2024, 06:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Sotomayor's opinion explicitly says that the majority's opinion even blocks federal judicial review. She writes: "It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score."

So according to the scandal-ridden majority on the court, Section 5 limits enforcement of the 14th Amendment to Congress even though Section 1's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses have frequently been used in judicial review without any enabling federal statute. If anything, the language of Section 3 sounds more self-executing than other parts of the 14th because it specifies a remedy: a 2/3 vote of both houses is needed to remove the disability, like the disability is presumed to be self-evident, which at the time of the 14th's writing, it probably seemed self-evident, just like the other prerequisites for office: age and place of birth.

So we will have an unconstitutional presidency come January 20th. The Supreme Court decision couldn't have made it constitutional because the Constitution clearly states the 2/3 vote is the only way to do that.