Court arguments on keeping Trump off ballot in Colorado begin

[riversedge]

Source: CBS news





October 30, 2023 / 11:19 AM / CBS/AP

A hearing on the use of the Constitution's "insurrection" clause to bar former President Trump from running for president again is underway in Colorado, and oral arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court in a similar case are scheduled for Thursday.
.............
The cases both invoke what's known as the disqualification clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the provision has now been cited in the two lawsuits brought by voters in Colorado and Minnesota who argue Trump is constitutionally ineligible to hold federal office because of his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

The suits aimed at the former president set up what are sure to be closely watched legal battles that will test the reach and force of a constitutional provision enacted in the wake of the Civil War, and the outcomes could upend the Republican primary if Trump, currently the leading candidate for the GOP nomination, is found to be ineligible to seek the White House for a third time.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
................................


....................................

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-colorado-insurrection-clause/

---

Link to tweet

?s=20

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This will be fun to watch

[coprolite]

3. TheHILL.com has a live feed.

[3825-87867]

2. Loose, reinterpretation of wording of the 14th coming

Doesn't specifically mention "president".
Of course the FIrst and Second are and aren't subject to reinterpretation! (Depending on your particular politic!)

The First says you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Further, the Supremacist Court allows "free speech zones" to be blocks away from, among other things, Republican Conventions (2004) (they still have freedom to speak, just not right in the vicinity of any who object).

The Second doesn't specify types of current "arms" therefore semi autos and ammo (and as many and much as you want) are okeydokey for anyone even though it does specify a well regulated Militia only. (We can still use muskets legally to rob banks, I guess)

Therefore, tfg should be allowed to run for whatever because the Supremacist Court thinks it can reinterpret the Constitution to imagine what the authors really meant.

[TwilightZone]

4. says you can't "you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater"

No, it actually doesn't. This is mostly a myth.

The act, in itself, a not a crime. It can lead to other crimes, such as disorderly conduct or, in the event of a stampede resulting in death, some form of manslaughter.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/8/30/23852276/covid-joke-shouting-fire-crowded-theater-analogy-jacob-sullum

[3825-87867]

5. Yep, You're right.

It was a comment made by a Justice. Sadly, it is that idea used to decide what may or may not be said now by those who are intent on affecting certain speech.

[SouthernDem4ever]

6. Not to worry. Clarence and gang are going to twist it to their liking

even though they complain about other judges doing that.