Colorado judge keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot as latest 14th Amendment case falters

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: CNN

A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state's Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, could first file an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

---

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Colorado 14th Amendment case

Link to tweet

[Silent Type]

2. Sadly, removing him from ballot never had a chance without a conviction.

[dpibel]

4. According to whom?

Can you point me to the part of the 14th that requires a conviction for Clause 3 to be operative?

Or any precedent?

[Silent Type]

8. Sure, after you point out where it says anyone can claim he's an insurrectionist. We need to beat trump at polls

not by this kind of BS. I probably detest trump more than you, but it takes more than a couple of people off the street to claim trump or anyone else — including a Democrat— shouldn’t be on the ballot.

[dpibel]

9. Quite a different argument

You stated that removal was not possible without conviction.

The necessary inference from that is that removal is possible with conviction.

That's what your initial post said, and that is what I responded to. You now seem to be arguing about something else entirely.

As for "a couple of people off the street to claim," having an actual trial is a bit different from people claiming.

I respectfully disagree that testing the meaning of the 14th Amendment insurrection clause is "this kind of BS."

And I stand behind no one in how much I despise Trump.

[Silent Type]

11. I find it best to read posts for content, rather than pointing at, and mouthing, each word, looking

for some Gotcha.

Other courts have dismissed the case too. I’m against anti-democratic actions like this.

[dpibel]

12. LOL

Stay classy, friend.

[FBaggins]

43. Are there other crimes that you can be punished for without a conviction?

Ever heard of the due process clauses?

Insurrection was already a federal crime when 14A was ratified.

[dpibel]

51. DQ from federal office is not criminal

It's kinda like impeachment, y'know?

No double jeopardy attaches because impeachment and conviction is not peril of liberty or life.

Would have been a pretty simple matter for those guys to say, "upon conviction of insurrection." But that's not what the 14th says, is it?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Well, the 14th would require charge to be true

It's easier to claim something is true when it has been judged true by a jury.

[dpibel]

41. In this case it has been judged true

By a judge. Which has the same legal effect as being found true by a jury.

[FBaggins]

44. Untrue

Judges have no power to declare someone guilty of a crime that they are not charged with. A prosecutor has to bring that charge. Her statements in this regard are dicta at best.

Compare to the case of the prosecutor that DeSantis fired a year or so ago. A federal judge "ruled" that the governor had violated the state constitution and abused his discretion... but also that he (the judge) had no power to do anything about it. The fact that he has "ruled" on those issues had no effect at all (despite the prosecutor arguing to the state court that a federal judge had so "ruled&quot

[dpibel]

49. You've presumed your conclusion

The 14th doesn't say, "has been convicted of the crime of insurrection."

At best, you're reading that into it.

The judge did not, and obviously could not, convict him of a crime, what with this being in the nature of a civil proceeding and all.

That does not, however, preclude the judge from finding, based on the evidence at trial, that he participated in an insurrection for purposes of the 14th.

Your mileage clearly varies, and neither of us will convince the other. So if you need a parting shot, fire away.

On edit: Do those who advocate the "must be convicted" position really believe that the drafters of the 14th contemplated that there would be some vast number of trials in which it had to be proven BRD that any give Confederate was guilty of the crime of insurrection? And that they would overlook putting that requirement into the Amendment?

[oldsoftie]

36. Aren't we presumed innocent until proven guilty? Why would this be different?

Come on, you knew this wasn't going anywhere.
He needs to be destroyed at the polls.
Even with everything we KNOW its going to be a close race decided in 6 states.
Sad

[TomSlick]

16. That is not the holding.

The judge found as a matter of fact and law that Trump engaged in insurrection.

The decision is based on the language of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 and principles of constitutional and legislative interpretation. Section 3 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.

The provision does not specifically list the presidency as one of the offices that may not be held by an insurrectionist. The list starts with Senator or Representative and ends with a catch-all of "an officer of the United State." The court concluded, on the basis of something akin to expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that if the drafters had intended the exclusion to include the presidency it would not have started the list with Senator.

I don't buy it but it is curious that the drafters did not include "President."

[LudwigPastorius]

17. Maybe they thought it was glaringly obvious that the presidency was the preeminent office in the country.

...and that the president was an "officer".

At any rate, it goes against any sort of common sense to ban all insurrectionists from running for all other national elected offices BUT the presidency.

Sometimes, I think the founders gave the ensuing generations too much credit to interpret the Constitution intelligently. (2nd Amendment and abortion rights for example)

[carpetbagger]

40. They weren't focused on that office.

The idea of electing a president who was part of the CSA was not realistic. They were trying primarily from keeping disloyal states from sending men who tried to destroy the United States back to Congress and into patronage and other positions.

Maybe a good legal call, a little too sneaky for my likes and promotes the idea of the president s the fount of law, but gets it up to the higher court where it needs to be heard.

Trump needs to be defeated in an election, not by ballot removal, the consequences of enabling ballot removal for less than conviction for attempting a coup will surely be used in tit for tat reprisals by facetious officials in the future.

[Silent Type]

23. The judge said he's on ballot, all the other stuff carries little, if any, weight. Michigan also dismissed

the case, as it should have. If some state accepts the weak challenge, I won’t gripe, will probably say, “If anyone deserves it trump does.”

But I still think it’s an anti-democratic stunt, that I don’t support. We need to beat him where it really matters, the polls.

[24601]

24. Watched a fairly comprehensive program on C-SPAN that addressed the applicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

there appear to be three issues. The first is that IAW the Constitution's ARTICLE II, Section 2 Appointment Clause, Officers of The United States are Appointed by the President. Within the Executive Branch, that would exclude the President and Vice President who are elected instead of appointed. They would be instead like be construed as Constitutional Officers.

The 2nd issue is that it addresses holding office, not running for office. Even if someone were disqualified, since Congress could remove the disqualification right up to the point if taking office. It would therefore be overly presumptive to prevent someone from running and such an action likely not upheld in the courts. You only have to be eligible to take office, not to be elected. For Example, when Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, he was only 29 and was not eligible to take office until he turned 30.

The 3rd issue is that Section 3 applies to individuals who have taken an "oath to support the Constitution of the United States." The presidential oath does not include that provision as the President instead takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Support is not an element of the presidential oath.

As an aside, the civil and military oaths everyone else in federal government takes includes, "support and defend the Constitution..," so the provisions would presumably apply to the rest of us.

Not really addressed on the C-SPAN program, but Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." As far as I know, Congress has not legislated procedures for implementing Section 3.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. So parents preserving, protecting, and defending their children are not supporting them? Nonsense

[24601]

35. Actual words make the difference in determining legal outcomes. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) for

example determined that "there is no liability for perjury if a person gives truthful information in responses to questions made under oath, even if the information was intended to mislead the questioner." (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/352/)

While the Bronston case involved a statement about overseas bank accounts, it was the controlling precedent when the Clinton deposition explored whether or not the word "is" effectively encompassed "was."

The point is that small words really do matter in determining legal outcomes.

With regards to Constitutional requirements for oaths, the Presidential Oath is prescribed verbatim in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, Clause 3 requires an oath for all others but does not prescribe the wording of that oath. It States,

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Articles II and VI were enacted with original ratification. The Constitutional Convention did not adopt overlapping language. Those oaths have been established by law and implementing regulations.

The 14th Amendment incorporated the Article VI oath requirement (support) and did not include any of the Article II presidential oath (preserve, protect and defend). There isn't a competent court that will determine that Congress and ratifying states implicitly included language that is conspicuous by its absence.

If this issue is appealed to the Supreme Court, the most likely ruling is that it's a political question left to Congress to address when they certify the Electoral College votes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Interesting and good analysis and background

[24601]

46. Thanks n/t

[diverdownjt]

31. Thank our atty gen for wasting a year before doing something about all this.

Silent is right. Had we started this a year before, we could have had a conviction of something by now and these
lawsuits would be winner's for us.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. Might as well strike the provision

From the Constitution since nobody is going to enforce it.

[Polybius]

22. The problem is who gets to decide what is or isn't insurrection?

Last edited Sat Nov 18, 2023, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

A conviction would do that. Until then, it's just an opinion.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Colorado judge rules Trump 'engaged in insurrection' -- but can still run for president

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rules-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-can-still-run-for-president-00127909

A Colorado judge has turned away a challenge looking to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for president under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that argued he engaged in insurrection against the United States on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling came in a case brought by progressive activists who sued the state, arguing that Trump was barred from returning to the office. A handful of courts in other states turned away similar challenges.

The case in Colorado was brought by the liberal government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW argued that Trump is ineligible to run because of a clause in the 14th Amendment, which reads that those who took an oath to defend the Constitution and then have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” are ineligible

The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.

[riversedge]

10. "the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding office does not apply to the president. ." was the Ruling.........

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html?Date=20231118&Profile=CNN&utm_content=1700265882&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

..............The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.

The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” Wallace wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, could first file an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.


‘Trump engaged in an insurrection’

In her ruling, Wallace concluded that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by inciting his supporters to attack the US Capitol – but that the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding office does not apply to the president. ...............

[getagrip_already]

6. Interesting decision.... scotus may not concur

She only found it didn't apply to potus because he wasn't an officer of the govt.

If this gets to scotus, they may rule differently.

She found all other conditions required. Just not that one.

[republianmushroom]

7. The courts are a afraid of him and his base. IMO

[brooklynite]

21. I see. Judges that are dealing with Trump's criminal charges aren't afraid of him...

...but these judges are.

[Mr. Sparkle]

13. "any office, civil or military, under the United States," What office does the President come under ? Civil office?

I cant wait to hear the talking heads explain this away. I think she is a cowardly judge who does not want to get embroiled in the Trump universe.

[FBaggins]

45. That wasn't the part of 14A that the judge ruled was an issue

It wasn't "any officer"... it was any officer who takes an oath to support the constitution".

Lots of officers take an oath to "support" the constitution. But the president isn't one of them.

An interesting twist that I hadn't considered. I wonder whether Trump's team even argued that.

[SWBTATTReg]

14. This is BS. Since when does insurrection happen then? He tried to circumvent a election victory by

Pres. Biden and take over instead. What in the world does someone call this then?

This is BS.

[hydrolastic]

15. Could wind up to be the second most poorly worded amendment

First is the 2nd amendment. But for this layman it seems clear. Insurrection committed and therefore not allowed to run again.

[brooklynite]

18. 0 for 3.

Despite legal punditry, this was never going to be a successful gambit.

[dpibel]

19. As a legal matter?

A practical matter?

A political matter?

What is the nature of this "gambit"?

[brooklynite]

20. The gambit was trying to stop Trump from getting elected by kicking him off the ballot...

It's not going to happen. We're going to have to win on Election Day.

[Grins]

25. Ok for the primary; how about the general election?

It’s not over.

[._.]

26. Nice try

But if the DOJ or the Devil doesn't remove him, it's gonna be up to the Voters.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig thinks that this ruling will end being a win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Drum]

30. Cowards, all.

[D23MIURG23]

32. Sarah Wallace is a traitor. n/t

[CCExile]

33. It's not all bad.

It confirms that the 14th CAN be used for politicians below presidential levels. Let's go get them!

[Hotler]

34. I like that idea. ...

[canuckledragger]

37. So...how many coups does one have to attempt so they DO enforce it?

I'm assuming party affiliation plays a role in the enforcement part of that...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig explain why the Colorado 14th Amendment decision is wrong

Link to tweet

[Silent Type]

39. Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig are great on TV, but I sure wouldn't want them defending me. Luttig takes

hours to make a point.

So far, Michigan and Colorado have not played their academic game.

[Hekate]

47. LMPV -- I don't understand

[LetMyPeopleVote]

48. CO judge's 'bizarro' Trump eligibility ruling ripped apart by constitutional law experts

This opinion is very questionable. It makes no sense that the POTUS is the only official who is not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I agree with Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig's analysis

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-ineligible-2024/

Former federal Judge Michael Luttig and constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe spoke with host Ali Velshi less than 24 hours hour the ruling came down where Wallace agreed the former president took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection but didn't feel he was covered by wording in Section Three that would bar him from running for office.

According to Tribe, the judge made an "egregious error" in her ruling which Tribe also labeled as "bizzaro."

"The court did egregiously error in holding that the office of the president is not an office under the United States, turning constitutional interpretation upside down, by finding the unambiguous text of Section Three ambiguous because of a sliver of debate history that is not only itself ambiguous, but is rendered singularly unpersuasive by other exchanges in the debate history," Luttig explained. "That reflects the understanding that the office of president is of course an office under the United States, from which a person can be disqualified by Section Three."

'You suggested that this was a narrow interpretation of section three," he told the MSNBC host. "It is that and more. It is the narrowest possible interpretation of Section Three, it's the interpretation urged on the court by the former president's lawyers. But it's simply incorrect as a matter of constitutional law."

?si=xtN9DpghIs86BaeS

[intrepidity]

50. So what about all those Congress members who also participated?

Why aren't they being booted from office yet???

[LetMyPeopleVote]

52. Plaintiffs will appeal Colorado's decision to allow Trump to remain on the ballot

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

53. The Colorado Supreme Court set arguments for 12/6 in the TFG 14th Amendment disqualification case

This is a fast briefing schedule

Link to tweet

[Emile]

54. I look for the next court to keep him off the ballot.