Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(180,291 posts)
48. CO judge's 'bizarro' Trump eligibility ruling ripped apart by constitutional law experts
Sat Nov 18, 2023, 04:37 PM
Nov 2023

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



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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Colorado 14th Amendment case LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #1
Sadly, removing him from ballot never had a chance without a conviction. Silent Type Nov 2023 #2
According to whom? dpibel Nov 2023 #4
Sure, after you point out where it says anyone can claim he's an insurrectionist. We need to beat trump at polls Silent Type Nov 2023 #8
Quite a different argument dpibel Nov 2023 #9
I find it best to read posts for content, rather than pointing at, and mouthing, each word, looking Silent Type Nov 2023 #11
LOL dpibel Nov 2023 #12
Are there other crimes that you can be punished for without a conviction? FBaggins Nov 2023 #43
DQ from federal office is not criminal dpibel Nov 2023 #51
Well, the 14th would require charge to be true Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2023 #28
In this case it has been judged true dpibel Nov 2023 #41
Untrue FBaggins Nov 2023 #44
You've presumed your conclusion dpibel Nov 2023 #49
Aren't we presumed innocent until proven guilty? Why would this be different? oldsoftie Nov 2023 #36
That is not the holding. TomSlick Nov 2023 #16
Maybe they thought it was glaringly obvious that the presidency was the preeminent office in the country. LudwigPastorius Nov 2023 #17
They weren't focused on that office. carpetbagger Nov 2023 #40
The judge said he's on ballot, all the other stuff carries little, if any, weight. Michigan also dismissed Silent Type Nov 2023 #23
Watched a fairly comprehensive program on C-SPAN that addressed the applicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. 24601 Nov 2023 #24
So parents preserving, protecting, and defending their children are not supporting them? Nonsense Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2023 #29
Actual words make the difference in determining legal outcomes. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) for 24601 Nov 2023 #35
Interesting and good analysis and background Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2023 #42
Thanks n/t 24601 Nov 2023 #46
Thank our atty gen for wasting a year before doing something about all this. diverdownjt Nov 2023 #31
Might as well strike the provision Miguelito Loveless Nov 2023 #3
The problem is who gets to decide what is or isn't insurrection? Polybius Nov 2023 #22
Colorado judge rules Trump 'engaged in insurrection' -- but can still run for president LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #5
"the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding office does not apply to the president. ." was the Ruling......... riversedge Nov 2023 #10
Interesting decision.... scotus may not concur getagrip_already Nov 2023 #6
The courts are a afraid of him and his base. IMO republianmushroom Nov 2023 #7
I see. Judges that are dealing with Trump's criminal charges aren't afraid of him... brooklynite Nov 2023 #21
"any office, civil or military, under the United States," What office does the President come under ? Civil office? Mr. Sparkle Nov 2023 #13
That wasn't the part of 14A that the judge ruled was an issue FBaggins Nov 2023 #45
This is BS. Since when does insurrection happen then? He tried to circumvent a election victory by SWBTATTReg Nov 2023 #14
Could wind up to be the second most poorly worded amendment hydrolastic Nov 2023 #15
0 for 3. brooklynite Nov 2023 #18
As a legal matter? dpibel Nov 2023 #19
The gambit was trying to stop Trump from getting elected by kicking him off the ballot... brooklynite Nov 2023 #20
Ok for the primary; how about the general election? Grins Nov 2023 #25
Nice try ._. Nov 2023 #26
Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig thinks that this ruling will end being a win LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #27
Cowards, all. Drum Nov 2023 #30
Sarah Wallace is a traitor. n/t D23MIURG23 Nov 2023 #32
It's not all bad. CCExile Nov 2023 #33
I like that idea. ... Hotler Nov 2023 #34
So...how many coups does one have to attempt so they DO enforce it? canuckledragger Nov 2023 #37
Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig explain why the Colorado 14th Amendment decision is wrong LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #38
Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig are great on TV, but I sure wouldn't want them defending me. Luttig takes Silent Type Nov 2023 #39
LMPV -- I don't understand Hekate Nov 2023 #47
CO judge's 'bizarro' Trump eligibility ruling ripped apart by constitutional law experts LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #48
So what about all those Congress members who also participated? intrepidity Nov 2023 #50
Plaintiffs will appeal Colorado's decision to allow Trump to remain on the ballot LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #52
The Colorado Supreme Court set arguments for 12/6 in the TFG 14th Amendment disqualification case LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #53
I look for the next court to keep him off the ballot. Emile Nov 2023 #54
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Colorado judge keeps Trum...»Reply #48