Well, Colorado seems to be in the news today.

[wesw]

weak tea, fellows.

i won t waste anymore of our time on this one.

we are at loggerheads

just remember what happened the last time states excluded a candidate.....

the north is the new south

[Bicycle Bill]

just remember what happened the last time states excluded a candidate.....

Quit posting in what you believe to be epigrams.   Who was it, when was it, why was it, and what happened?

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm not sure if it is the last time, but in 2012 Colorado excluded one Abdul Hassan from running for President, on the grounds that Colorado had determined that Mr Hassan had not in fact been born in the US. A then Tenth Circuit judge, Neil Gorsuch (that name rings a bell) said that Colorado had the right to make that determination. That's what makes me think that the originalist SCOTUS will say, when they get the Trump appeal against the Colorado decision, "Nothing to see here; Colorado are entirely within their rights; we will leave this one alone. Next!"

[MajGenl.Meade]

Quit posting in what you believe to be epigrams.   Who was it, when was it, why was it, and what happened?

Yeah Bill, it's not that mysterious. Too much credit there. It's a reference to the omission of Lincoln from the ballot in Southern states in the 1860 election.

Of course, a major difference is that Lincoln had not betrayed the United States of America while in office under oath not to do such a thing.

eta
or is that "to do no such thing"?

[Scooter]

just remember what happened the last time states excluded a candidate.....

the north is the new south

If you're talking about Lincoln and/or Breckinridge, neither was "excluded" from the ballot by the authorities in any state in the 1860 election.

Prior to the 1880s, there was no such thing as a unified ballot with all of the candidates listed on it. Instead, individual presidential candidates were responsible for printing ballots with the names of electors pledged to support them, and distributing them to voters, who could then deposit those ballots on election day if they wished to vote for that candidate. Both Lincoln and Breckinridge recognized the futility of attempting to win the popular vote in most states of the opposing section, and so in most cases they didn't even try to print or distribute ballots in those states.

As others have already alluded to, there have, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, been candidates excluded from elective offices based on the operation of Section 3. So while it has been relatively rare, it is by no means unheard of.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What he wrote (better than what I wrote)

[wesw]

epigram?

what kind of person uses the word, epigram?

is this an militant metric lover at work?

but yes , i was referring to Lincoln

[wesw]

and meade, to your point, lincoln was certainly viewed as betraying the constitution, rightly or wrongly, at the time.

states , and their independent rights, within the union , were certainly viewed differently at the time

[Econoline]

I could be wrong (though I doubt it ), but before the 14th Amendment passed "betraying the constitution" would have been considered grounds for impeachment but not grounds for disqualification from the ballot. (And BTW...Lincoln certainly understood that while it would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit slavery in the states where it was still legal, in the territories which weren't yet states it could prohibited by Federal law [i.e., Congress].)

[Burning Petard]

Delaware history questions for wesw: When did slavery become illegal according to Delaware Law? When was the last lynching of a Black in Delaware?
When was the whipping post abolished in Delaware?

snailgate (a legal immigrant into the First State in 1972)

[MajGenl.Meade]

and meade, to your point, lincoln was certainly viewed as betraying the constitution, rightly or wrongly, at the time.

states , and their independent rights, within the union , were certainly viewed differently at the time

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was questioned in the north in light of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is an exaggeration to write that this "was certainly viewed as betraying the Constitution". Some so viewed it; many more did not. The question revolved around whether it should be Congress or the President who could suspend in case of rebellion. George Bush agreed with Lincoln (and didn't even have the excuse of rebellion).

It is also true that the relationship to the federal government of all the states, along with their rights, was radically changed during the course of the War of the Rebellion.

Neither of these commonplaces has even the most tenuous connection with being "engaged in insurrection". It is bootless to posit either as invalidating or supporting action under the 14th Amendment to remove Trump's name from a ballot. (And Scooter reminded us all that Lincoln's name was not "omitted" from any ballot - his supporters simply did not waste their time running him in the south).

[wesw]

insurrection is a crime

trump was not convicted , so he is innocent

of course all of our founders were insurrectionists.....

still smarts, aye?

[wesw]

the last lynching hasn t happened yet.

[wesw]

the last lynching hasn t happened yet.

it will almost certainly be some old cracker tho....

[MajGenl.Meade]

insurrection is a crime. trump was not convicted , so he is innocent
of course all of our founders were insurrectionists.....still smarts, aye?

After the Rebellion of 1861-1865, only Davis and Lee were indicted. Davis spent time in jail but was released without trial. Lee never was tried or jailed. No other Confederate leader was indicted, tried, and convicted of treason. Nevertheless, they were all guilty of treason.

There was of course no "insurrection" 14th amendment at that time, so they couldn't be charged with that at all. However, Section 3 was passed to prevent rebels (and fellow-travelers) from running for national office even though they had never been convicted of treason.

So . . . nul points for you m'dear.

As to the second . . . indeed they were and had they been captured and the Continental army defeated, they would have been shot/hung/forced to watch Lawrence Welk or other horror. Possibly without trial, though probably a military one with only one result.

Smarts? No. Not as much as did the Sudan

[Big RR]

Of course, the "Founding Fathers" have nothing to do with the 14th amendment); they were dead long before it was even proposed.

[wesw]

how were they guilty of treason if they were not tried or convicted?

treason was a capital offense at the time, i think. no?

who judged them guilty?

you?

history?

neither have the force of law, do they, or do you?

what the heck,RR?

i honestly don t get your argument, legally.

perhaps you are making a moral argument, idk.

if you fall back on a common sense argument i disagree.

i ll stick to mr paine s version of common sense.

you sound like you are selling a bill of goods

caveat emptor

[Big RR]

Not sure what you're objecting to wes; I was merely pointing out that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the 14th amendment at all. Yes, they were "insurrectionists" against the British government that ruled colonial America (at least the 13 colonies), but the 14th amendment was enacted after an entirely separate insurrection. The rest? Draw your own conclusions.

ETA: "Who found them guilty" of insurrection; as Sue pointed out above, the court made a finding that Trump engaged insurrection within the meaning of the 14th amendment section . There is no need for anyone to have been convicted of a crime, only that the persons engaged in insurrection, and given the backdrop of the post civil war period (aptly described by Meade) in which the 14th amendment was enacted, the lack of requiring a criminal conviction does make sense.

[MajGenl.Meade]

how were they guilty of treason if they were not tried or convicted?

You appear to be muddled over act (treason) and consequence (conviction of treason)

Treason is an act defined by the Constitution as "levying War against them (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

There is no argument but that South Carolina (initially) and then the Confederacy levied war against the United States for four years at a cost of 700,000+ lives. It is both act and fact. Therefore, by definition, they committed treason according to the Constitution.

The legal consequence of their act(s) could be conviction of treason "on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." But the government decided not to prosecute for practical and political reasons.

To summarize: they committed treason but were not punished for it . . . other than being forbidden to hold office as insurrectionists.

[wesw]

innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers

you seem to confuse subjects of the crown with free men

weak tea