Well, Colorado seems to be in the news today.

[Burning Petard]

I have been hearing many interviews with Republican party leaders objecting to the Colorado ruling on the primary. In my summary they have one major argument: the people should be allowed to select who they will. Funny how in the Election of the 44th president, Republican leaders were arguing that voters should not be permitted to choose Obama because he was not really born in the United States. The voters have always been prohibited from voting for an individual who is only 30 years old Nobody suggests that must be changed because the people have the right to choose. The objectors also frequently insist that the 14th amendment applies to the civil war and should not be considered for persons today. I have read it carefully and I find no expiration date or historical limitation therein. It is a long standing rule that the federal constitution limits the actions of the states, not just the federal government. I don't hear anyone suggesting that the 14th amendment be repealed. It is true that 'insurrection' and 'enemy' are not clearly defined. But the Colorado Supremes considered that and gave their definition. Again, I have heard no one from the Republican party saying the Colorado Supremes were wrong in their definitions, They only object that Trump should be on the ballot, independent of the 14th amendment. The restrictions apply to any who have taken an oath to support the federal constitution; members of congress and the president are specifically listed. The actions are not limited to actual participation in acts of insurrection, but include giving aid or comfort to such. Trump continues today giving comfort to those who have been sentenced for such acts and have paid fines or gone to jail. Trump promises he will pardon them. By definition, a pardon is an admission of guilt. Whether or not this primary is national is moot. The exclusion of the 14th amendment includes ALL offices civil, or military, under the United States, or any state. The way public schools are organized in most states, as instruments of the state, means that Trump should not even be eligible for a local elected school board. I am not sure about dog catcher. That office varies.

snailgate

[Burning Petard]

It could be even more interesting, if Trump were to win the vote in the electoral college. All you legal types, consider this question:

Who would have standing to bring the issue to the attention of the Federal Supremes that the 14th amendment takes precedent over an election; that an individual could not serve in the office, even if elected by a landslide, without a personal exemption approved by 2/3rds of both houses of congress?

I believe it was a fictional Mr. Dooley of Boston who observed that the Supremes read the election returns. The thought experiment above sort of blows away the precept that we are a nation of laws, not people.

snailgate

[Sue U]

It could be even more interesting, if Trump were to win the vote in the electoral college. All you legal types, consider this question:

Who would have standing to bring the issue to the attention of the Federal Supremes that the 14th amendment takes precedent over an election; that an individual could not serve in the office, even if elected by a landslide, without a personal exemption approved by 2/3rds of both houses of congress?

Well, the obvious party with standing is the person who came in second, and after that probably any other candidate for president. The mandates of the Constitution are not overriden by a popularity contest. The Supreme Court would probably ultimately take the case and might find some reason the DQ provisions of 14th Amendment don't apply to this candidate or this election, or the Court might decide they do and order a new election without the offending candidate, or it might decide that the issue is a political question to be decided by Congress and not the judiciary. I think it's fair to say a lot will hinge on what the Court thinks is necessary to preserve its legitimacy, which is already in a crisis in any event.

[Sue U]

Oh, in other ballot-busting news from snowy states, here's a pretty good summary of today's Michigan ruling:

Michigan Supreme Court Won't Remove Trump From Ballot Or Even Require Damage Deposit
Well now we like Colorado better, so there.

DOKTOR ZOOM
DEC 27, 2023

In another case challenging Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility on 14th Amendment grounds, the Michigan state supreme court ruled today that Donald Trump can stay on the state’s primary election ballot, even though everybody knows he’s insurrectiony as fuck. The decision came just a week after Colorado’s high court yeeted Trump from the primary, citing the 14th Amendment, section 3, which prohibits anyone who’s taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from holding any office if they engage in “insurrection or rebellion” against the USA.

The Michigan supreme court’s brief opinion said that under Michigan law, Michigan’s secretary of state lacks the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot before the election and that it would be up to the US Supreme Court to determine whether a candidate were ineligible to take office if or when the candidate were elected. The state Supremes upheld an earlier decision by the state court of appeals on the same grounds.

The decision also noted that since candidate selection is up to political parties, with the state just providing the election mechanisms for that choice, then

political parties might have a constitutional obligation to ensure that proposed presidential primary candidates are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President before submitting their names to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the primary ballot.

But again, not the State’s business, and also the Colorado decision doesn’t enter into it because Colorado has different election laws, sorry.

NBC News notes that’s more or less what the Minnesota state supreme court found last month in its decision to let Trump remain on the ballot, determining that “Minnesota law did not bar major parties from putting even ineligible candidates on the primary ballot.”

Unlike the Colorado case, the Michigan voters’ lawsuit to bar Trump from being on the ballot was dismissed before it ever got to trial; the state supreme court’s decision relied only on the procedural question of whether the secretary of state could remove Trump from the ballot, and never touched on the question of whether Trump was actually ineligible.

Donald Trump took to his fake Xwitter, Xruth Xocial, to proclaim that the Michigan court had gotten it right by rejecting a “pathetic gambit” to keep him off the ballot, not that he would trust the state supreme court justices on anything else because Gretchen Whitmer is a tyrant and all that.

Trump also claimed the Colorado decision is “being ridiculed and mocked all over the World,” because you know everyone thinks Trump is best, and America must be rescued from “Crooked Joe Biden violently destroying everything in his sight, from our once-great Economy to our once-fair Justice System.” Far better to elect Trump, a guy with documented experience in destroying everything in his sight, to make sure it’s done thoroughly.

Trump didn’t explain how Biden had corrupted Colorado but not Michigan or Minnesota, but he didn’t have to because he’s just making shit up, we all know that anyway the end.

Source: Filthy liberal recipe hub and mommyblog

[Sue U]

OK, so now the Maine decision is in, following Colorado in disqualifying Trump from the state's primary ballot.

[Crackpot]

I don’t find any issue with the Michigan decision really a party can nominate who it wants as they are not a government entity. If a party can not be bothered either or not their candidate is eligible that is not the state’s problem. (Personally I find the amount of governmental endorsement of the primary political parties in general troubling) come the general this issue will be revisited. (As it should be, if necessary)

[wesw]

did trump get convicted of insurrection?

i must have missed it.

i remember he was indicted by the house and tried in the senate, but i don t think he was convicted of anything

[MajGenl.Meade]

did trump get convicted of insurrection?

You find anything about conviction anywhere in here? I'll wait.

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.

[Burning Petard]

Am I the only person not asking if he participated in an insurrection, but rather did Trump give/still giving aid and comfort to those who did?

snailgate.

[ex-khobar Andy]

did trump get convicted of insurrection?

No. Nor was Jefferson Davis.

[wesw]

you guys are so full of shit.

firstly, i disregard BP because of his liberty level intellect.

second ly, meade, there are so many semantic arguements against your point, of which you are well aware, that i will not trouble the board with the tedium.

meade, are you argueing against due process?

i won t trouble myself to quote chapter and verse, but we both know that due process is gauranteed in our system of justice, the is different from the ideal, i must admit.

andy, i must admit that i am not so familiar with Old Jeff

my dad taught me to be a rebel, but not a confederate

more of a hancock, washington henry, jefferson type of rebel

live free or die brother.

all hail queen elizabeth the last

ding dong.....

[wesw]

you guys are so full of shit.

firstly, i disregard BP because of his liberty level intellect.

second ly, meade, there are so many semantic arguements against your point, of which you are well aware, that i will not trouble the board with the tedium.

meade, are you argueing against due process?

i won t trouble myself to quote chapter and verse, but we both know that due process is gauranteed in our system of justice, the is different from the ideal, i must admit.

andy, i must admit that i am not so familiar with Old Jeff

my dad taught me to be a rebel, but not a confederate

more of a hancock, washington henry, jefferson type of rebel

live free or die brother.

all hail queen elizabeth the last

ding dong.....

[BoSoxGal]

[wesw]

in all fairness, old Liz, and young Liz, no matter how sordid her family affairs were, did not inspire me to break out the tar and feathers.

she was a likable old bird.

her boys, on the other hand.....

william seems alright, hut prince henry, er...., Harry, should bail on america, right quick-like, if the shit ever hits the fan

BLM will make him take the knee and say ahhhhhh...., right quick.

his red hair only makes him more valuable in the slave trade

[Bicycle Bill]

did trump get convicted of insurrection?

No. Nor was Jefferson Davis.

I think that's more because of the actions of Andrew Johnson,the 17th POTUS, who issued a blanket pardon (or amnesty, if you prefer) for almost all Confederate soldiers and officers in May of 1865.  Jefferson Davis and other high-ranking officers and governmental officials of the former Confederacy received their pardons in December of 1868.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

meade, are you argueing against due process?

You mean this due process?.....

14th amendment
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The insurrection thingie is not a State thingie. It's a straightforward USofA declaration that traitors who previously swore oaths of federal office etc. who engage in insurrection are ineligible etc. Trump engaged in insurrection. Ergo, ineligible etc.

Semant away dear chum, semant away.

[wesw]

if it isn t a state thingie, colorado and maine shouldn t play around with uncle sam s thingie

[wesw]

i don t get how you defermine that trump engaged in insurrection

cuz you said so?

the house and senate are the determiners of that aren t they?

or maybe the maine sec of state ?

[Big RR]

Well, as Sue pointed out above, the court said so after Trump and his team had the right to present evidence. They also have the right to appeal. What more would you want?

[Joe Guy]

Did anyone else see where in the Colorado ruling, the State Supreme Court quoted and relied on by an earlier ruling by Neil Gorsuch, which he made years ago as an appellate court judge regarding whether a State has authority to disqualify potential political candidates from their ballots?

Gorsuch wrote, "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."