|
gww
Stranger

Registered: 01/05/19
Posts: 871
Last seen: 47 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: Enlil]
#28591687 - 12/20/23 05:16 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I do find it interesting that in much of the reporting, the part of the 14th amendment where it says congress can remove such a disability with a two thirds vote of each house seems to be glossed over or even left out of the discussions. Sometimes when it would counter some stuff being used one way or the other in positions people take.
I also think that getting a constitutional amendment is harder to do then passing a referendum in a state and that fact alone makes it very hard for people to just say it is not fair or not what I want or is what I want and so means nothing. It will mean what the courts decide it means but was put there with a lot of effort to mean something.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: The oath of office is to uphold the duties of the office and a big part of that is the upholding and abiding by the constitution. It says right in the law an officer of the United States, the president is simply a civilian holding the highest ranking office in government, comander in chief in supreme command. It's been that way since George Washington for God sakes 
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982): “Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750
Maybe it was poorly worded, but it was a question because that is what his lawyers cotend. I am not a lawyer, hence the question.
As much as I want him out, this is shitty application (for whatever reason) of an Amendment made specifically during Reconstruction.
I am willing to take a bet that the Supreme Court will rule in Trumps favor, you down? ‐----------------------------
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colorado-insurrection-1847482
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group and Republican figures, who argue that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment and therefore he should be prohibited from running for the White House again.
The section states a person who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from running for office again. In a previous ruling, lower court judge Sarah B. Wallace said that Trump had "engaged in insurrection" on January 6, the day of the Capitol riot, but should remain on Colorado's primary ballot as the wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention preventing people from running for the presidency.
In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president.
"The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully," Trump's legal team wrote. "Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' the president is not an 'officer of the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States.'"
Donald Trump taking presidential oath Donald Trump being sworn into office on January 20, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Trump's lawyers argue that he never swore to "support" the Constitution.
Newsweek reached out to Trump's legal team via email for comment.
The argument that Trump did not support the Constitution in his oath has been criticized on social media.
"Wow in a legal proceeding Trump is now arguing he didn't violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.' This treacherous criminal is head of the Republican Party," Democratic New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell posted on X, formerly Twitter.
Tristan Snell, a lawyer and former assistant attorney general for New York state, wrote: "Donald Trump is arguing the president is not an 'officer of the United States' — and so he can't be disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Yes, you read that correctly. This is how bad his legal arguments are."
Former federal and state prosecutor Eric Lisann posted: "Crazy as it sounds Trump made that exact same argument to the Colorado trial judge and somehow it is the only argument the judge agreed with him on."
Donald Trump says court clerk "allowed herself" to be exposed to abuse Marjorie Taylor Greene's book is a flop Trump, the front-runner in the GOP presidential primary, has denied all wrongdoing in connection to the January 6 attack and has described attempts to prevent him from running for office again by citing the 14th Amendment as a "trick" to prevent him winning the 2024 election.
Geoffrey Blue, a Colorado-based attorney for Trump, previously used the same argument as to why the 14th Amendment cannot be cited to stop Trump from the presidency again in an October 9 filing to try to have the lawsuit thrown out.
"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President," Blue wrote.
"If they wanted to include the President in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an 'officer under the strictures of Section Three. They did not do so, and no number of semantic arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump."
Oral arguments are scheduled to begin on December 6 after the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on Wallace's decision that Trump can remain on the ballot in the Centennial State.
In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Inste...
POV me preserving and protecting constitution but technically not swearing an oath to follow it AND THEN USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEFEND MYSELF AFTER CLAIMING 2016 ELECTIONS WERE RIGGED AND GOT CONVICTED FOR IT
Trump has said he wants to "terminate the Constitution of the United States". His crime family lawyers tell us Trump never took an oath to "support the Constitution of the United States".
You would think the MAGAs who support him and claim to be patriots would finally have an epiphany ? Trump only cares about Trump. Taking the Republican party down
The saddest part of this episode is who are these lawyers that dreamed up this defense: a candidate for the office of our President need not swore to defending our Constitution, or follow our Constitution.
Okay. Let’s have it Attorney Blue’s way: The 14th Amendment Framers set out to make darn sure the US President was the only person on the Federal or a State Government purse who could get or keep their job if they engaged in insurrection
Given all that has occurred, been said, and supported, by Trump...why would we want another four years of this chaos, self-aggrandizement, and focus on being sure he is immune from prosecution by virtue of a second term. He has made clear...
As an independent unbiased non-American observer, it is sad to see that the longest running modern day democracy, it being the most powerful notwithstanding, has degenerated to a farce!!
This farcical situation CANNOT happen WITHOUT the act...
"support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president.
".... Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president."
Talking about splitting hairs over a word- Apparently Trump and his attorneys have never picked up a dictionary either- Definition of 'Support'- to defend, be on the side of, stand behind, stand up for, etc. Whether he swore and oath to '...
Trump lawyers: "Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' the president is not an 'officer of the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution ...
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (12/20/23 05:29 PM)
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts

Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,529
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 hour, 4 minutes
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#28591725 - 12/20/23 05:40 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Right and anyone with a brain could tell that argument is completely bullshit. I mean you just glanced over the whole "faithfully execute the office of President" part. Fuck me what does preserve protect and defend the constitution mean? Does it mean do insurrection stuff to prevent the peaceful democratic transfer of power guaranteed by the constitution? The president is literally the chief executive officer of the country its all insane. Like I said the lower court ruling basically states he's flat out guilty of the crime and then set it up on a tee for the appeal to get crushed which is exactly what happened
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Well, if it's anything like the oath cops take, it ain't worth shit.
|
gww
Stranger

Registered: 01/05/19
Posts: 871
Last seen: 47 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: Kryptos]
#28591766 - 12/20/23 06:16 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I find it amazing that a past president has to swear he never took an oath to support the constitution after being said president. Has had to argue presidential immunity in ten different ways cause if you look, they almost all come down to that and it has lost most of the time so far (if you take turning over his taxes taking two years a loss and such). Beyond personal belief that he is the dumbest president that has ever held the office and I doubt he can get enough votes to win against a turnip though he will come close, I doubt this case is decided on oath of office or if it is an office. I am not calling a win for Colorado just yet but doubt the oath reason will go his way. I will decide in my own mind if any common sense was used in the decision after we get one for the little that will matter to what happens.
I will say this though, I have been to court a few times and my lawyer and I did not always think each others points were the important ones to make but my lawyer did most of the talking and I did most of the scribbling of notes and I won and so court is not like talking to my neighbor.
Edited by gww (12/20/23 06:21 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: gww] 2
#28591769 - 12/20/23 06:17 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Lt. Gov of Texas threatened to take Biden off the ballot earlier today, apparently.
The bullshit begins.
|
gww
Stranger

Registered: 01/05/19
Posts: 871
Last seen: 47 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: Kryptos] 1
#28591785 - 12/20/23 06:32 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Mitch used power he did have to steal a justice appointment. Abbot did a blockade that cost his state billions. Comer has to get on the news and say they have no link to joe biden yet but they are impeaching. That is the nature of the beast. If one side does something, that may not be the cause of the other side doing the same. They may have tried that anyway. Question is, are they any good at it?
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: Right and anyone with a brain could tell that argument is completely bullshit. I mean you just glanced over the whole "faithfully execute the office of President" part. Fuck me what does preserve protect and defend the constitution mean? Does it mean do insurrection stuff to prevent the peaceful democratic transfer of power guaranteed by the constitution? The president is literally the chief executive officer of the country its all insane. Like I said the lower court ruling basically states he's flat out guilty of the crime and then set it up on a tee for the appeal to get crushed which is exactly what happened 
First, it wasn't crushed it was 4-3.( )What is right, wrong, and just can be differnt things ( ). I don't pretend to be infallible, in fact, given that we are in legal uncharted waters, it is a question to ponder. Look at half the posts here, its people trying to figure this situation out. ( )
So your willing to take that bet?
( )
https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/
The historic 4-3 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, likely to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, makes Trump the first presidential candidate deemed ineligible for the White House under a rarely used constitutional provision that bars officials who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding office.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (12/20/23 06:48 PM)
|
lifeiswhatyoumake
Trance in my sig n blood



Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 16,709
Last seen: 3 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#28591800 - 12/20/23 06:46 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
The 3 who dissented didn't do it because they think Trump didn't incite the insurrection... they did it because he hasn't been convicted of a crime for it:
"In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here,” he wrote."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484
--------------------
  I dropped a trance track "Peace Love & Trance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4uQBM-mRYU ;   
|
gww
Stranger

Registered: 01/05/19
Posts: 871
Last seen: 47 minutes, 7 seconds
|
|
Of course that sets up an impossible situation for the 14th to have any real meaning cause it takes 2 years to get an consensual divorce finalized much less a trial for insurrection where there is a lot of money and a goal to delay. There are more then one way to make any possible meaning not really a real life effective one.
This sorta brings us to the 2/3rd vote of each congress portion which ironically in effect is the same standard for impeachment. The argument has also been that congress has made not rules around it and so nothing. Again, It is set up for congress to have the final say if enough disagree with anything the court does.
Edited by gww (12/20/23 07:03 PM)
|
lifeiswhatyoumake
Trance in my sig n blood



Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 16,709
Last seen: 3 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: gww] 1
#28591822 - 12/20/23 07:03 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I like to think the USA is smart enough to expedite a case in which a president incited an insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and they're running for office again after claiming they want to be a dictator, but what do I know?
--------------------
  I dropped a trance track "Peace Love & Trance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4uQBM-mRYU ;   
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
SCOTUS won't expedite shit. The majority love his fat diapered ass
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
lifeiswhatyoumake
Trance in my sig n blood



Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 16,709
Last seen: 3 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: ballsalsa]
#28591842 - 12/20/23 07:15 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: SCOTUS won't expedite shit. The majority love his fat diapered ass
So you think the Justices are okay with Trump becoming dictator and having more power than them?
--------------------
  I dropped a trance track "Peace Love & Trance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4uQBM-mRYU ;   
Edited by lifeiswhatyoumake (12/20/23 07:15 PM)
|
mushboy
modboy



Registered: 04/24/05
Posts: 32,256
Loc: where?
|
|
yes. trump and the conservative majority agree. what could go wrong
Edited by mushboy (12/20/23 07:19 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Most of them, probably, yes. The dissenters wouldn't care for it, maybe, but dictators have the ability to hand out serious perks.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#28591867 - 12/20/23 07:23 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Trump got three....thats alot of a one term prez. Let's begin to shudder if he has a chance at that number again.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
gww
Stranger

Registered: 01/05/19
Posts: 871
Last seen: 47 minutes, 7 seconds
|
|
I really do think the justus's will not say it is political and cut them selves out forever but may do something that leaves them plenty of latitude to do something else when needed. No ideal what.
I say this, trump will throw anyone under the bus and they can not buy good will from him that last.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: gww]
#28592377 - 12/21/23 06:50 AM (1 month, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Most of them don't really need goodwill from trump. They just need to keep their jobs, even in a ceremonial role, and have Harlan crow keep the payments flowing.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 41 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Colorado, The 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS [Re: gww]
#28592741 - 12/21/23 01:18 PM (1 month, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gww said: I really do think the justus's will not say it is political and cut them selves out forever but may do something that leaves them plenty of latitude to do something else when needed. No ideal what.
I say this, trump will throw anyone under the bus and they can not buy good will from him that last.
I think this case will be heard in time for states to make decisions about their own ballots. If the court upholds this decision, that’s it, Trump is finished.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 41 minutes, 50 seconds
|
|
Quote:
lifeiswhatyoumake said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: SCOTUS won't expedite shit. The majority love his fat diapered ass
So you think the Justices are okay with Trump becoming dictator and having more power than them?
The court has consistently ruled against Trump in other election cases. Not saying they will do so here, but they don’t seem interested in playing favorites.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|