The whole "wouldn't give us a jury" mantra is stunning...I guess I give him credit for not publicly shaming his attorney. And the attorney keeps popping up making similar comments like it wasn't her fault. Fucking unreal. It's just the complete stupidity of their base that accepts this bullshit.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The whole "wouldn't give us a jury" mantra is stunning...I guess I give him credit for not publicly shaming his attorney. And the attorney keeps popping up making similar comments like it wasn't her fault. Fucking unreal. It's just the complete stupidity of their base that accepts this bullshit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The whole "wouldn't give us a jury" mantra is stunning...I guess I give him credit for not publicly shaming his attorney. And the attorney keeps popping up making similar comments like it wasn't her fault. Fucking unreal. It's just the complete stupidity of their base that accepts this bullshit.
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI
23 mins ago
DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation's highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters. His campaign said it was working on a response to the ruling.
Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn’t need the state to win next year’s presidential election. But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.
Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.
The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.
Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency.
The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine the framers of the amendment, fearful of former Confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.
“You’d be saying a rebel who took up arms against the government couldn’t be a county sheriff, but could be the president,” attorney Jason Murray said in arguments before the court in early December.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Is he tired of winning yet is this what he meant when he said “ you’ll get tired of all the winning” oh where oh where have all the MAGA supporters gone? Maybe in the 2024 rumors thread?
unfortunately the us supreme court will probably overturn that colorado court decision. hate to burst any bubbles here.
Interesting little tidbit in the Colorado SC ruling:
¶55 As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate
interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948.
¶84 The district court’s case-management approach worked. After permitting
multiple intervenors to participate, the district court allowed sufficient time for
extensive prehearing motions in which all parties vigorously engaged. It then
issued three substantive rulings on these motions, including an omnibus ruling
addressing four of Intervenors’ motions, all in advance of the trial. The trial took
place over five days and included opening and closing statements, the direct- and
cross-examination of fifteen witnesses, and the presentation of ninety-six exhibits.
Moreover, the legal and factual complexity of this case did not prevent the district
court from issuing a comprehensive, 102-page order within the forty-eight-hour
window section 1-4-1204(4) requires.
¶85 In short, the district court admirably—and swiftly—discharged its duty to
adjudicate this complex section 1-1-113 action, substantially complying with
statutory deadlines while demonstrating the flexibility inherent in such a
proceeding to address the various issues raised by Intervenors. And nothing
about the district court’s process suggests that President Trump was deprived of
notice or opportunity to fully respond to the claim against him or to mount a
vigorous defense. If any case suggests that it is not impossible to “fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within days or weeks,” this is it. Frazier, ¶ 18 n.3,
401 P.3d at 545 n.3.
¶86 For these reasons, we conclude that the Election Code allows Colorado’s
courts, through challenges brought under sections 1-4-1204(4) and 1-1-113, to
assess the constitutional qualifications of a candidate—and to order the Secretary
to exclude from the ballot candidates who are not qualified. These provisions
advance Colorado’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical
functioning of the political process” by allowing the Secretary to “exclude from
the ballot [presidential] candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from
assuming office.” Hassan, 495 F. App’x at 948. Moreover, these provisions neither
infringe on a political party’s associational rights nor compromise the validity of a
court’s rulings on complex factual and legal issues. Rather, they provide a robust
vehicle through which to protect the purity of Colorado’s elections.10 See Colo.
Const. art. VII, § 11.
¶87 Because the Electors have properly invoked Colorado’s section 1-1-113
process to challenge the listing of President Trump on the presidential primary
ballot as a wrongful act, we proceed to the other threshold questions raised by
Intervenors.
I look forward to reading Justice Thomas's pretzel twisting argument as it relates to this part of the Colorado SC decision. It'll be an exercise in sputtering the likes of which have never been seen. And nothing like going out of your way to make a point, despite some calling it an "unAmerican process.":
¶94 The same is true for the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery
and involuntary servitude. Section One provides the substantive provision:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United
States . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added). Section Two provides
the enforcement provision: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.” Id. at § 2. Discussing this Amendment, the Supreme
Court recognized that “legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the
various cases and circumstances to be affected by it,” but that “[b]y its own
unaided force it abolished slavery” and was “undoubtedly self-executing without
any ancillary legislation.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 20.
¶95 Like the other Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth Amendment,
which established universal male suffrage, contains a substantive provision—
“[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”—
followed by an enforcement provision—“[t]he Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” U.S. Const. amend. XV, §§ 1–2
(emphasis added). As with Section One of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that the Fifteenth
Amendment is self-executing. E.g., South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 325
(1966) (holding that Section One of the Fifteenth Amendment “has always been treated as self-executing and has repeatedly been construed, without further
legislative specification, to invalidate state voting qualifications or procedures
which are discriminatory on their face or in practice”).
¶96 There is no textual evidence that Congress intended Section Three to be any
different.
12 Furthermore, we agree with the Electors that interpreting any of the
Reconstruction Amendments, given their identical structure, as not self-executing
would lead to absurd results. If these Amendments required legislation to make
them operative, then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting
legislation. The result of such inaction would mean that slavery remains legal;
Black citizens would be counted as less than full citizens for reapportionment; nonwhite male voters could be disenfranchised; and any individual who engaged in
insurrection against the government would nonetheless be able to serve in the government, regardless of whether two-thirds of Congress had lifted the
disqualification. Surely that was not the drafters’ intent.
¶97 Intervenors argue that certain historical evidence requires a different
conclusion as to Section Three. We generally turn to historical and other extrinsic
evidence only when the text is ambiguous, which it is not here. Nonetheless, we
will consider these historical claims in the interest of providing a thorough review.
¶98 Intervenors first highlight a statement Representative Thaddeus Stevens
made during the Congressional framing debates: “[Section Three] will not execute
itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to
carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have
the right to do.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2544 (1866); see also Kurt T.
Lash, The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment
42 (Oct. 3, 2023) (unpublished manuscript), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4591838.
But as one of the amici points out, this statement referenced a deleted portion of
Section Three that disenfranchised all former Confederates until 1870. In any
event, given the complex patchwork of perspectives and intentions expressed
when drafting these constitutional provisions, we refuse to cherry-pick individual
statements from extensive debates to ground our analysis. See generally Baude &
Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 39–53).
¶99 Intervenors next direct us to the non-binding opinion written by Chief
Justice Salmon Chase while he was riding circuit: In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.
Va. 1869) (No. 5,815) (“Griffin’s Case”).
13 There, Caesar Griffin challenged his
criminal conviction as null and void because under Section Three, the judge who
had entered his conviction was disqualified from holding judicial office, having
formerly sworn a relevant oath as a state legislator and then engaged in
insurrection by continuing to serve as a legislator in Virginia’s Confederate
government. Id. at 22–23. It was undisputed that the judge fell within Section
Three’s scope, but the question Chief Justice Chase sought to answer was whether
Section Three “operat[ed] directly, without any intermediate proceeding
whatever, upon all persons within the category of prohibition, and as depriving
them at once, and absolutely, of all official authority and power.” Id. at 23.
¶100 In interpreting the scope of the provision, Chief Justice Chase observed that,
after the end of the Civil War but before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,
many southern states had established, with the approval of the federal
government, provisional governments to keep society functioning. Id. at 25; see also Baude & Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 36). And, within these provisional
governments, many offices were filled with citizens who would fall within Section
Three’s scope. Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. at 25. Chief Justice Chase observed that
giving Section Three a literal construction, as Griffin advocated, would “annul all
official acts performed by these officers. No sentence, no judgment, no decree, . . .
no official act [would be] of the least validity.” Id. He reasoned that it would be
“impossible to measure the evils which such a construction would add to the
calamities which have already fallen upon the people of these states.” Id.
¶101 And so, Chief Justice Chase turned to what he termed the “argument from
inconveniences” and the interpretive canon that, when faced with two or more
reasonable interpretations, the interpretation “is to be preferred which best
harmonizes the amendment with the general terms and spirit of the act amended.”
Id. He then explained that, while it was not “improbable that one of the objects of
this section was to provide for the security of the nation and of individuals, by the
exclusion of a class of citizens from office,” it could also “hardly be doubted that
the main purpose was to inflict upon the leading and most influential characters
who had been engaged in the Rebellion, exclusion from office as a punishment for
the offense.” Id. at 25–26. To find the provision self-executing under the
circumstances, he argued, would be contrary to due process because it would, “at once without trial, deprive[] a whole class of persons of offices held by them.” Id.
at 26.
¶102 Chief Justice Chase therefore concluded that the object of the Amendment—
“to exclude from certain offices a certain class of persons”—was impossible to do
“by a simple declaration, whether in the constitution or in an act of congress . . . .
For, in the very nature of things, it must be ascertained what particular individuals
are embraced by the definition, before any sentence of exclusion can be made to
operate.” Id. To accomplish “this ascertainment and ensure effective results,
proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions . . . are
indispensable; and . . . can only be provided for by congress.” Id. Thus, Chief
Justice Chase concluded that Section Three was not self-executing. Id.
¶103 Griffin’s Case concludes that congressional action is needed before Section
Three disqualification attaches, but this one case does not persuade us of that
point. Intervenors and amici assert that Griffin’s Case “remains good law and has
been repeatedly relied on.” Because the case is not binding on us, the fact that it
has not been reversed is of no particular significance. And the cases that cite it do
so either with no analysis—e.g., State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599 (1875), and Rothermel v.
Meyerle, 136 Pa. 250 (1890)—or for the inapposite proposition that Section Three
does not create a self-executing cause of action—e.g., Cale v. City of Covington,
586 F.2d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 1978), and Hansen v. Finchem, CV 2022-004321 (Sup. Ct. of Ariz., Maricopa Cnty. Apr. 22, 2022), aff’d on other grounds, 2022 WL 1468157
(May 9, 2022). Moreover, Griffin’s Case has been the subject of persuasive criticism.
See, e.g., Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three, supra, at 105–08 (critiquing the case
because the other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment were understood as
self-executing and the notion that Section Three was not self-executing was
inconsistent with congressional behavior at the time); Baude & Paulsen, supra
(manuscript at 37–49) (criticizing Chief Justice Chase’s interpretation as wrong and
constituting a strained interpretation based on policy and circumstances rather
than established canons of construction).
A little SCOTUS history. I wonder if Clarence can ride a horse? As opposed to drive a motorhome?
13 Between 1789 and 1911, U.S. Supreme Court justices traveled across the country
and, together with district court judges, sat on circuit courts to decide cases. See
generally Joshua Glick, On the Road: The Supreme Court and the History of Circuit
Riding, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1753 (2003). Decisions written by the justices while they
were riding circuit were not decisions of the Supreme Court.
We are doomed I’m thinking this experiment stops working this coming new year! The corruption in this nation starts at the very top of our legal institution and trickles down uhmm maybe that’s what the Gipper meant by trickle down economics
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
does anybody really believe that 6 conservative justices will rule that maga god trump cannot run for president? without a criminal conviction? 3 of them owe him a favor for the appointment. they have ruled against him a few times, but this is a bigger case than the rest.
right now, conservative billionaires are offering them gifts that they cannot refuse to keep him on the ballot.
precedent means nothing to this court.
roberts will not allow his court to keep a man that got 70 million votes just 3 years ago off of the ballot. he just will not.
even if the court was not corrupt, they will not allow 5 individuals to hand the presidency to biden, because they feel that the electoral college has to decide that. they handed the presidency to bush in 2000, and court has never regained legitimacy since then.
trump will be on the ballot, unfortunately.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
does anybody really believe that 6 conservative justices will rule that maga god trump cannot run for president? without a criminal conviction? 3 of them owe him a favor for the appointment. they have ruled against him a few times, but this is a bigger case than the rest.
right now, conservative billionaires are offering them gifts that they cannot refuse to keep him on the ballot.
precedent means nothing to this court.
roberts will not allow his court to keep a man that got 70 million votes just 3 years ago off of the ballot. he just will not.
even if the court was not corrupt, they will not allow 5 individuals to hand the presidency to biden, because they feel that the electoral college has to decide that. they handed the presidency to bush in 2000, and court has never regained legitimacy since then.
trump will be on the ballot, unfortunately.
100%
The GOP ratfucked the SCOTUS & they’re ratfucking our democracy & 40% of the country is on board with it because they would rather burn it all down then share it with the people they don’t like.
does anybody really believe that 6 conservative justices will rule that maga god trump cannot run for president? without a criminal conviction? 3 of them owe him a favor for the appointment. they have ruled against him a few times, but this is a bigger case than the rest.
right now, conservative billionaires are offering them gifts that they cannot refuse to keep him on the ballot.
precedent means nothing to this court.
roberts will not allow his court to keep a man that got 70 million votes just 3 years ago off of the ballot. he just will not.
even if the court was not corrupt, they will not allow 5 individuals to hand the presidency to biden, because they feel that the electoral college has to decide that. they handed the presidency to bush in 2000, and court has never regained legitimacy since then.
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
i believe it is the right decision. anybody that engaged in insurrection against the federal government does not deserve the chance to head that government.
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
i believe it is the right decision. anybody that engaged in insurrection against the federal government does not deserve the chance to head that government.
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
Here's the problem. The SCOTUS is made up of Textualists. That means they adhere to the specific text of the Constitution with little interpretation or implied meanings considered. If you read the the actual amendment, it calls out Senators, Reps, and ELECTORS of the President and VP. It does not name those offices. Is there a reason why they specifically did not include the two Executive Branch elected officials? This is really the question. If Trump was running for senator, it would be an easier argument. I don't think he will be disqualified when this is adjudicated. I recognize that "hold any office" could be the trump card, but the question remains why the President was not called out specifically.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
i believe it is the right decision. anybody that engaged in insurrection against the federal government does not deserve the chance to head that government.
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
Here's the problem. The SCOTUS is made up of Textualists. That means they adhere to the specific text of the Constitution with little interpretation or implied meanings considered. If you read the the actual amendment, it calls out Senators, Reps, and ELECTORS of the President and VP. It does not name those offices. Is there a reason why they specifically did not include the two Executive Branch elected officials? This is really the question. If Trump was running for senator, it would be an easier argument. I don't think he will be disqualified when this is adjudicated. I recognize that "hold any office" could be the trump card, but the question remains why the President was not called out specifically.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The Colorado decision answers your questions and provides reasoning, which is fascinating as they explain their methodology as well as how questions without concise answers have been addressed in the past, including intent and what POOTWH’s meaning would result in.
SCOTUS will be seen as fully bought and paid for if they’re going to toss aside intent, precedent and definition from the time of our founding.
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
i believe it is the right decision. anybody that engaged in insurrection against the federal government does not deserve the chance to head that government.
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
Here's the problem. The SCOTUS is made up of Textualists. That means they adhere to the specific text of the Constitution with little interpretation or implied meanings considered. If you read the the actual amendment, it calls out Senators, Reps, and ELECTORS of the President and VP. It does not name those offices. Is there a reason why they specifically did not include the two Executive Branch elected officials? This is really the question. If Trump was running for senator, it would be an easier argument. I don't think he will be disqualified when this is adjudicated. I recognize that "hold any office" could be the trump card, but the question remains why the President was not called out specifically.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The Colorado decision answers your questions and provides reasoning, which is fascinating as they explain their methodology as well as how questions without concise answers have been addressed in the past, including intent and what POOTWH’s meaning would result in.
SCOTUS will be seen as fully bought and paid for if they’re going to toss aside intent, precedent and definition from the time of our founding.
I'm not arguing with the CO reasoning, I'm just saying that the definition of officer is going to be key here. And in 2010, John Roberts noted in another case that the people don't vote for "officers" of the United States. This gets into the "Textualist" makeup of the current SCOTUS. Obviously I would love for him to be disqualified. I think he's a cancer on our Union and a generally horrible, horrible person. But it would not surprise me if the majority goes against Colorado and I won't just chalk it up to "bought" because there is enough evidence in their other decisions and comments about how they view the Constitution. Again, I think the better argument is that "no person shall..... hold any office".
I'm not wise enough to know whether the Colorado decision was the right one but I kinda wish it would not have happened. Ultimately, this most likely serves to embolden the notion that it's the dems* that are interested in fascism (and/or that's how scarred they are by this super-human America lover).
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
i believe it is the right decision. anybody that engaged in insurrection against the federal government does not deserve the chance to head that government.
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
Here's the problem. The SCOTUS is made up of Textualists. That means they adhere to the specific text of the Constitution with little interpretation or implied meanings considered. If you read the the actual amendment, it calls out Senators, Reps, and ELECTORS of the President and VP. It does not name those offices. Is there a reason why they specifically did not include the two Executive Branch elected officials? This is really the question. If Trump was running for senator, it would be an easier argument. I don't think he will be disqualified when this is adjudicated. I recognize that "hold any office" could be the trump card, but the question remains why the President was not called out specifically.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The Colorado decision answers your questions and provides reasoning, which is fascinating as they explain their methodology as well as how questions without concise answers have been addressed in the past, including intent and what POOTWH’s meaning would result in.
SCOTUS will be seen as fully bought and paid for if they’re going to toss aside intent, precedent and definition from the time of our founding.
I'm not arguing with the CO reasoning, I'm just saying that the definition of officer is going to be key here. And in 2010, John Roberts noted in another case that the people don't vote for "officers" of the United States. This gets into the "Textualist" makeup of the current SCOTUS. Obviously I would love for him to be disqualified. I think he's a cancer on our Union and a generally horrible, horrible person. But it would not surprise me if the majority goes against Colorado and I won't just chalk it up to "bought" because there is enough evidence in their other decisions and comments about how they view the Constitution. Again, I think the better argument is that "no person shall..... hold any office".
They touch on that as well. The officer part and how they’re not elected. It’s a very strong opinion/ruling and argument. They totally break down POOTWH’s lawyers arguments one by one, going out of their way to address the “what ifs or buts.” They may have referred to Roberts’s ruling but I’m not sure as I’m not sure I recognized the case citation but they specifically referred to a one off as not setting or being indicative of precedent but rather an over reliance. As such, from my layperson perspective it appears the CO majority justices knew who their audience will be upon appeal and drafted or wrote their opinion to reflect the “textualist” members of SCOTUS’s viewpoint/perspective.
IMHO, it’ll be a difficult decision to overturn and an amazing level of twisting to do so but I won’t be surprised.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
DONALD TRUMP
A voter's challenge to having Trump's name on North Carolina's primary ballot has been dismissed
A pro-Trump super PAC airs an anti-Haley ad in New Hampshire. She says that's a sign of her strength
Trump campaign lawyer testified in Nevada fake electors case to avoid prosecution, transcripts show
Judge criticizes Trump's expert witness as he again refuses to toss fraud lawsuit
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation's highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters. His campaign said it was working on a response to the ruling.
Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn’t need the state to win next year’s presidential election. But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.
Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.
The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.
Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency.
The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine the framers of the amendment, fearful of former Confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.
“You’d be saying a rebel who took up arms against the government couldn’t be a county sheriff, but could be the president,” attorney Jason Murray said in arguments before the court in early December.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
¶55 As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
¶85 In short, the district court admirably—and swiftly—discharged its duty to adjudicate this complex section 1-1-113 action, substantially complying with statutory deadlines while demonstrating the flexibility inherent in such a proceeding to address the various issues raised by Intervenors. And nothing about the district court’s process suggests that President Trump was deprived of notice or opportunity to fully respond to the claim against him or to mount a vigorous defense. If any case suggests that it is not impossible to “fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within days or weeks,” this is it. Frazier, ¶ 18 n.3, 401 P.3d at 545 n.3.
¶86 For these reasons, we conclude that the Election Code allows Colorado’s courts, through challenges brought under sections 1-4-1204(4) and 1-1-113, to assess the constitutional qualifications of a candidate—and to order the Secretary to exclude from the ballot candidates who are not qualified. These provisions advance Colorado’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” by allowing the Secretary to “exclude from the ballot [presidential] candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” Hassan, 495 F. App’x at 948. Moreover, these provisions neither infringe on a political party’s associational rights nor compromise the validity of a court’s rulings on complex factual and legal issues. Rather, they provide a robust vehicle through which to protect the purity of Colorado’s elections.10 See Colo. Const. art. VII, § 11.
¶87 Because the Electors have properly invoked Colorado’s section 1-1-113 process to challenge the listing of President Trump on the presidential primary ballot as a wrongful act, we proceed to the other threshold questions raised by Intervenors.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
¶94 The same is true for the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. Section One provides the substantive provision: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added). Section Two provides the enforcement provision: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Id. at § 2. Discussing this Amendment, the Supreme Court recognized that “legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it,” but that “[b]y its own unaided force it abolished slavery” and was “undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 20.
¶95 Like the other Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth Amendment, which established universal male suffrage, contains a substantive provision— “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”— followed by an enforcement provision—“[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” U.S. Const. amend. XV, §§ 1–2 (emphasis added). As with Section One of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that the Fifteenth Amendment is self-executing. E.g., South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 325 (1966) (holding that Section One of the Fifteenth Amendment “has always been treated as self-executing and has repeatedly been construed, without further legislative specification, to invalidate state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice”).
¶96 There is no textual evidence that Congress intended Section Three to be any different. 12 Furthermore, we agree with the Electors that interpreting any of the Reconstruction Amendments, given their identical structure, as not self-executing would lead to absurd results. If these Amendments required legislation to make them operative, then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation. The result of such inaction would mean that slavery remains legal; Black citizens would be counted as less than full citizens for reapportionment; nonwhite male voters could be disenfranchised; and any individual who engaged in insurrection against the government would nonetheless be able to serve in the government, regardless of whether two-thirds of Congress had lifted the disqualification. Surely that was not the drafters’ intent.
¶97 Intervenors argue that certain historical evidence requires a different conclusion as to Section Three. We generally turn to historical and other extrinsic evidence only when the text is ambiguous, which it is not here. Nonetheless, we will consider these historical claims in the interest of providing a thorough review.
¶98 Intervenors first highlight a statement Representative Thaddeus Stevens made during the Congressional framing debates: “[Section Three] will not execute itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have the right to do.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2544 (1866); see also Kurt T. Lash, The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment 42 (Oct. 3, 2023) (unpublished manuscript), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4591838. But as one of the amici points out, this statement referenced a deleted portion of Section Three that disenfranchised all former Confederates until 1870. In any event, given the complex patchwork of perspectives and intentions expressed when drafting these constitutional provisions, we refuse to cherry-pick individual statements from extensive debates to ground our analysis. See generally Baude & Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 39–53).
¶99 Intervenors next direct us to the non-binding opinion written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase while he was riding circuit: In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D. Va. 1869) (No. 5,815) (“Griffin’s Case”). 13 There, Caesar Griffin challenged his criminal conviction as null and void because under Section Three, the judge who had entered his conviction was disqualified from holding judicial office, having formerly sworn a relevant oath as a state legislator and then engaged in insurrection by continuing to serve as a legislator in Virginia’s Confederate government. Id. at 22–23. It was undisputed that the judge fell within Section Three’s scope, but the question Chief Justice Chase sought to answer was whether Section Three “operat[ed] directly, without any intermediate proceeding whatever, upon all persons within the category of prohibition, and as depriving them at once, and absolutely, of all official authority and power.” Id. at 23.
¶100 In interpreting the scope of the provision, Chief Justice Chase observed that, after the end of the Civil War but before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, many southern states had established, with the approval of the federal government, provisional governments to keep society functioning. Id. at 25; see also Baude & Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 36). And, within these provisional governments, many offices were filled with citizens who would fall within Section Three’s scope. Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. at 25. Chief Justice Chase observed that giving Section Three a literal construction, as Griffin advocated, would “annul all official acts performed by these officers. No sentence, no judgment, no decree, . . . no official act [would be] of the least validity.” Id. He reasoned that it would be “impossible to measure the evils which such a construction would add to the calamities which have already fallen upon the people of these states.” Id.
¶101 And so, Chief Justice Chase turned to what he termed the “argument from inconveniences” and the interpretive canon that, when faced with two or more reasonable interpretations, the interpretation “is to be preferred which best harmonizes the amendment with the general terms and spirit of the act amended.” Id. He then explained that, while it was not “improbable that one of the objects of this section was to provide for the security of the nation and of individuals, by the exclusion of a class of citizens from office,” it could also “hardly be doubted that the main purpose was to inflict upon the leading and most influential characters who had been engaged in the Rebellion, exclusion from office as a punishment for the offense.” Id. at 25–26. To find the provision self-executing under the circumstances, he argued, would be contrary to due process because it would, “at once without trial, deprive[] a whole class of persons of offices held by them.” Id. at 26.
¶102 Chief Justice Chase therefore concluded that the object of the Amendment— “to exclude from certain offices a certain class of persons”—was impossible to do “by a simple declaration, whether in the constitution or in an act of congress . . . . For, in the very nature of things, it must be ascertained what particular individuals are embraced by the definition, before any sentence of exclusion can be made to operate.” Id. To accomplish “this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions . . . are indispensable; and . . . can only be provided for by congress.” Id. Thus, Chief Justice Chase concluded that Section Three was not self-executing. Id.
¶103 Griffin’s Case concludes that congressional action is needed before Section Three disqualification attaches, but this one case does not persuade us of that point. Intervenors and amici assert that Griffin’s Case “remains good law and has been repeatedly relied on.” Because the case is not binding on us, the fact that it has not been reversed is of no particular significance. And the cases that cite it do so either with no analysis—e.g., State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599 (1875), and Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. 250 (1890)—or for the inapposite proposition that Section Three does not create a self-executing cause of action—e.g., Cale v. City of Covington, 586 F.2d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 1978), and Hansen v. Finchem, CV 2022-004321 (Sup. Ct. of Ariz., Maricopa Cnty. Apr. 22, 2022), aff’d on other grounds, 2022 WL 1468157 (May 9, 2022). Moreover, Griffin’s Case has been the subject of persuasive criticism. See, e.g., Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three, supra, at 105–08 (critiquing the case because the other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment were understood as self-executing and the notion that Section Three was not self-executing was inconsistent with congressional behavior at the time); Baude & Paulsen, supra (manuscript at 37–49) (criticizing Chief Justice Chase’s interpretation as wrong and constituting a strained interpretation based on policy and circumstances rather than established canons of construction).
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
13 Between 1789 and 1911, U.S. Supreme Court justices traveled across the country and, together with district court judges, sat on circuit courts to decide cases. See generally Joshua Glick, On the Road: The Supreme Court and the History of Circuit Riding, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1753 (2003). Decisions written by the justices while they were riding circuit were not decisions of the Supreme Court.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Funny how that works.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
also “the vote was rigged, we need to overturn it”
keep acting like everything is normal & this is politics as usual folks, I’m sure everything will turn out ok.
right now, conservative billionaires are offering them gifts that they cannot refuse to keep him on the ballot.
precedent means nothing to this court.
roberts will not allow his court to keep a man that got 70 million votes just 3 years ago off of the ballot. he just will not.
even if the court was not corrupt, they will not allow 5 individuals to hand the presidency to biden, because they feel that the electoral college has to decide that. they handed the presidency to bush in 2000, and court has never regained legitimacy since then.
trump will be on the ballot, unfortunately.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
*even though it's the GOP that made this decision happen.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
but like i said, the court will not allow itself to appear to be a political arm of the gop, which we all know that it is, but they will not allow 5 individuals to determine the presidency a second time in 25 years.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exactly. Typically inconsistent and contradictory.
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SCOTUS will be seen as fully bought and paid for if they’re going to toss aside intent, precedent and definition from the time of our founding.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
IMHO, it’ll be a difficult decision to overturn and an amazing level of twisting to do so but I won’t be surprised.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14