SCOTUS seems ready to strike down Colorado ballot ruling

[ralliann]

Of course they can. New York found Trump guilty of fraud.

So what? Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

Who's being denied due process?

The Colorado court simply operated on the facts of a political committees' hearings. They did not find their facts as a court of law. That is why.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By sharp contrast, the Civil War - with its armed attack on the government putting it at risk, and setting up its own separate government - was an insurrection.

The civil war was a rebellion and the rebels were put down with force.

 

[NxNW]

That "trial" in the Colorado court used facts established by a political committee. That has no place in a criminal court of law.

So you admit he had due process, but you just don't like the results.

 

[NxNW]

So what? Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

Is anyone claiming such?

The Colorado court simply operated on the facts of a political committees' hearings. They did not find their facts as a court of law. That is why.

So the court was not a court, is that right?

 

[Arcangl86]

That "trial" in the Colorado court used facts established by a political committee. That has no place in a criminal court of law.

Who said anything about a criminal court of law? Ballot qualification is a civil matter.

 

[ralliann]

So you admit he had due process, but you just don't like the results.

In the Colorado court no. Insurrection has not been decided yet. Colorado and what they did is Moot on that question.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, because there is no provision in the Constitution for that.

Yes there is:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

So now I have a point and you guys would be up in arms if Colorado made that decision. Because they didn't follow the Constitution. Just like they didn't in Trump's case.

Where in the Constitution does it give the right to a state to disqualify a presidential candidate? SCOTUS clarified this is a congressional matter. The Constitution does not give the authority to decide a candidacy in a state to the state.

If Colorado would have decided Obama couldn't be a candidate there because he want a US citizen you guys would have lost your minds.

So why don't you just back off and move on. It's been decided that states can't do that. Congress has to. Petition your Congressmen to get something done.

 

[rjs330]

Impeachment is essentially political. It may rely on solid evidence of wrongdoing. But it doesnt have to. Now what we've done is given congress an alternative form of impeachment with no 2/3 majority constitutionally required in the senate.

If theyd have used this rationale, the 57 - 43 senate majority to convict could have prevailed, and Trump wouldn't be an issue right now!

That's correct.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes there is:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,

Congress has not established any such body. And in addition, the VP is required regardless of which additional body is designated by Congress. But that's not the important thing, which is the context of the section.

transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This isn't about qualifications for office. This is what to do if the President isn't capable of fulfilling the office they hold and not able to resign. It's also worth pointing out that even a declaration under section 4 doesn't remove the President from office, just transfers the powers to the VP.

So now I have a point and you guys would be up in arms if Colorado made that decision.

You don't have a point because the Trump case is about his fundamental qualification to hold the office, not the internal procedures once he is elected to the office. While it would never happen, in theory somebody in a coma can be elected to the presidency and there would be no Constitutional bar against it.

Because they didn't follow the Constitution. Just like they didn't in Trump's case.

Only because SCOTUS decided that only the federal government could make that decision, but afaik, that wasn't settled law yet before this.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes there is:

No there isn't. That's not about being disqualified from being elected to office. That's about being removed once a president is in office.

 

[ralliann]

No there isn't. That's not about being disqualified from being elected to office. That's about being removed once a president is in office.

here we are again arguing over stuff that will be settled. These questions will be answered moving forward. All of them.

 

[ralliann]

Yes there is:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

So now I have a point and you guys would be up in arms if Colorado made that decision. Because they didn't follow the Constitution. Just like they didn't in Trump's case.

They did not even follow court procedures for a fair trial.

Where in the Constitution does it give the right to a state to disqualify a presidential candidate? SCOTUS clarified this is a congressional matter. The Constitution does not give the authority to decide a candidacy in a state to the state.

Why on earth are you having to say this? Are they also rejecting what has already been decided?
:0

If Colorado would have decided Obama couldn't be a candidate there because he want a US citizen you guys would have lost your minds.

So why don't you just back off and move on. It's been decided that states can't do that. Congress has to. Petition your Congressmen to get something done.

Amen. They want to blurr what has been done here.....and put into people's minds another reality. Just like a man is a women and a woman is a man. Viola because that is how they feel about it.

 

[ralliann]

Impeachment is essentially political. It may rely on solid evidence of wrongdoing. But it doesnt have to.

And this is why the Colorado decision is moot as a court of law. Our civil court system is not to try persons as a political court. But Colorado did pretty much just that.

 

[ralliann]

Is anyone claiming such?

So the court was not a court, is that right?

It did not function as a court in this case. That is why the dissenting comments were so strident.
Rules regarding evidence, witnesses, etc. in a court of law were not applied. The facts and evidence they decided on were the result of the political jan 6th hearing. No standards concerning witnesses, or evidence nothing like that that. That is what made that political hearing not have any valid facts in a court of law. But Colorado used them anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

.....If Colorado would have decided Obama couldn't be a candidate there because he want a US citizen you guys would have lost your minds.....

On the basis of quality of evidence, yes I would have been very upset.

 

[ralliann]

On the basis of quality of evidence, yes I would have been very upset.

you Said
durangodawood said:
Impeachment is essentially political. It may rely on solid evidence of wrongdoing. But it doesnt have to.

So If Biden were brought up for impeachment, as you know the above to be true....
In the end of this political process he is acquitted....

What then would happen if
The republicans took it further to a court of law?
All that would be happening is, the very same material is brought before a court, for their decision on the matter.
They decide to not acquit.

All that is really happened is the very same as what was brought in the political process is being given a second opinion.
Since when is that supposed to happen. The court in this case has no more legality than the political bodies, but simply being injected into it to be used instead of them. Like a second opinion on the same material.

 

[NxNW]

It did not function as a court in this case. That is why the dissenting comments were so strident.
Rules regarding evidence, witnesses, etc. in a court of law were not applied. The facts and evidence they decided on were the result of the political jan 6th hearing. No standards concerning witnesses, or evidence nothing like that that. That is what made that political hearing not have any valid facts in a court of law. But Colorado used them anyway.

All the witnesses were Republican, under oath. SCOTUS didn't rule that the facts were invalid, now did they?

 

[ralliann]

All the witnesses were Republican, under oath. SCOTUS didn't rule that the facts were invalid, now did they?

We know political hearings have a different bar than a legal hearing. A very, low bar for evidence, bias etc. It is a political event through and through.
Colorado was merely injected in a fashion to give a second opinion on the matter of his aquittal. Since when has a court of law ever done this? They merely took on the role of political hearers, dressed up as a legal body.
The USSC wasn't trying Trump for insurrection. It has not been tried yet legally.

 

[rjs330]

No there isn't. That's not about being disqualified from being elected to office. That's about being removed once a president is in office.

Biden is running for president. If Colorado decided that Biden wasn't fit to run and the VP should be president you'd be upset. Look I get you don't think I made a point. But point wasn't about one single thing. It's about the bigger picture. If Colorado has decided Obama couldn't run cause they determined he wasn't a citizen you'd be upset. Or they determined Biden's phone call demanding the firing of the Ukraine prosecutor was to help his son in his business dealings and it disqualified him, you'd be upset and think it was wrong. Just admit it.

Get off the high horse.

 

[rjs330]

Congress has not established any such body. And in addition, the VP is required regardless of which additional body is designated by Congress. But that's not the important thing, which is the context of the section.

This isn't about qualifications for office. This is what to do if the President isn't capable of fulfilling the office they hold and not able to resign. It's also worth pointing out that even a declaration under section 4 doesn't remove the President from office, just transfers the powers to the VP.

You don't have a point because the Trump case is about his fundamental qualification to hold the office, not the internal procedures once he is elected to the office. While it would never happen, in theory somebody in a coma can be elected to the presidency and there would be no Constitutional bar against it.

Only because SCOTUS decided that only the federal government could make that decision, but afaik, that wasn't settled law yet before this.

Yes I do have a point, but you don't want to see it. If Colorado had decided Obama wasn't a citizen you'd be very upset and demand that Congress determine it and SCOTUS get involved etc.

Just forget it. You guys won't admit that if the show were on the other foot you'd be up in arms.