Colorado kicks Trump Off Ballot for 2024

[wing2000]

I looked it up. As far as I can tell, Trump did not attend the trial, have a lawyer or present a defense. He was not given the opportunity to defend himself or face his accusers. It seems they held some sort of hearing in the lower courts but it was not a trial. A kangaroo court perhaps.
That is the information I can find

Then you (and others) obviously didn't read the ruling and have a very low view of the Colorado courts.

 

[Merrill]

This is how the whole thing could play out, and it will be very bad

Other states, like Michigan, Arizona, etc. will use the precedent of the Colorado ruling to disqualify Trump from the ballot. If it looks like he could be convicted on any of the more serious charges against him, such as conspiracy, it will further motivate these states to keep Trump out of the election. Note: the Colorado ruling prevents write-in votes for Trump as well.

The issue will go to SCOTUS, and the court will rule in favor of Trump (no serious legal scholar thinks the Colorado ruling will stand), but ...

As the election approaches, Democratic governors will declare publicly, starting with Gretchen Whitmer and Katie Hobbs, that they will not comply with the ruling, and invoke the powers they have to unilaterally keep Trump off the ballot. Left-wing legal sites have been saying for months that governors and election officials in states can keep candidates off a ballot, despite the will of the public. There will be lawsuits filed, but nothing will be decided in time for the November election.

Trump will lose the election based almost entirely on these actions

And the public will riot. There will be complete chaos.

The MSM will declare that "keeping Fascists and insurrectionists off ballots is our duty, no matter what the laws say". Soros and others will dump hundreds of millions of dollars into new efforts to get other GOP candidates, and even people like RFK off ballots, using similar (bad) logic.

It is a nice republic "if we can keep it".

 

[BPPLEE]

This is how the whole thing could play out, and it will be very bad

Other states, like Michigan, Arizona, etc. will use the precedent of the Colorado ruling to disqualify Trump from the ballot. If it looks like he could be convicted on any of the more serious charges against him, such as conspiracy, it will further motivate these states to keep Trump out of the election. Note: the Colorado ruling prevents write-in votes for Trump as well.

The issue will go to SCOTUS, and the court will rule in favor of Trump (no serious legal scholar thinks the Colorado ruling will stand), but ...

As the election approaches, Democratic governors will declare publicly, starting with Gretchen Whitmer and Katie Hobbs, that they will not comply with the ruling, and invoke the powers they have to unilaterally keep Trump off the ballot. Left-wing legal sites have been saying for months that governors and election officials in states can keep candidates off a ballot, despite the will of the public. There will be lawsuits filed, but nothing will be decided in time for the November election.

Trump will lose the election based almost entirely on these actions

And the public will riot. There will be complete chaos.

The MSM will declare that "keeping Fascists and insurrectionists off ballots is our duty, no matter what the laws say". Soros and others will dump hundreds of millions of dollars into new efforts to get other GOP candidates, and even people like RFK off ballots, using similar (bad) logic.

It is a nice republic "if we can keep it".

If they keep him off the ballot in the primaries then another Republican could be the nominee.

 

[BPPLEE]

I wouldn't worry about it. Trump didn't win Colorado the last couple of times either, so it's not exactly a swing state. It's gone Democratic the last four elections, in fact.

-- A2SG, he won't even miss it.....

I thought they were keeping him off the ballot in the primaries.

 

[wing2000]

Other states, like Michigan, Arizona, etc. will use the precedent of the Colorado ruling to disqualify Trump from the ballot. If it looks like he could be convicted on any of the more serious charges against him, such as conspiracy, it will further motivate these states to keep Trump out of the election. Note: the Colorado ruling prevents write-in votes for Trump as well.

IMO, the other states will wait for the USSC to rule, assuming the high court decides to accept the appeal (which they should IMO).

The USSC has until January 4th, 2024 - to do so. As the CO Supreme Court wrote:

"Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court."

page 9

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You can't put someone on trial in absentia and not allow them legal representation

some court in Colorado can't suddenly decide you committed fraud 10 years ago, put you on trial without telling you, and then sentence you --this is absurd

Trump was not on trial and received no sentence. This was an appeal of a ruling on a lawsuit to have Trump barred from the ballot (which determined that, while Trump had engaged in insurrection, that provision did not apply to the presidency). We've already established that a conviction is not necessary to determine whether an individual has "engaged in insurrection" for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, as many politicians who joined the CSA during the Civil War were disqualified from office without ever being convicted of the crime of insurrection. The fact that there was no war associated with Trump's insurrection is irrelevant - the point is that the courts can decide that without a criminal conviction.

And Trump was absolutely told of this suit and party to it:

 

[BPPLEE]

Then you (and others) obviously didn't read the ruling and have a very low view of the Colorado courts.

That’s what we have you for

 

[Merrill]

He had most certainly could have attended and testified in the court if he had chosen to. The Trump defense filed multiple motions before the trial. If you have more procedural questions, I susggest you read the ruling - 7. Section 1-1-113 Proceedings Provide Adequate Due Process for Litigants.

Show me when Trump was tried and convicted of insurrection against the US government? Where and when did that happen?

The Colorado court was trying to do multiple things

1. Decide if a president could be kept off the presidential ballot in Colorado by invoking the 14th amendment, section 3. That amendment gives congress (not the states) the ability to disqualify candidates, and directly implies that such an individual must have been tried and convicted of rebellion against the United States. At the very least, the section says that a formal charge of insurrection and rebellion must be levied against the candidate, and as I pointed out above, the Senate cleared Trump of these charges in 2021.
2. Open a new case against Trump within the fabric of the one above, and declare him guilty of insurrection, in absentia, and without defense. The court would then piggyback this idea onto #1 and get Trump tossed off the ballot.

Arguable the most partisan court ruling in US history, and comical in its logic. It will last about 2 minutes in front of SCOTUS

but if you think state courts should be able to engage in these actions, how about red states? Do you want Biden thrown off the ballot based on all the corruption charges against him, or his failure to secure the border? I'm sure they could come up with all kinds of legal reasons to toss Joe out of the race.

The political left has this kind of myopia when it comes to the principles of law and government: they think that any ruling or law that benefits them in some way, and hampers their political enemies, can't be turned around on them. Examples:

1. "Hate speech laws" which are unconstitutional, but the left wants them. They don't believe in the First Amendment and think anyone who speaks against them, or groups they ally with, should be charged with crimes and jailed. Then they are surprised when they themselves get targeted legally for speaking out in support of Palestine. If speech is violence (it isn't), then the left will eat itself, and it is.
2. Eminent domain laws: which the left has traditionally loved, since it gives powers to state and local governments to take property from evil business owners or property owners and reallocate it for public purpose. Then they are shocked when rulings like Kelo vs. New London comes down, which says the government can take property from a private citizen and give it to another private citizen (a politically-connected one). Opps

and the example above

 

[wing2000]

1. Decide if a president could be kept off the presidential ballot in Colorado by invoking the 14th amendment, section 3. That amendment gives congress (not the states) the ability to disqualify candidates, and directly implies that such an individual must have been tried and convicted of rebellion against the United States. At the very least, the section says that a formal charge of insurrection and rebellion must be levied against the candidate, and as I pointed out above, the Senate cleared Trump of these charges in 2021.

The Colorado court's decision addresses these points.
We'll see if the USSC agrees....or not.

btw, the Impeachment Trials in the US Senate have no bearing whatsoever in a judicial case. If you believe otherwise, state the case law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That amendment gives congress (not the states) the ability to disqualify candidates

In the decision, the Court argues the clause is self-executing. Just as other previous SCOTUSes have ruled about other parts of the Civil War Amendments or the entire 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.

 

[Merrill]

Trump was not on trial and received no sentence. This was an appeal of a ruling on a lawsuit to have Trump barred from the ballot (which determined that, while Trump had engaged in insurrection, that provision did not apply to the presidency). We've already established that a conviction is not necessary to determine whether an individual has "engaged in insurrection" for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, as many politicians who joined the CSA during the Civil War were disqualified from office without ever being convicted of the crime of insurrection. The fact that there was no war associated with Trump's insurrection is irrelevant - the point is that the courts can decide that without a criminal conviction.

And Trump was absolutely told of this suit and party to it:
View attachment 340622

We are not in a Civil War, and Trump was acquitted by the US Senate of insurrection charges in 2021

but if you really think state courts should be able to circumvent congress and declare politicians guilty of crimes without formal trial (the case above is NOT to determine if Trump is guilty of treason--it was to determine if he could be kept off the ballot), then what is to stop red states from tossing Biden off the ballot based on corruption charges?

 

[QvQ]

Colorado Republican Party will not be on the primary ballot
Colorado Republican Party is going to Caucus
Who the candidate is, selected by the Party

 

[JustOneWay]

We are not in a Civil War, and Trump was acquitted by the US Senate of insurrection charges in 2021

there is no conviction requirement of insurrection for disallowing Trump from the ballot.

Your points are moot.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Just a quick reminder to everyone here. Donald Trump is the guy who tried to use his power as president as well as the courts in several states and even the Supreme Court to invalidate millions of already cast, verified and counted votes based on a lie he made up because the election didn’t go his way.

 

[QvQ]

there is no conviction requirement of insurrection for disallowing Trump from the ballot.

The 5th Amendment and the 14th both require due process And due process requires conviction as there is a presumption of innocence.
Those amendments are based on the Magna Carta
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.[

 

[RocksInMyHead]

We are not in a Civil War,

As I said, this is irrelevant.

and Trump was acquitted by the US Senate of insurrection charges in 2021

Impeachment is a political process, not criminal. Nor is it the job of the Senate to interpret the Constitution - that is, in fact, the role of the courts.

but if you really think state courts should be able to circumvent congress and declare politicians guilty of crimes without formal trial (the case above is NOT to determine if Trump is guilty of treason--it was to determine if he could be kept off the ballot),

Trump was not determined to have committed a crime.

then what is to stop red states from tossing Biden off the ballot based on corruption charges?

Is there any provision in the Constitution to exclude someone from office for corruption that doesn't specify a criminal conviction?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Trump will lose the election based almost entirely on these actions

It’s never Trump’s fault when he loses, is it?

And the public will riot. There will be complete chaos.

Yeah we heard this one before.

 

[Merrill]

The Colorado court's decision addresses these points.
We'll see if the USSC agrees....or not.

btw, the Impeachment Trials in the US Senate have no bearing whatsoever in a judicial case. If you believe otherwise, state the case law.

If the ruling is affirmed, it opens the floodgates to all kinds of political chaos in the US. Candidates being kept off ballots for frivolous and partisan reasons. It also circumvents some authority of congress, which is outlined in the 14th amendment, section 3. Specifically this statement:

" But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability"

The case will be made that congress decides this matter, not state courts.

then there is the issue of whether section 3 even applies to the president. And as far as the "self-executing" aspect of section 3, we have the Griffin case from shortly after the war. From a legal site:

"Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment provided that many officials in the ex-Confederate States were ineligible to serve. Or did it? That was the issue that Chief Justice Chase decided in In Re Griffin. He held that Section Three was not self-executing and that legislation by Congress was required to make the ineligibility operative.

Months after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, some criminal defendants in Virginia brought habeas corpus petitions that made the following claim: The state court judge who presided over their trial and sentenced them was ineligible to be a judge because of Section Three. Accordingly, their convictions and sentences must be vacated. The District Court ruled in favor the petitioners and issued the writ.

Chief Justice Chase, the circuit Justice for Virginia, reversed these decisions. He did so based on two arguments. The first was that a "literal reading" of Section Three would cause chaos. If all acts by officials who were ineligible to serve after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified were null and void, then that would mean that many civil judgments, deeds, and criminal convictions would have to be thrown out. Chase's second point was that Section Three imposed a punishment that was inconsistent with many other constitutional provisions. For example, there was no jury trial and no due process of law. And Section Three functioned as a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law. The Chief Justice conceded that a constitutional amendment could impose these sorts of punishments, but that the text should not be so read if another construction was possible. An alternative reading was possible: Section Three was not self-executing.

The acquittal by the US Senate in 2021 absolutely applies to this issue because the Trump team will use it in its defense when the case goes to the high court. If Trump had been convicted, everyone agrees that he would be ineligible for high office."

This narrative that you and others here have been given about the 14th amendment is simplistic and partisan. This is a complicated issue, and one for SCOTUS to decide

I expect a ruling in favor of Trump (as most legal scholars do), but anything could happen.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if Trump is kept off the ballot in a bunch of states, and loses the election, it will be very bad for the republic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The 5th Amendment and the 14th both require due process And due process requires conviction as there is a presumption of innocence.
Those amendments are based on the Magna Carta

Nobody needs to be convicted of being under 35. The Secretaries of State (or whoever the state election official is) make determinations of eligibility to be on the ballot all the time.

 

[Merrill]

As I said, this is irrelevant.

Impeachment is a political process, not criminal. Nor is it the job of the Senate to interpret the Constitution - that is, in fact, the role of the courts.

Trump was not determined to have committed a crime.

Is there any provision in the Constitution to exclude someone from office for corruption that doesn't specify a criminal conviction?

the war is irrelevant?

OK, let's have courts in red states declare Biden an insurrectionist for failing to secure the border, and have him taken off the ballot

as I stated above, section 3 falls under congressional jurisdiction and may not even be self-executing (according to the Griffin case). Some Soros-funded judge can't simply declare a candidate an insurrectionist and have him taken off the ballot. That is an invitation to complete chaos.

SCOTUS will knock this ruling down