SCOTUS seems ready to strike down Colorado ballot ruling

[essentialsaltes]

Biden is running for president. If Colorado ... If Colorado .... Or....

If If If. There is one specific disqualifying criterion in the 14th Amendment. Colorado ruled that the criterion applied in the case of Trump. These hypotheticals about Biden are meaningless.

you'd be upset.... you'd be upset.... you'd be upset...

Facts don't care about my feelings.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That never actually happened. The disqualifications all happened as an application of civil law, not criminal.

There was nothing in the amendment requiring or even implying the necessity of a criminal conviction. The fact that most of the people who it was originally applied to were never tried for any crime also is significant.

They could claim it, but there would still need to be something to support it. In the same way, birtherism was never able to remove President Obama, because there was not enough evidence to support it. Of course, I will admit that the burden of proof is higher for criminal cases than civil ones, but that's also because the penalties are much higher.

No, but the Colorado court found there was enough evidence to civilly indicate that he supported an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution.

It's a much clearer-cut case of an insurrection, but the point still stands that most of the people who were part of it never got tried or convicted of insurrection, yet there was no doubt in anybody's mind this amendment applied.

Yes, by the Cabinet and Congress together. It requires specific action, unlike the 14th Amendment or Article two which simply list qualifications or disqualifications.

Insurrection is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. Your assertion that there can be some civil determination of a crime is not accurate. I realize the talking heads and left wing pundits are pushing this narrative and it has been parroted nonstop, but it is not accurate. Any others that day - also none charged with "insurrection", by the way - are irrelevant to this matter, not being president.

The Colorado Court's misapplication of the law was overturned by the Supreme Court. It had no authority to eliminate a federal candidate.

No "insurrection" ever occurred, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting this term applied to Trump and applied to others. The legal definition of an insurrection is as follows:

Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.

Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]

This was a 4-5 hour rally that turned into a riot for a smaller segment who actually entered the Capitol and began rioting. It was akin to the less violent BLM riots, the ones where buildings weren't set on fire or looting occurred. The BLM riots lasted for months, off and on. This short riot was a few hours and the government was NEVER at risk of takeover at any time. There was just a riot. They walked through the Capitol, some broke windows or fought with police, one policeman shot an unarmed woman, and it was all wrapped up and everyone arrested by evening.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your assertion that there can be some civil determination of a crime is not accurate.

It's not a determination of a crime, but whether someone is qualified to be on the ballot.

After the Civil War, there were a few such cases, and no determination of crime was required.

Worthy v. Barrett and Others​

The petitioner had received a majority of the votes cast in Moore county at the election of April 1868, for the office of sheriff, but upon his offering to qualify before the Commissioners of the county, a majority of the latter refused to allow it, upon the ground that he was disqualified under the XIVth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The only objection urged to the qualification of the petition, arose from the fact that he had been elected, sworn in, and acted, as sheriff of Moore, both before and during the late war between the United States and the Confederate States. <--- not a crime

More recently, there was Cowboys for Trump Couy Griffin, who was removed from his office as country commissioner.

From that:

Section Three imposes a qualification for public office, much like an age or residency requirement, It is not a criminal penalty, and neither the courts nor Congress have ever required a prior criminal conviction for a person to be disqualified under Section Three.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's not a determination of a crime, but whether someone is qualified to be on the ballot.

After the Civil War, there were a few such cases, and no determination of crime was required.

Worthy v. Barrett and Others​

The petitioner had received a majority of the votes cast in Moore county at the election of April 1868, for the office of sheriff, but upon his offering to qualify before the Commissioners of the county, a majority of the latter refused to allow it, upon the ground that he was disqualified under the XIVth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The only objection urged to the qualification of the petition, arose from the fact that he had been elected, sworn in, and acted, as sheriff of Moore, both before and during the late war between the United States and the Confederate States. <--- not a crime

More recently, there was Cowboys for Trump Couy Griffin, who was removed from his office as country commissioner.

From that:

Section Three imposes a qualification for public office, much like an age or residency requirement, It is not a criminal penalty, and neither the courts nor Congress have ever required a prior criminal conviction for a person to be disqualified under Section Three.

Right. The relevant words being "After the Civil War". The Civil War WAS an insurrection. The South rose against the government with its own army and new government.

Jan 6 was a mere riot of a few hours, all wrapped up by 7 pm, in which the government was never at any risk at all.

Not remotely comparable. So yes, one cannot simply say that Trump "installed a new government and raised an army to go to war against the United States" because that is delusional.

 

[rjs330]

If If If. There is one specific disqualifying criterion in the 14th Amendment. Colorado ruled that the criterion applied in the case of Trump. These hypotheticals about Biden are meaningless.



Facts don't care about my feelings.

I always wonder about responses like this. Are people deliberately ignoring the point and issues or don't they understand the point and issues?

Because if the shoe was on the other foot they would see the problem.