Yes it was about who decides if a candidate is disqualified for insurrection. And how they decide. What the court proposed that the constitution demands is: congress decides via legislation. Thats it. No need for a trial. None of that.
What is this way? You have two things here.
Trying to disrupt Congressional proceedings with violence is, for some reason, considered by the Federal government to be more important to Federal prosecutors than property crimes subject to and prosecuted under state law--though I believe several of the BLM cases were handled by the Feds. you'd have to look into it to see why.
I've got no issues with Congress making that decision just like they decide on an impeachment. Disqualification on insurrection must be defined and proven. Just like someone who is not old enough can be disqualified, it has to be proven they are not. A good example was Obama. People accused him of not being a citizen. However the accusation was not enough. They had to provide evidence of it and no one could. All of those who opposed this reasoning demanded evidence and proof that Obama was not a citizen. The same thing with insurrection. There has to be evidence presented that he committed it and what he supposedly did that met the requirements. So yes Congress needs to take action to make this decision based upon evidence presented.
Yes.....The Jan 6th commitee was full of partisans. They even kicked some off they did not want there. That was the point the LIBERAL judge was pointing to. If it would have been an actual court of law, many of the witnesses would not have even qualified.
They were concerned about what they were deciding. I am talking about the hearings, and the hypothetical the judge was asking the lawyers to keep him off the ballot. What facts and evidence they would bring for them to decide that case. Basically, they were inadmissible due to how they were gathered. It was even broought up the comment of the dissenting judges in Colorado. That said things were done that he had never seen done in a court of law.
Didn't we just talk about this? They were deciding a case of insurrection. So not their would nothing said about with due process. It involved a FEDERAL CANDIDATE, that is why FEDERALISM WAS INVOLVED. States cannot decide when it concerns EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY.
No, there were deciding if the states had the power to disqualify a candidate from from federal office, specifically as the President.
And the Supreme Court agreed, and in fact that's the point I've made several times, that this was a federalism case, not one having to do with due process.
Or because there was a question on if states had the power to disqualify a federal candidate.
Because the states don't have the power to disqualify somebody from federal office. Nothing to do with due process.
He had due process. Due process doesn't just mean a criminal trial. There are other forms, which he was accorded.
And it should be since the president is chosen to represent all the people. I think there would be a lot of folks upset if Colorado wouldn't allow Biden on the ballot because they decided he wasn't mentally competent.
Yes, because there is no provision in the Constitution for that.
Actually, they wouldn't, because that's a situation where no amount of due process would be sufficient since there is no provision of law disqualifying a candidate for health issues.
Show me a provision in the Constitution disqualifying from holding the office of President due to mental incompetence and you might have a point.
Well, there is no provision to unilaterally just decide someone committed a crime either. Those saying that a party can just unilaterally assert "insurrection" - without a criminal charge and conviction or admission - are wrong.
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.
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.
I am sorry I did forget to put the word not in there. My bad.
Yes because it was not a case deciding insurrection. It was about a federal candidate.
That is why the decision involved federalism.
Exactly we had this conversation before. My mistake however in leaving out "not", has shown you do understand that. So I do not understand why we are going over it again?
He did not have due process in the Colorado court. The colorado court decided based upon the facts of the Jan 6th committee, which was a political process.
