Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.
He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That’s what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.
If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.
But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn’t stop just because you know they’ll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.
“Convicted” is not the correct term here. That would (outside of impeachment) require a criminal charge, followed by a guilty plea or a trial, and if a trial, a finding of guilty by the finder of fact (either a judge or a jury).
As a finding of fact, in both a Colorado district court, and in the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump “engaged in insurrection.” I would need to look and see whether Michigan and Minnesota courts found the same fact.
None of the 14A S3 cases charge anyone with any crime.
Show me in the 14th Amendment Section 3 where it says you have to be convicted.
Here is the full text. Show me any mention of convicted:
Section 3
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.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.
But, I am failing to see how “running for president” can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That’s actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it’s not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don’t know why you think it would start applying now.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual “rights” conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn’t like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn’t even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn’t forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?
Yeah, except there was very detailed reasoning that went along with that ruling. Permitting crybaby ass Texas officials to just…follow their feelings would be insulting to everyone.
The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.
Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.
He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That’s what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.
If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.
But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn’t stop just because you know they’ll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.
“Convicted” is not the correct term here. That would (outside of impeachment) require a criminal charge, followed by a guilty plea or a trial, and if a trial, a finding of guilty by the finder of fact (either a judge or a jury).
As a finding of fact, in both a Colorado district court, and in the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump “engaged in insurrection.” I would need to look and see whether Michigan and Minnesota courts found the same fact.
None of the 14A S3 cases charge anyone with any crime.
Show me in the 14th Amendment Section 3 where it says you have to be convicted.
Here is the full text. Show me any mention of convicted:
Section 3
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.
See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.
But, I am failing to see how “running for president” can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That’s actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it’s not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don’t know why you think it would start applying now.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don’t know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
This but unironically
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual “rights” conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn’t like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn’t even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn’t forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?
Yeah, except there was very detailed reasoning that went along with that ruling. Permitting crybaby ass Texas officials to just…follow their feelings would be insulting to everyone.
They did have a trial - that’s how it got appealed
Being ineligible to be president is not a punishment for a crime. No criminal conviction is required.
The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.