Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

It’s in the same amendment. Section matters not. If it doesn’t say convictions there then it must be the same as section 3 not mentioning convictions. It stands to reason you can make anyone stop voting over a self opinion as well. Just cause you don’t like doesn’t make it different

 

If no conviction is required, who decides if a candidate engages in insurrection, rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies?

 

Then they can't use the 14th section 3 to remove him.

 

Really…?? One is about who is eligible to vote. The other is about who can stand for office. Why would you think they would be the same…?

 

And regardless of criminal charges, a court can still hold that he engaged in insurrection for the purpose of 14a(3).

 

Get real Mate. Jan 6 was not a party to which no-one was invited or urged to attend.

 

The State Courts ~ asked to consider events in light of the 14th and then, SCOTUS if appealed.

 

Get a grip. I have NO idea who you think is a "rogue" judge.

And, you need to read amendment 14 if you want to comment on that.

 

Saw a good comment from Glen Kirschner about this. If Santa Claus were to claim some sort of immunity just because he is Santa Claus, would anyone take any notice? So...what is the difference when a POTUS makes an equally absurd claim without any basis other than they are POTUS?

 

Indeed. It makes no rational sense at all. It would be giving that role extraordinary powers ......without limitations. That is a prescription for disaster.

 

Conviction lol, no one has even been charged after 3 years of investigation by the FEDS. Yea I leave it out because there ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM.

 

You didn't think I was talking about the 4 Colorado justices?

And I have read the 14th. Since you have self declared you know what the 14th says, answer these questions for us.
1. Who declares these unconvicted precedential candidates have committed crimes or given aid to the enemy so they can employ the 14th.
2. Why has this amendment never been used since the 1800s, kind of like the Emoluments clause
3. Why is this a precedence setting move?
4. Why wasn't Obama kept off the ballots in his second term for his illegal provision of millions in cash stashed in a plane in cash for terrorist while he was usurping the federal banking laws?
5. Why wasn't Hillary kept off the ballots for her Russian uranium deal?
6. Why would the SCOTUS refuse to even hear this claim if it constitutional sound back in October

Remember, according to you, it only takes a judge to say thats what they did.

 

So now you think State courts can ignore the 6th amendment to declare if someone has committed these crimes?

 

Disqualifying him has nothing to do with criminal activity. When this was applied after the civil war era, conviction of a crime was not a prerequisite to disqualification.
The trial judge dealt with this in paragraph 226 of her judgment. Which I have to assume you haven’t read.

 

You can dodge all you want, but I doubt you can answer these questions

1. Who declares these unconvicted precedential candidates have committed crimes or given aid to the enemy so they can employ the 14th.
2. Why has this amendment never been used since the 1800s, kind of like the Emoluments clause
3. Why is this a precedence setting move?
4. Why wasn't Obama kept off the ballots in his second term for his illegal provision of millions in cash stashed in a plane in cash for terrorist while he was usurping the federal banking laws?
5. Why wasn't Hillary kept off the ballots for her Russian uranium deal?
6. Why would the SCOTUS refuse to even hear this claim if it constitutional sound back in October

 

The 14th states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies

So tell us, who gets to declare unconvicted presidential candidates have committed these crimes since you think it only takes an accusation, not a conviction.

 

Actually it does, officers are clearly defined as appointees by the president.

 

Kind of like giving those same powers to judges who can remove presidential candidates from ballots just for the accusations of crimes against the 14th, instead of actual convictions.

 

When did judges declaring who committed crimes without convictions become adherence to the constitution?
You might want to read the 6th amendment

 

Wait, according to you, they don't have to. All it takes is another judge to claim they did. Right?

 

Bingo!

 

Republicans largely do not cheat or break laws. When they do, they face uneven enforcement. Example: guy that burned down a Wendy's in a riot is Left. $500 fine. Another on the Right smiles and nods knowingly and is getting 18-20 years in prison. So, yeah, I'd presume the vast majority of those polled were on the Left.

To my knowledge, this (Trump has been charged and is awaiting trial) is incorrect. Links? I will add, even if charged, they should need a conviction before just declaring him guilty. But I've looked and so far, I can't find that he is awaiting trial anywhere on this charge.

EDIT: I admit to some goal post shifting as I did specifically say that he needs to be awaiting trial as I don't know what you mean by charged. The term by itself can be vague. A mental defective homeless drug abuser can "charge" that Brandon is a child rapist. He has no position or authority to do so. I am writing of the legal process.

 

Neither mentions conviction when it speaks of what makes them ineligible. So if one section must mention conviction in order to need it then it stands to reason the other must as well. Therefore we don’t need a conviction to stop people from voting if your logic is sound.

 

Yes, it would apply to all federal office holders according to your theory. Heh, I think you may have figured out how to get around our gerontocracy issue.

 

Well I knew that our democratic institutions were going to end at some time. History usually shows democracy ending in some sort of tyranny. I just didn't know how our ending would manifest itself.