Will you accept Supreme Court ruling on 14th Amendment??

Supreme Court will in a few months rule on whether Trump is disqualified to run for President due to his election fraud and January 6.

There are several possible outcomes:

1. Court rules that states may decide for themselves whether or not Trump committed Insurrection and ban him from running.

2. Court rules that states have no authority to ban Trump, this is left to Congress.

3. Court rules Trump did not commit insurrection and cannot be banned.

Will you peacefully accept the ruling of the Supreme Court?

 

Just an observation... I doubt that the SCOTUS will address any of the above. None of them would be considered. The real question we should ask is why the OP identified these obviously erroneous options?

 

SCOTUS may indeed rule that the States can ban Trump from their ballots.

Or they may rule the 14th Am doesn't apply to him.

Or they may rule that Trump didn't commit insurrection.

There are many possibilities.

 

Since the decision was made, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? But I would certainly disagree with it.

If you think that being a slave to Supreme Court decisions is cool, how does the Dred Scott decision and "separate but equal" strike you?

 

I am obliged as an American Patriot to comply with all Supreme Court decisions.

 

No, they won't. They might rule on can a state supreme court rule who is fit for appearing on a state ballot. That will be the limit of their decision. The answer is simple. The state SC cannot make this determination, and is a right left to the individuals (voters) who can, and will determine who meets the criteria to be registered on the ballot. Show me one actual precedent that supports the decision of the CO supreme court.

 

No, you're not. What an absurdly puffed and overbroad statement.

If they make a decision tomorrow that says the government can simply swing by and lock you in a cage without cause and you have to prove your innocence, you are not bound as a patriot to agree with that.

 

Luckily Supreme Court would never issue such a ruling.

That's why we are obligated to comply with all Supreme Court rulings.

Otherwise we have rebellion and insurrection.

 

More likely the will find in Trumps favor on the grounds of A. due process, B. Congress has never passed enabling legislation. and C. Does not apply to President and VP.

 

I dont get the Due Process claim, as Trump has the right to represent his interests in court and appeal any decision.

 

I will accept whatever SCOTUS rules because that's how our legal system works. Whether I agree with it or not is a different matter.

Having said that

I don't think SCOTUS can rule that. That goes beyond court activism. They would be getting involved in making a decision that belongs to criminal courts. Not even a luxury yacht trip around the world would buy that ruling.

 

The 14th amendment is enforced by Congress, not the courts.

 

That's something the courts have to decide.

 

14th Amendment does not cite any criminal convictions.

 

Correct. I'm just mentioning that Option 3 says that SCOTUS will rule that Trump did not commit insurrection. Independently of the 14th A. SCOTUS cannot rule that because such ruling would not only allow Trump to run, but it would also exonerate him criminally. They would have to use some very imaginative wording to not apply the 14th A without inadvertently also exonerating him of the crime itself.

 

They can rule it hasn't been proven if they decide a criminal conviction would be required, but by the wording of the 14th amendment, no such conviction is required, and therefore a fact-finding by a court should be sufficient. Conviction by a jury of peers is required for deprivation of life, liberty, or property. None of these things are at stake in running for president.

 

Agreed. If they rule that a criminal conviction is required they would be, not just interpreting, but actually changing a constitutional amendment. This supreme court is very activist and partisan, but I do hope they don't go to that extreme just for the sake of one pathetic insurrectionist.

 

Yes, if they rule correctly. Incidentally the 14th doesn't say anything about presidents or vice presidents, and doesn't say anything about running and campaigning, only holding office.

 

Except he did not and was not in fact this came by way of the secretary of state assumption of guilt without a trial.

 

Sure. I’ll accept whatever ruling the SCOTUS decides on. Once the SCOTUS rules, this will be decided legally, officially. One may disagree with whatever ruling the SCOTUS hands down, but once the SCOTUS rules, whether one agrees or disagrees with that ruling, that is up to them. Regardless, it’s settled law.

 

Which is how it works in Maine.

Each state has absolute control on how they conduct the elections in their state.

 

If someone is disqualified from holding office they are also disqualified from being on the ballot.

A state cannot put a 25 year old on the ballot for President because being 25 disqualifies them from being President.

 

If SCOTUS decides Trump can stay on the ballot, the judges will be considered patriots by the MAGA.

For them, it will be a just and historic decision.

If SCOTUS decides to ban Trump, they will be traitors, the judges will receive death threats and there will be a public call for civil war.

 

If the far left gets what they want, you will have your insurrection. You had a peaceful one in 2016 when Trump was elected president. The establishment figured Hillary had the election in the bag. That’s why they were screaming their fool heads off when Trump won. They had their own insurrection in Washington, DC on January 20, 2017 when Trump was inaugurated. It didn’t get much press.

 

Very true. The 14th is also moot on who has the power or authority to declare one an insurrectionist or even if 1-6 was an insurrection or a riot. Now section 5, via appropriate legislation, congress can declare someone an insurrectionist or declare 1-6 an insurrection. Much like declaring war which by the way hasn’t been done since WWII.

I think the question is still out there, was 1-6 an insurrection or was it just a plain old riot? No government official, the DOJ, Homeland Security, the FBI etc. never declared or stated that it was an insurrection. The only one I know of was the Colorado supreme court by taking Trump off the ballot implied in their minds 1-6 was an insurrection. But not stated in their ruling that it was.

Now here’s a far out thought. Since no federal government agency or congress has ever declared or classified 1-6 as an insurrection, perhaps the SCOTUS just throws this whole thing out as in the U.S. government’s mind, there was no insurrection. Wild and weird.