Colorado Sec. 3 14th Amendment arguments made. Did Trump 'engage' in an insurrection?

No it shouldn't popularity of a potential candidate would only frighten people who are anti-democracy.

If the people vote for Donald Trump and that's who is elected that's democracy.

Stupid little games were you accused candidate of something you know he didn't do just to hold the trial to interfere with his campaign that should frighten anybody who cares about democracy at all.

 

As usual you only accept your facts and no one elses.

 

Some voters, perhaps, but not all. However, it's not about voter will, it's about the constitution and whether or not Trump is qualified.

That's a rant, not an argument.

 

Per the US constitution, the only persons who can be elected to public office are those who qualify.

Since you can't possibly know what I know, you should refrain from making such vacuous allegations.

What I do know is that, from my vantage point, Trump engaged in an insurrection and by that fact, should be disqualified, in my opinion.

Now, whether the court agrees, we shall find out soon.

There is nothing stupid about determining if Trump has violated the constitution. Given his relationship to 1/6, it's a fair question.

No, in truth, Trump is running to avoid Jail. the actual evidence points to that fact. It is rare for a former one term president to seek a second term, especially if he is running against the man he lost to the first time. Moreover, the investigations began long before he declared his candidacy, and he declared his candidacy 15 months out, some 9 months ahead of the normal time to declare a candidacy, and by that fact, it is fair to conclude he did it just so he can make the claim that the justice system is trying to interfere with his election. But, the opposite is true, he is trying to interfere with justice.

The unfortunate nature of democracy is the potential to elect someone who is anti-democratic. Witness Hamas, witness Adolf Hitler, etc., etc., etc.

That would be Trump. That's what the OP is about, did Trump engage in anti-democratic activity such that he is disqualified?

That is the question being put to the court, and we shall see how the court rules.

It's a fair question, and even if he is qualified, he may still be found guilty of crimes.

The possibility of that is much greater than the odds of his being disqualified.

 

The sudden interest in the constitution is refreshing. We will add this to the hypocrisy pile on top of "Election interference" and "voter suppression". I am watching your party reenact Animal Farm.

 

The qualification process does not require a criminal conviction to be disqualified, and that is the historical precedent and its in accordance with section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Citizens in Colorado do have the right to sue in a court of law to compel the state Secretary of State to challenge a candidates qualifications for the highest office in the land.

Per the Colorado constitution, the petitioner's standing was not denied by the court.

Given Trump's involvement in 1/6, the justification for the petition has been upheld in the Colorado court, thus far.

 

right so attempting to borrow someone for qualification through back door tactics is anti-democratic.

pretending that he did violate the constitution is not just stupid it's evil.

Telling lies about people in order to usurp democracy is anti-democratic.

Running to avoid jail is legitimate if you're being maliciously prosecuted.

If you support any of these are on your hand and devious tactics to subvert the people you are anti democracy.

Just admit it you want him taken out of the campaign so that you can have an unfair advantage everyone already knows.

 

You've made a claim. now let's see you substantiate it. If you can't, I'll file it in the 'unprovable rant' file.

 

Off hand, your comment doesn't make sense. You'll have to elaborate.

No one is 'pretending', they are seeking a court to deterimine if Trump is qualified.

Ignoring facts about a candidate who is anti-democratic for conspiring to overturn the election is anti-democratic.

Avoiding the prosecution of someone who sought to overturn the election is justice denied.

Yeah, right: Here is the Senate Judiciary's interim report on how the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to
Overturn the 2020 Election

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf.

You need to admit the truth about Trump,.

 

BINGO! Not that I agree with that sentiment but, rather, with your implied argument. If states are permitted to make such determinations about candidates, who have not been tried in a court of law & found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, then that opens the gates for extremely partisan application of this Constitutional stipulation. We have seen how judges can find a way to justify banning drugs that have proven to be safe over 20 years of use in the U.S.-- there is absolutely no guarantee, that some court would not accept the imaginary "Biden Crime Family" narratives, and so find that Joe Biden was guilty of some treason, involving the Chinese, hence being ineligible to be on the ballot.

In our country, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That means, in a jury trial, in which one faces & cross examines his accusers, and presents a defense. No judge can determine this about a person, in absentia (unless the accused is a fugitive from justice). As a protection to our electoral system, we must see that this standard applies in this matter, and so future ones, involving people who wish to have any candidate, removed from the ballot.

I need give brief mention to the inspiration for the original Amendment, which was to bar those who'd fought for the Confederacy, from ascending to the Presidency. It is true, that each & every Confederate soldier, was not tried & convicted of insurrection. Nevertheless, it is true, beyond any doubt, that these are all people who our federal & state government representatives, who'd passed the 14th Amendment, had in mind, when they'd passed it. As clear as Trump's guilt is, to some, there is not the same universal acknowledgement of this, so it is a treacherous slope, to argue that we can say what those who'd put this in our Constitution, would say, in this case.

If Trump is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, then there is no reason not to bring the case to criminal court-- in fact the obligation to bring it, would be incumbent upon those who could prove this guilt. Any threshold lower than that, however, does not fulfill this Amendment's criteria, should not fulfill it, and will be overturned by our SCOTUS, IMO, if any state court does adhere to a lower bar. Better then, to focus on the challenge ahead, rather than pinning any hopes on Deus ex machina resolutions. A person who has a criminal history, is not prevented from running for office, even for the highest in the land. Someone who has been convicted of insurrection, however, cannot run for President. End of story.

 

So you need me to prove that Dems were speaking out in opposition to election interference and voter suppression?

 

I apologize I made an error. Trying to bar somebody from qualifying to run is anti-democratic.

and when you inevitably find out that Trump is qualified and this was a BS hoax to eliminate him from competing to subvert democracy you won't hold anybody that was engaged in this responsible. We've seen it over and over and over with hoax case after hoax case after hoax case. This is malicious prosecution.

believing in conspiracy theories because you don't like a candidate and supporting malicious prosecution because you don't like a candidate is far more anti-democratic.

The Establishment has been trying to do this for almost a decade.

prosecuting someone over and over and over again who factually has been proven over and over and over again to have not sought to overturn the election is malicious prosecution.

Malicious prosecution is a thousand times worse than Justice denied. Because it's Justice denied to everyone.

Begging me to agree with you is the last resort of someone who doesn't have a single toe let alone a leg to stand on.

When are you going to call for justice for the malicious prosecution of Donald Trump? Justice isn't only supporting prosecution when it's against someone you don't like.

 

Try not to choke on that load of crap.

 

But what about the Belt way?

 

Please reread my comment. thank you.

 

No one is trying to bar Trump from qualifying.

Either you are qualified or you or not. If you are not qualified, then it is YOU who denied YOURSELF from being qualified.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of process. If there is a legitimate question of his being qualified, then any investigation into that question is legitimate. Given his relationship to 1/6 attack, the investigation is fair.

MOreover, given that Trump is a threat to national security, disqualifying him, IF he IS disqualified, is the correct action.

No one who is a threat to national security should EVER be on any ballot, let alone have his fingers on the nuke football.

Trump has NEVER EVER been subjected to a criminal sanction He has committed crimes, and prosecuting a criminal is not malicious. What would be malicious to AMerica if we did not prosecute him.

Rubbish. See above.

Rubbish. The evidence his overwhelming that the conspired to overturn an election.

Rubbish. I didn't like Bush but I didn't accuse him of any crimes.

 

Trump is not above the law

 

Trump's bid for office should frighten any democracy loving person.

That's all that need to be said.

 

But that leaves out the beltway and your opinion is at variance with reality as been demonstrated innumerable times.

 

I don't see your point. Explain.

 

It is the beltway sir that is interested in neither the constitution nor democracy. When you worship at the altar of experts Democracy is not a help it is a hindrance.

 

What I'm trying to do, garyd, is get you to substantiate your claim (paraphrased): "Washington DC (the beltway) is interested in neither the constitution nor democracy"

Vacuous claims are of little value, to me, anyway, as anyone can say anything, so what's the point? If you can substantiate it, then I have your argument, then I have something I can comment on, provide a counter argument to (unless you convince me you are right, and you are free to make that attempt).

State your case, otherwise, all you have done is make empty claim without substance.

 

The whole of the cases against Trump is all the proof you need that the beltway despises democracy

 

No, since Trump is a threat to national security, his unlawful scheming to overturn an election he did not win, means he is anti-democracy.

So, opposing anti-democracy equals being pro democracy.

You have it backwards.

 

...yes....