Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
The only feasible way the left can actually affect gun laws in a regular human lifetime is doing that: arm minorities and have them protest with their firerms. That’s the only way you can have dipshit retard Republicans to vote against their own interests in favor of gun control, by catering to their racism/sexism/genderism.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Because no judge in history has ever made a decision based on synonyms. I’m all too familiar with how specific wording is in when it’s pertinent to the judge’s decision, and ‘judges are meant to interpret the meaning’ when the specific wording would be against a judge’s decision. This was stupidity writ in legalese.
Not really. There’s more to this than appears in the news reports.
There are basically two things that both need to be established to remove Trump from the ballot. First, he must have engaged in an insurrection. Second, he must be an “officer” subject to the 14th Amendment.
Despite what everyone thinks, the second is a matter of legitimate debate among law professors. Some very anti-Trump scholars think he isn’t an officer.
But what they think or you think or I think about this doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judges think.
Judges, plural. The judge here gets to rule on the first question, which is a question of fact. Questions of fact are almost never overturned on appeal. Trump did engage in insurrection as far as Colorado is concerned.
On the other hand, the second is a question of law. Anything this judge decides on the “officer” issue can and will be reviewed on appeal. And the key here is that the appellate judge has to ignore what the first judge thought about the officer issue, and start the analysis over from scratch.
So given that this case was going to be appealed no matter what, the judge made the only ruling that matters: on the subject of insurrection. With that set in stone, the rest was irrelevant and she probably knew it.
Look, I don’t agree with her conclusion regarding whether Trump is an officer of the United States. But her argument rests on the specific phrase “Officer of the United States” and how that phrase is used in the Constitution. So in theory you can be the CEO of the executive branch but not an “officer of the United States”.
People who buy that argument point out that the Constitution says the President nominates “all officers of the United States”, logically implying the President is not one of them. It also discusses impeachment of the President, Vice president, and all officers of the United States, again implying they are different things. Again, I don’t like the argument but there it is.
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.
I’m confused at the plain language of the 14th amendment, section 3 versus your understanding of the same. They don’t seem to match.
This is a simple case, which should not involve the courts at all. Trump is simply ineligible to hold office. Period. (FYI: Half of the Congress members are in the same boat.) However, (the legitimate) Congress members could save his bacon by voting (with two-thirds of the vote) to remove the restriction. Again, really simple language and really simple remedy, if the government would simply do their jobs and read the dang thing.
The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.
Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.
The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.
But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.
The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.
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.
The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:
If he:
Took an oath
As an officer of the United States, and
Engaged in insurrection
then he cannot be president or hold any other office.
I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.
This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.
Only mealy mouthed judges and lawyers could spin an elected office holder as not being an officer of the US. Fuckers have spun their way into negating most of our rights by literally making shit up so they can make their own offices more powerful.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).
The judge just nullified the United States Consitution in support of Trump.
Her ruling makes no sense and shows complete disregard for the 14th amendment.
Let’s face it. Nothing makes any sense anymore.
It makes plenty of sense, the reasons are just horrible.
We all know the only true amendment to these people is the 2nd.
Until minorities arm themselves
The only feasible way the left can actually affect gun laws in a regular human lifetime is doing that: arm minorities and have them protest with their firerms. That’s the only way you can have dipshit retard Republicans to vote against their own interests in favor of gun control, by catering to their racism/sexism/genderism.
deleted by creator
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Because no judge in history has ever made a decision based on synonyms. I’m all too familiar with how specific wording is in when it’s pertinent to the judge’s decision, and ‘judges are meant to interpret the meaning’ when the specific wording would be against a judge’s decision. This was stupidity writ in legalese.
Not really. There’s more to this than appears in the news reports.
There are basically two things that both need to be established to remove Trump from the ballot. First, he must have engaged in an insurrection. Second, he must be an “officer” subject to the 14th Amendment.
Despite what everyone thinks, the second is a matter of legitimate debate among law professors. Some very anti-Trump scholars think he isn’t an officer.
But what they think or you think or I think about this doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judges think.
Judges, plural. The judge here gets to rule on the first question, which is a question of fact. Questions of fact are almost never overturned on appeal. Trump did engage in insurrection as far as Colorado is concerned.
On the other hand, the second is a question of law. Anything this judge decides on the “officer” issue can and will be reviewed on appeal. And the key here is that the appellate judge has to ignore what the first judge thought about the officer issue, and start the analysis over from scratch.
So given that this case was going to be appealed no matter what, the judge made the only ruling that matters: on the subject of insurrection. With that set in stone, the rest was irrelevant and she probably knew it.
The judge: “POTUS isn’t an officer of the United States”
Also the judge:
I sure hope questions of fact don’t get overturned on appeal as you say they rarely do, since that excerpt is from the Finding of Fact section of the court ruling.
Look, I don’t agree with her conclusion regarding whether Trump is an officer of the United States. But her argument rests on the specific phrase “Officer of the United States” and how that phrase is used in the Constitution. So in theory you can be the CEO of the executive branch but not an “officer of the United States”.
People who buy that argument point out that the Constitution says the President nominates “all officers of the United States”, logically implying the President is not one of them. It also discusses impeachment of the President, Vice president, and all officers of the United States, again implying they are different things. Again, I don’t like the argument but there it is.
I’m confused at the plain language of the 14th amendment, section 3 versus your understanding of the same. They don’t seem to match.
This is a simple case, which should not involve the courts at all. Trump is simply ineligible to hold office. Period. (FYI: Half of the Congress members are in the same boat.) However, (the legitimate) Congress members could save his bacon by voting (with two-thirds of the vote) to remove the restriction. Again, really simple language and really simple remedy, if the government would simply do their jobs and read the dang thing.
The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.
Doesn’t seem vague to me, at all.
Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.
The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.
But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.
The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.
The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:
If he:
then he cannot be president or hold any other office.
I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.
This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.
Only mealy mouthed judges and lawyers could spin an elected office holder as not being an officer of the US. Fuckers have spun their way into negating most of our rights by literally making shit up so they can make their own offices more powerful.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It’s not really about the word “support”.
The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).
The president is the Commander in Chief. That’s a military rank.
The Commander in Chief is nevertheless a civilian. That’s why they are not subject to the UCMJ.