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.
It’s an inclusive or. In the US, if a member of the civilian government or the military engages in insurrection or rebellion they are ineligible from holding any office again.
When the word ‘office’ is first mentioned in section 3, ‘civil or military’ is specified. It’s clear then that ‘officer of the United States’ has the same connotation.
An insurrectionist, who took an oath of office, is disqualified from assuming the office of the president and an insurrectionist will be disqualified from holding any office if they committed their insurrection while being president.
Here is the full section:
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.
Here is a link to the fourteenth amendment for reference.
Oh I was clear on that after your first reply, just confused how that ruling could have possibly occurred given all the text and the actions by Trump. If she were in his pocket, she wouldn’t have acknowledged he engaged in insurrection in the first place, so WTAF, judge?
edit: like… did he cross his fingers behind his back when he took the oath of office for president, so it didn’t count? What the actual hell.
I don’t know if you’ve read this comic, but I would say the judge believes in the message around the red, bottom left hand circle, on the second page, very strongly.
It’s an inclusive or. In the US, if a member of the civilian government or the military engages in insurrection or rebellion they are ineligible from holding any office again.
When the word ‘office’ is first mentioned in section 3, ‘civil or military’ is specified. It’s clear then that ‘officer of the United States’ has the same connotation.
An insurrectionist, who took an oath of office, is disqualified from assuming the office of the president and an insurrectionist will be disqualified from holding any office if they committed their insurrection while being president.
Here is the full section:
Here is a link to the fourteenth amendment for reference.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
Oh I was clear on that after your first reply, just confused how that ruling could have possibly occurred given all the text and the actions by Trump. If she were in his pocket, she wouldn’t have acknowledged he engaged in insurrection in the first place, so WTAF, judge?
edit: like… did he cross his fingers behind his back when he took the oath of office for president, so it didn’t count? What the actual hell.
I don’t know if you’ve read this comic, but I would say the judge believes in the message around the red, bottom left hand circle, on the second page, very strongly.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html
Also like, spoilers I guess, if you do read the comic and are behind.
I don’t know how to spell it but there’s a Marge Simpson aggravated noise in my head right now.
It’s some hardcore lawful evil nonsense.
Lmao, I had to check which board I was on for a second.