The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a key case seeking to knock Donald Trump off the ballot for violating the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause. The justices grilled both sides in a hearing that left it unclear how they might rule on the issue.
I hope that the secrecy is that they want to get it right… without being hounded until their decision is made. There is a lot riding on the case. I am not a court whisperer. I think it is better to ask the tough questions now rather than to have the decision overturned.
“If the entire nation chooses someone to be president, is that insurrection?”
No. His being elected in 2024 would not be insurrection. The insurrection occurred in 2021.
“Or is that a democratic choice?” Gessler asked.
No, it would not be a democratic choice, given the role of the Electoral College and the effects of gerrymandering.
More punting than the Chargers vs Patriots game last weekend.
The president is not an officer of the US? The president of a bank is an officer of the bank, no? The presidency is an office, yes? Don’t we say that candidates for the presidency are “running for office”? The Constitution calls it an office (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8):
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–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.
So isn’t the the holder of an office an officer?
I begin to think that Mr. Bumble was right: The law is a[n] ass.
The 14th Amendment does not give the states authority to decide who is and isn’t eligible to hold public office due to the Insurrection Clause. It reserves that power to Congress (section 5), and Congress has not legislated it (except under one or two criminal statutes). And this is soooooo obviously a non-justiciable political question. I honestly expect SCOTUS to grant certiorari just to nip this dumb shit in the bud – unanimously, albeit with multiple concurrences.
From an earlier Morning Memo:
Judge Rules Trump Engaged In Insurrection, But …
A Colorado state judge ruled that Donald Trump may stay on the 2024 ballot, rebuffing efforts to disqualify him under the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause. But in doing so, she found that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
The judge read the Disqualification Clause as not applying to the presidency for two reasons: (i) The president is not an “officer of the United States,” as the clause requires; and (ii) The presidential oath of office only promises to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, not “support” it, in the language of the clause.
Presumably, if the Disqualification Clause specifically enumerated the president (commander-in-chief!) as an “officer of the United States” [a fundamentally precluded thing?], and in addition if the presidential oath of office promised explicitly to “support” the Constitution, the judge would still find a way to slither out of it.
Anyway, this earlier behavior by a state district court judge in Denver seems like a foretaste of what to expect from the state supreme court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
“If the entire nation chooses someone to be president, is that insurrection? Or is that a democratic choice?” Gessler asked.
sigh
2016 and 2020’s elections changed America, because it showed that we have unserious pple living here and the latter election pushed em back into the attic.
2024’s election somewhat can kill MAGA, but only if voters give a damn.
That was an uncommonly stupid ruling.
The whole nation does not select the president. The Electoral College selects the president, an in Bush 2000 after the SC and trump 2016.
The argument that tangeranus is not covered by the disqualification clause is patently absurd! Of course he is! How is this even in question?
That’s your opinion. But you are wrong.
As are you. But only one of us has an advanced degree in this subject matter, and that is not the one who’s continually bewailing that Merrick Garland is never going to allow trump to be indicted.
And if that is the democratic choice, Congress has been given the power to remove the disability as set forth in the 14th Amendment which the American people decided to put into the Constitution. Provisions of the Constitution remain the will of the people unless and until the people decide to change those provisions.
So are they implying there are only certain occupations that can be declared insurrectionists?
Will they provide a list of those?
Thrre’s nothing coy about trump and what he is after.
Just sayin’
Folk on the Colorado court hopefully will ban the fat man
Sometimes the way the legal system operates and the interpretation of language in the Constitution confuses me. I would think the 14th Amendment, section 3 would apply to “dear donnie” as it would apparently to any other office holder including an “elector” of the president or vice president. The language seems to include anyone who had been elected and taken an oath. But legal decusions can be slippery things. I remain confused.
