quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though

Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.

For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.

Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.

When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.

What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.

Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.

More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though

Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.

For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.

Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.

When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.

What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.

Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.

More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.

Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.

The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.

quote:

That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though

Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.

For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.

Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.

When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.

What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.

Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.

More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.

Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.

The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.

That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.

Fox News has nothing to do w it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though

Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.

For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.

Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.

When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.

What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.

Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.

More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.

Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.

The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.

That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.

Fox News has nothing to do w it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Whoops. If that's true, I bet some lawyer is now reaching for his butt.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I cannot say for sure it wasn't raised but I can find no reference to it in sources available to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Funny thing - unless I'm misinformed, Trump Team has not appealed the insurrection decision, especially on grounds of lack of or improper due process.

If I'm correct, that finding/rule/decision/whatever of the lower court stands. One may thus presume that the merits of the decision, re insurrection, the facts and evidence, were/are compelling, notwithstanding the burden of proof of a civil vs criminal trial.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You're right, Jeffive. You ordinarily cant appeal on a point not raised in the lower court.

The only exception I can think of is for "plain error." Which can be whatever a court says it means.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though