quote:

go through appeals process, if needed
SCOTUS for final result

that's THE process, for everyone

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not advocating no due process.

I'm just wondering how it can be satisfied in this situation.

have a trial
go through appeals process, if needed
SCOTUS for final result

that's THE process, for everyone

Unfortunately you can't just have a trial without someone bringing charges.

There is another opinion out there that 14th Amendment Part 3 doesn't apply to trump because he was "elected" and not an appointed officer. I call bullshit for the simple reason that congresspeople are included and they are elected.

I don't know how anyone with a functional brain could watch what happened that day and taken along with other evidence investigators have found and not conclude that he is guilty of some sort of seditious or insurrectional criminal activity. It boggles the mind that anyone would want him back in the White House.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not advocating no due process.

I'm just wondering how it can be satisfied in this situation.

have a trial
go through appeals process, if needed
SCOTUS for final result

that's THE process, for everyone

Unfortunately you can't just have a trial without someone bringing charges.

There is another opinion out there that 14th Amendment Part 3 doesn't apply to trump because he was "elected" and not an appointed officer. I call bullshit for the simple reason that congresspeople are included and they are elected.

I don't know how anyone with a functional brain could watch what happened that day and taken along with other evidence investigators have found and not conclude that he is guilty of some sort of seditious or insurrectional criminal activity. It boggles the mind that anyone would want him back in the White House.

if it is that easy, well, then, let's have a trial - Should be easy enough to find "Standing" "USA vs DJT" - and then EVERYTHING gets brought out, all of it public record, and, of course since conviction is assured, it should be nice and tidy - couple witnesses, some crossX, couple more witnesses, send it to the jury -ALL of it on CSPAN

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not advocating no due process.

I'm just wondering how it can be satisfied in this situation.

have a trial
go through appeals process, if needed
SCOTUS for final result

that's THE process, for everyone

Unfortunately you can't just have a trial without someone bringing charges.

There is another opinion out there that 14th Amendment Part 3 doesn't apply to trump because he was "elected" and not an appointed officer. I call bullshit for the simple reason that congresspeople are included and they are elected.

I don't know how anyone with a functional brain could watch what happened that day and taken along with other evidence investigators have found and not conclude that he is guilty of some sort of seditious or insurrectional criminal activity. It boggles the mind that anyone would want him back in the White House.

if it is that easy, well, then, let's have a trial - Should be easy enough to find "Standing" "USA vs DJT" - and then EVERYTHING gets brought out, all of it public record, and, of course since conviction is assured, it should be nice and tidy - couple witnesses, some crossX, couple more witnesses, send it to the jury -ALL of it on CSPAN

Again, I think everyone is getting hung up on something that does not exist. The 14th Amendment Part 3 did not require trials or intend trials. That is because they were dealing with Ex Confederates who by being Ex-Confederates were insurrections and traitors. That section of the 14th Amendment is a very narrow Bill of Attainder permissible bc the Amendment so and narrowly amended the Constitution.

Simply put, I do not see the Supreme Court applying this narrow provision to President Trump.

Even a conviction itself does not bar him from holding office. If he wins and is convicted he will have to be impeached or 25th Amendment applied to remove as President. That is bc no where in the Constitution does a Felony conviction deny you the Presidency only impeachment or the 25th Amendment can assuming all other enumerated and expressed qualifications are present.

We can always keep out hopes up.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0ea7b0c2400c9a&ei=31

Hearing date set to decide if Trump can be kept off ballot in Colorado
Story by David Edwards • 4h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0ea7b0c2400c9a&ei=95

California Dems Ask Attorney General For ‘Immediate Intervention’ To Remove Trump From Ballot
Story by Ilan Hulkower • 4h

I haven't studied the issue or read the law review article, but my instincts tell me Trump would have to be convicted after a fair trial in order to be barred from running for president.

In interpreting legislation and constitutions, courts resort to the contract law principle that different provisions of a contract should be read together and harmonized, if reasonably possible to do so.

So I would read the Fifth Amendment due process (fair trial) requirement in harmony with the Fourteenth Amendment's bar to office and say, imho, that a conviction is required for a bar to office.

Therefore the lawsuits seeking to bar Trump from running are untimely, i.e. premature.

I have no idea whether a court, especially our arbitrary Supreme Court, will adopt the above analysis.

Let the games begin

quote:

Let the games begin

That happened a long time ago.

This is just one cog in the wheel.

But, if the outcome is not favorable for Trump, everything shifts a little.

There will still be MAGA and a dysfunctional GOP congress.

But it's potentially a start in the right direction.

If trump can't occupy the White House because of the 14th Part 3 then how do you keep him him from doing so? Keep him from getting elected in the first place or try to bounce his ass after the elected should he happen to win?

Seems to me an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have no doubt that he failed his first oath of office.

quote:

I have no doubt that he failed his first oath of office.

He VIOLATED his oath, pissed on the constitution, dishonored the office and the Founding Fathers, divided the population like never before except maybe the civil war era, and incited an insurrection, and plans to be more effective at it next time given the power.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...081ff0e172a8ce&ei=18

Disqualifying Trump won’t help the crisis of American democracy
Opinion by David Schultz, opinion contributor • 8h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...081ff0e172a8ce&ei=23

A Terrible Plan to Neutralize Trump Has Entranced the Legal World
Opinion by Lawrence Lessig • 11h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...364923d703e52&ei=173

Trump team already has 1,000-page manifesto outlining what to do if he wins White House: report
Story by Matthew Chapman •
57m

This comes after earlier reporting that Heritage, a decades-old right-wing think tank that became close to the Trump administration under his presidency, is also building out a vast "right-wing LinkedIn" to recruit people to come on as staffers for such a future administration at every level, with the goal of getting 20,000 people ready to go — and that 50 conservative groups are collaborating on this umbrella project.

Trump was often dissatisfied with his original Cabinet officials and national security officers, considering them disloyal and gradually purging those like John Kelly, Dan Coats, and even ultimately William Barr, who took contradictory positions or ever raised concerns key demands of his were illegal, considering them part of the "Deep State" who was out to get him. He and his supporters are determined that a future administration should be filled with people who will follow all his orders without question.

It also comes as Heritage Foundation policymakers have laid out exactly what some of the priorities for a new Republican administration should look like, including dismantling agency independence and civil service protections to give the president absolute control over the law, and imposing a "Biblically based" agenda in federal policy.


https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ex...use-return-1.1973874

Ex-Trump Officials Are Already Planning Their White House Return

Interesting quote

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
"Everyone knows" is not "evidence" of anything. You would think the followers of Donald "the Douche" would understand that. MAGA Republicans are just brain-dead. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-m...one-knows-rcna111360

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=80

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...29c1e8b8aa0e51&ei=14

Potential for threats from Trump in 14th Amendment case sways Colorado judge
Story by Quentin Young, Colorado Newsline •
6h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7edb75ed00f9ab&ei=43

Trump Challenger Has Backup Plan if Supreme Court Won't Kick Him Off Ballot
Story by Katherine Fung •
9h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...32d9cc701ff8a3&ei=55

A Republican Warns Trump ‘Walls Are Closing In’ on Colorado Case After Judge Issues Protective Order
Story by Suchitra B • 2h

This came after Trump was issued a protection order by the judge presiding over a lawsuit seeking to exclude him from Colorado's 2024 presidential election. Issued by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace on September 22, this order bans parties in the case from making threatening or intimidating statements, per the Associated Press. "I 100% understand everybody's concerns for the parties, the lawyers, and frankly myself and my staff based on what we've seen in other cases," Wallace said.

In reaction to the order, Castro, who has been opposing Trump ever since he announced his candidacy, warned Trump on Twitter. "The walls are closing in fast MF," Castro wrote on September 26 with a link to an article about the protective order.

John Anthony Castro: "Make no mistake: I will end Trump’s political career."

It is also worth noting that the order was requested by attorneys for the liberal organization Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics (based in Washington), which is attempting to remove Trump's name from the ballot under a seldom-invoked clause of the 14th Amendment from the time of the American Civil War, as per ABC 7 Chicago.

Several other lawsuits have been filed across the country ahead of the presidential elections seeking to disqualify Trump from running for office in 2024 under the 14th Amendment clause, which prohibits anybody from running for office who has taken an oath to the Constitution and then 'engaged in insurrection' against it. Many of their arguments center on Trump's participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, in the aftermath of which he called the rioters "great patriots," as per the BBC.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...=81#image=BB1gLBQV|1

Another suit to disqualify Trump under the Constitution's 'insurrection' clause is filed in Michigan
Story by By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press • 3h
liberal group on Friday filed a lawsuit in Michigan contending that former president Donald Trump is disqualified from regaining his old job based on a rarely used, post-Civil War provision in the U.S. Constitution.

This is the first time an organization with significant legal resources has sought to block the GOP frontrunner’s campaign in a swing state.

Free Speech For People argued that Trump's attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss and encouragement of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol violated section three of the 14th Amendment, which holds that anyone who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it is barred from holding office.

The case is the second the organization has filed to block the GOP presidential frontrunner's bid, following one in Minnesota.

Dozens of cases have been filed nationally but the Free Speech For People cases and one filed in Colorado by another liberal group are the first brought by organizations with significant legal resources.

‘Time to Be Disqualified’: Donald Trump Got Hit With a Devastating Poll
Story by Peter Suciu • 13h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...=16#image=AA1eLfux|1

According to a new Politico.com/Morning Consult poll, the vast majority of American voters do not think former President Donald Trump should be allowed to seek higher office again in the 2024 election and would support an effort to disqualify him.

In the new poll, 51 percent agreed that the 14th Amendment would prohibit Trump from running again because he engaged in insurrection. Thirty-four percent disagreed.

What Do Americans Think about Donald Trump?
Legal experts continue to argue over whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll asked average Americans their opinions on the issue. It asked if Americans "support or oppose" that section. Broadly, voters did agree with it – and 63 percent said they either strongly or somewhat support it, which includes a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. By contrast, just 16 percent said they somewhat or strongly oppose it.

When asked if they believed the former president had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," 51 percent said either definitely or probably yes, while 35 percent said definitely or probably no. That was very divided on party lines, as 79 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of independents said Trump did engage in insurrection or rebellion, though just under of Republicans agreed.

Trump's camp has been dismissive of the 14th Amendment push, and called it a "political attack" and that it was "stretching the law beyond recognition." But it will likely be the Supreme Court that decides whether Trump will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Author Experience and Expertise
A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...=26#image=AA1hzIIx|1

U.S. Supreme Court will not hear challenge to Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility
Story by Joe Fisher • 36m

The high court, which started a new term Monday, shot down a case brought by John Anthony Castro. The longshot Republican presidential candidate argues that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot due to his involvement with the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The case is one of several seeking the same measure to block Trump from appearing on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election. Liberal and conservative organizations, as well as voters, have filed lawsuits in Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan.

The challenges in Minnesota and Colorado are scheduled to go to trial in coming months.

=======================================================================================

In a separate decision, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Trump's former attorney John Eastman to block his emails from being viewed by lawmakers in congressional investigations. Eastman asked the high court to overturn a ruling that allowed the House Select Committee that investigated Jan. 6 to access his emails.

Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself from discussing the case, marking the first time he has done so in a case involving the Capitol riot. Eastman is a former clerk of Thomas'.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...winp2fptaskbar&ei=23

Colorado judge strikes down Trump's attempt to toss a lawsuit seeking to bar him from the ballot
Story by By MEAD GRUVER and NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press • 15h

(This video isn't short but it's worth the listen. The last part, the closing summary and prediction of what SCOTUS will do is interesting too.)

=============================================================

https://youtu.be/u1iy30sPguI?si=o7Wb8SUJwfJlkKmQ

Colorado Judge REFUSES to dismiss lawsuit to disqualify Trump from running for president

As all of American saw on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump inspired, incited and engaged in an insurrection. Moreover, Trump continues to give aid and comfort to insurrectionists by, among other things, promising to pardon those who attacked the US Capitol if he is re-elected.

Now, a Colorado judge has ruled that a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump's name form appearing on the presidential ballot in that state can move forward. Judge Sarah Wallace denied Trump's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, and scheduled a trial for October 30th.

This video discusses the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause and how there are several paths to disqualifying Trump form holding office in the future.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b741a046ab21a5&ei=13

The Queens Man Ruled Ineligible to Be President
Opinion by Noam Cohen • 2h

In a few weeks, a judge in Colorado will hold a trial to decide whether to bar Donald Trump from the presidential ballot on the grounds that he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States in violation of the Constitution. The proceeding has unsettled many people: Can an unelected judge really stop voters from supporting a candidate of their choosing? The answer is yes. Just ask Abdul Hassan.

----------------------------------

Hassan sued in several states, but Colorado, with its formal application process, offered the cleanest case, and his claims got their fullest airing there. First, in a 16-page decision, a magistrate judge rejected Hassan’s claim that the natural-born-citizenship clause had been “trumped, abrogated, and implicitly repealed” by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1868. Nothing in the historical record, he ruled, suggested that Congress had a “clear and manifest” intent to repeal the citizenship requirement.

On appeal, Hassan emphasized an alternative theory: Even if the Constitution barred him from assuming the presidency after winning the election, that shouldn’t give states the power to block his candidacy preemptively. This argument fared no better. In a brief order, three judges on the Tenth Circuit ruled that if you’re found to be ineligible, the state can keep you off the ballot as part of its “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process.”

This ruling has been heartening to those who wish to see Trump ruled ineligible on constitutional grounds. The two cases feature some eerie parallels, and not just because they both involve political outsiders from Queens. Colorado is once again center stage. Scott Gessler, who as Colorado’s then–secretary of state kept Hassan off the ballot, has reemerged as a lawyer representing Trump, who is trying to stay on it. And the judge who wrote the Tenth Circuit order in 2012 was none other than Neil Gorsuch, now a Trump-appointed member of the Supreme Court, which may render a final verdict on Trump’s eligibility next year.

There are obvious differences too. The two men couldn’t be more dissimilar in character. One is measured in his comments and steadfast about following the rules, and the other is Donald Trump. Speaking with me, Hassan looked back with appreciation on how the legal system treated his claims. “Judicial rulings are never totally bad or good,” he wrote in an email, “and there is almost always something there to work with.”

Hassan sought shelter in the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The case against Trump, by contrast, uses a different clause of the same amendment as a weapon to keep him off the ballot. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, prevents any former “officer of the United States” from holding office again if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation or aided those who did. According to an academic article by the conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, this straightforwardly disqualifies Trump. But there have been a host of nits picked with the theory: whether the president is technically an “officer of the United States”; whether Trump “engaged in” insurrection or rebellion, or merely encouraged it; whether the January 6 attack on the Capitol and other efforts to overturn the 2020 election results constitute an “insurrection” at all; and, finally, whether Trump must be convicted at trial before a court can bar him from running.

Offering a path through this thicket of questions is Gorsuch’s conclusion about a state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process.” In Trump, we have a candidate who, without evidence, has denied that he lost the previous election and won’t promise to abide by the results of the next one, despite taking an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Couldn’t Colorado conclude that, to protect the integrity of its election, it will not allow such a candidate to run? The nonprofit organization that brought the lawsuit in Colorado, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, explicitly highlighted Gorsuch’s line in its legal filing.

“Hassan is kept off, because he’s not a citizen,” Derek T. Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame who has written about the legal significance of Hassan’s case, told me. “And court after court says, ‘Absolutely, a state can do that.’ So that’s why you’re now seeing these challenges to Trump, and people saying, ‘Aha! You have the power to keep these candidates who are not qualified off the ballot, and Trump is not qualified.’”

Muller added that whether Trump is in fact ineligible involves “intensive, divisive, factual questions.” But he cautioned against concluding that it should be left up to the voters. To do so, he argued, would run counter to the values of the American legal system. “We don’t have many requirements in the Constitution for federal office, but we have a few of them, and they’re designed to limit voters,” he said. “That’s part of the point.” It would be absurd, for example, to say that voters should be allowed to elect a president to a third term in violation of the Twenty-Second Amendment. Constitutional eligibility rules restrain democratic choice by definition.

Even Hassan agrees. He doesn’t have a view on Trump’s eligibility, he said, but he observed that if a court rules against Trump, that should be the end of it. “Because the role of the court is to ultimately interpret and apply the Constitution,” he said, “if you are kept off the ballot in the first place, the voters do not get to decide the issue.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...657ad8ffae7207&ei=17

Full List of States Trying to Kick Trump Off Ballot and Where Cases Stand
Story by Thomas Kika • 55m

Has the President been adjudged legally to have committed the acts underlying the proposal to keep him off the ballot?

quote:

Has the President been adjudged legally to have committed the acts underlying the proposal to keep him off the ballot?

Wow.

What a choice of words!!!

"President" - Trump is not the president. He's a former president and wannabee again, mostly so he can pardon himself.

Such irony - "adjudged legally" - so, you support the rule of law?

"Proposal"? The rule of law is founded in the constitution. It's not a "proposal" or suggestion. It's the literal reading of the constitution, which simply needs to be applied as written.

I think these cases pending, especially Colorado, will look at the facts and determine that the definition of insurrection, aiding and abetting, is met. The decision will be appealed. We shall see.

Maybe answer the question and stop bloviating. Has he or not?

honest question, to our lawyer/judge friends:

Does a State court have the "standing" to decide a Constitutional issue? I would have thought this would require a federal court? Am I over simplifying

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Has the President been adjudged legally to have committed the acts underlying the proposal to keep him off the ballot?

Others more qualified than I can answer that question.

The "question" has been asserted in the lawsuit in Colorado as well as the question of "standing"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...21e7e7526db57&ei=128

Trump denied by Colorado judge — again: report
Story by Maya Boddie •
14h

On Wednesday, just days after Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace denied an attempt by Trump to discard the lawsuit, Wallace denied the ex-president for a fifth time, CNN reports.

Per CNN, the judge noted "the trial will focus on several key questions, including whether the events of January 6 'constituted an insurrection' and whether Trump 'engaged' in insurrection."

"In a 24-page ruling, Wallace rejected Trump's argument that questions about his eligibility should be handled by Congress, not courts. She also rejected Trump's argument that the Colorado election officials don't have the power to enforce the so-called 'insurrectionist ban,' which is enshrined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment."


==========================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...fptaskbarhover&ei=12

Voters barred from deposing Trump days before trial to remove him from ballot in Colorado
Story by Brandi Buchman •
22h

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
honest question, to our lawyer/judge friends:

Does a State court have the "standing" to decide a Constitutional issue? I would have thought this would require a federal court? Am I over simplifying

When it comes to eligibility to appear on a Colorado ballot the State has the ultimate authority.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
honest question, to our lawyer/judge friends:

Does a State court have the "standing" to decide a Constitutional issue? I would have thought this would require a federal court? Am I over simplifying

When it comes to eligibility to appear on a Colorado ballot the State has the ultimate authority.

In these challenges to state application of a Fed Right, you have to exhaust State Courts before going to the Fed Courts. I am applying a “Substantive Due Process” legal principle to this question.

Thanks Joshua -
That sort of makes sense, but it doesn't really seem like that's being enforced universally - Case in point, Texas is about to pass a couple laws enforcing immigration laws, but I think it will immediately face FEDERAL challenges and ultimately lose -

I wouldn't have thought that a case directly involving the 14th amendment could be decided on a State basis - I guess I'll sit back an be surprised at the process

I do not know if I am going to articulate this well in a few sentences as it is complicated.

When you allege you have been denied “Substantive Due Process” of an Incorporated Right, you must exhaust your state court remedies.

Jeff is also correct that states get to manage their elections subject to some Fed restrictions on that management.

Immigration is a purely Fed Question.

Thus, seeing we have traditionally 2 state overlays application of the 14th Amendment (although not the Due Process Clause itself), and state management of election. I agree the matte has to exhaust State Courts first.

The State of Texas passing Immigration Laws does not touch a 14th Amendment issue. The question is solely Federal. Now, I could see a person subject to those immigration laws saying they violate 14th Amendment “ Due Process” by touching an asserted Incorporated Rigjt such as search and seizure. That would have to exhaust state courts. I would not do litigate, if I could help it, bc I would not want to be in Texas State Court.

Texas will never learn. Texas is a state and cannot make not enforce migrant/border policy. That is reserved to the Feds. This S. Ct., just got done saying it again for about the 4th time.

Basically, when you sue saying, “This state has violated a Right Incorporated against in by Application of Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. You have to exhaust the state courts bf going Fed.

A state passing an Immigration Law is not, in and of itself, a Substantive Due Process” legal challenge.

Thanks for that --
Let me recast the question

If Co decides that Trump is in violation of the 14th, without a conviction of "sedition", is it then a violation of the 5th, due process?

and I agree, Texas will lose the deportation by state employees case, the second it hits the courts, it might be stayed, but when it hits SCOTUS, it will be struck down --

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Thanks for that --
Let me recast the question

If Co decides that Trump is in violation of the 14th, without a conviction of "sedition", is it then a violation of the 5th, due process?

and I agree, Texas will lose the deportation by state employees case, the second it hits the courts, it might be stayed, but when it hits SCOTUS, it will be struck down --

The Constitution specifically bars States from changing anything about the qualifications for the House and the Senate; it does NOT do so for the Presidency, a significant omission that should weigh in the State's favor, because obviously the Framers knew that they could.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
honest question, to our lawyer/judge friends:

you might have missed this part

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
honest question, to our lawyer/judge friends:

you might have missed this part

We'll just wait for one to opine that I'm wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Thanks for that --
Let me recast the question

If Co decides that Trump is in violation of the 14th, without a conviction of "sedition", is it then a violation of the 5th, due process?

and I agree, Texas will lose the deportation by state employees case, the second it hits the courts, it might be stayed, but when it hits SCOTUS, it will be struck down --

The Constitution specifically bars States from changing anything about the qualifications for the House and the Senate; it does NOT do so for the Presidency, a significant omission that should weigh in the State's favor, because obviously the Framers knew that they could.

Thst is true. However, I do not see the issue so framed.

The issue is does a provision of the 14th Amendment that was originally designed to prevent Ex-Confederate Officers and Government Officials from holding office apply to President Trump pre-conviction?

Now, I do not think it does. I do not think the S.Ct., is going to allow President Trump to be kept off the ballot in this manner.

I think what is happening in Colorado May do more harm than good, because if President Trump is held ineligible by the lower courts, the S. Ct., is not going to go along. Bad facts make bad law.

Now, if the GOP wants to say President Trump is not eligible to be the GOP nominee, the S. Ct., based on current precedent should allow that. At least, the S. Ct., would have to carve out exception to the rules those cases created. I have provided those cases before. The GOP is not going to do that.

I was explaining to the other Jef why some constitutional issues start in state courts while others go straight to Fed Court.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Thanks for that --
Let me recast the question

If Co decides that Trump is in violation of the 14th, without a conviction of "sedition", is it then a violation of the 5th, due process?

and I agree, Texas will lose the deportation by state employees case, the second it hits the courts, it might be stayed, but when it hits SCOTUS, it will be struck down --

The Constitution specifically bars States from changing anything about the qualifications for the House and the Senate; it does NOT do so for the Presidency, a significant omission that should weigh in the State's favor, because obviously the Framers knew that they could.

Thst is true. However, I do not see the issue so framed.

The issue is does a provision of the 14th Amendment that was originally designed to prevent Ex-Confederate Officers and Government Officials from holding office apply to President Trump pre-conviction?

Now, I do not think it does. I do not think the S.Ct., is going to allow President Trump to be kept off the ballot in this manner.

I think what is happening in Colorado May do more harm than good, because if President Trump is held ineligible by the lower courts, the S. Ct., is not going to go along. Bad facts make bad law.

Now, if the GOP wants to say President Trump is not eligible to be the GOP nominee, the S. Ct., based on current precedent should allow that. At least, the S. Ct., would have to carve out exception to the rules those cases created. I have provided those cases before. The GOP is not going to do that.

I was explaining to the other Jef why some constitutional issues start in state courts while others go straight to Fed Court.

If it was intended to be limited to ex-Confederates it would say so. It doesn't.

If it required a criminal conviction to apply it would say so.

It doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Thanks for that --
Let me recast the question

If Co decides that Trump is in violation of the 14th, without a conviction of "sedition", is it then a violation of the 5th, due process?

and I agree, Texas will lose the deportation by state employees case, the second it hits the courts, it might be stayed, but when it hits SCOTUS, it will be struck down --

The Constitution specifically bars States from changing anything about the qualifications for the House and the Senate; it does NOT do so for the Presidency, a significant omission that should weigh in the State's favor, because obviously the Framers knew that they could.

Thst is true. However, I do not see the issue so framed.

The issue is does a provision of the 14th Amendment that was originally designed to prevent Ex-Confederate Officers and Government Officials from holding office apply to President Trump pre-conviction?

Now, I do not think it does. I do not think the S.Ct., is going to allow President Trump to be kept off the ballot in this manner.

I think what is happening in Colorado May do more harm than good, because if President Trump is held ineligible by the lower courts, the S. Ct., is not going to go along. Bad facts make bad law.

Now, if the GOP wants to say President Trump is not eligible to be the GOP nominee, the S. Ct., based on current precedent should allow that. At least, the S. Ct., would have to carve out exception to the rules those cases created. I have provided those cases before. The GOP is not going to do that.

I was explaining to the other Jef why some constitutional issues start in state courts while others go straight to Fed Court.

Would you say that anyone convicted of Seditious Conspiracy may be rightly considered "enemies" of the Constitution they conspired to overthrow?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
If it required a criminal conviction to apply it would say so.

It doesn't.

You are correct, it doesn't SAY it required a conviction because a SIMPLE reading of the 5th amendment (you know, 1,2,3,4,5, ...14) clearly states DUE PROCESS

quote:

What the Fifth Amendment Says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, .... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That due process was used when the Collective Congress refused to allow former confederate states congress members to rejoin the house and senate - they Voted on it

Sorry, tovarishch, we don't have a GRU to convict a person without trial ... we have due process in this country, regardless of what some of the more rabid on both ends of the political spectrum would want.