quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

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.

Well, you see, had you ever bothered to read the 14th Amendment for yourself the disqualification is not solely for participating in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, it also extends to those who give "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

Several of Trump's supporters were convicted, after all their due process Rights were observed, of Seditious Conspiracy and sentenced to fairly long (but not nearly long enough) terms in Federal prison. By any definition Trump's repeated pledges to pardon all the Jan.6 criminals provides them with "comfort", hope that they will be released in a year or two instead of 2045.

and if you read the constitution, or can count past ten with your shoes on, you would see the 5th comes before the 14th --- that is, unless you are arguing that the 14th supersedes the authority of the 5th -- an interesting mind puzzle, worth have 9 seconds of thought. I mean, whodathunk the 14th amendment, written in response to the civil war, would totally supersede all other rights...

your mind must be an interesting place

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
and if you read the constitution, or can count past ten with your shoes on, you would see the 5th comes before the 14th --- that is, unless you are arguing that the 14th supersedes the authority of the 5th -- an interesting mind puzzle, worth have 9 seconds of thought. I mean, whodathunk the 14th amendment, written in response to the civil war, would totally supersede all other rights...

your mind must be an interesting place

You would understand very little of what you saw there.

Kinda like the world in general, actually.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
and if you read the constitution, or can count past ten with your shoes on, you would see the 5th comes before the 14th --- that is, unless you are arguing that the 14th supersedes the authority of the 5th -- an interesting mind puzzle, worth have 9 seconds of thought. I mean, whodathunk the 14th amendment, written in response to the civil war, would totally supersede all other rights...

your mind must be an interesting place

You would understand very little of what you saw there.

lord help me, i agree.. i HOPE i wouldn't

I've already said the two amendments must be read together and supplement each other. One doesn't "supersede" the other, and the order of their listing by number has no relevance.

I haven't been contradicted by a lawyer here, so I'm willing to assume I'm right.

The order of the two, and all, amendments has no legal significance.

I think it is an open question on reading the 5th and the 14th together on this issue. That is bc the 14th Amendment completely redefined the scope and application of the Bill of Rights. What was redefined was the application of certain rights as being protected by the Federal Government. The distinction between state citizenship w state rights that the state defined and certain rights being only Fed Rights was ripped away.

Now, to Rolland’s point, the redefining extended protection and did not restrict. States have to provide “at least” due process found in the 5th Amendment incorporated by the 14th. States can actually provide more, but not less.

He has convinced me. Historically, Confederate Officers and Political Leaders were meant to be tried. The only thing that saved them was the intercom by President Johnson and General Grant.

No one was tried for insurrection or treason and the insurrection clause of the 14th was never used bc of that intervention. Hence, this is a very novel, untested reading that is not going to play at the S. Ct. The result at the S. Ct., will make those pushing this regret it. Thus assumes the lower courts keep President Trump off the ballot.

Best case scenario, S. Ct., enjoins. President Trump wins. The S. Ct., refuses to rule on the matter as moot or some such. Again, the S. Ct., is not going to go along w this. It you think they will, you are being very naive.

The Constitution date one can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors tried in the Senate. However, the S. Ct., has already said it does not mean a criminal matter, with criminal level of due process. Hence, high crimes and misdemeanors are anything Congress in their duel roles says it is. The S. Ct., said do not come crying to us.

Thus, the language aid and abet does not change my opinion on the matter.

Could Jeff be correct? Yes. I do not see this S. Ct., majority reading it like he does. Not do I agree for reasons stated above. Historically, the folks that provision applied to were going to be tried; but for, intervention by a President. Intervention that President was almost removed for save one vote in the Senate.

To drive the point home, to apply this provision of the 14th Amendment to President Trump this point is just as novel as saying the Constitution, Article III allows the VP to decertify the Election, and send electors back to the states.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

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?

Yes.I have said so many times.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

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?

Yes.I have said so many times.

Would you say that pledging to pardon those people constitutes lending them "comfort" if one stood any realistic possibility of being able to deliver on it?

No. I say it makes him repugnant from my vote. However, the ability to Pardon rest with the President for Federal Convictions.

He has made it a campaign issue. If the majority of the people vote for him knowing he has said that, subject to the limitation of the Electoral College, then so be it.

No different than President Johnson granting ex Confederate amnesty and pardons. If the House wants to impeach and the Senate convict over such an exercise of Pardon Power, so be it (like President Johnson save one vote).

You get the Government you vote for.

I just realized something, the reading of the 14th Amendment Section III would be a de facto Bill of Attainder if applied wo due process found on the 5th Amendment.

I am more convinced from this discussion this reading is untenable.

Colorado’s own state Constitution most likely does not allow a Bill of Attainder. KY does so restrict.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just realized something, the reading of the 14th Amendment Section III would be a de facto Bill of Attainder if applied wo due process found on the 5th Amendment.

quote:

Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

Yeppers -- while i think trump is a HORRIBLE candidate, that is what I also thought, except i didn't have the term "bill of attainder" in my brain ... I did assume that disallowing an untried person based off an unproven (legally) assumption was constitutionally wrong

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just realized something, the reading of the 14th Amendment Section III would be a de facto Bill of Attainder if applied wo due process found on the 5th Amendment.

I am more convinced from this discussion this reading is untenable.

Colorado’s own state Constitution most likely does not allow a Bill of Attainder. KY does so restrict.

Appearing on a State ballot, or not being allowed to do so, does not implicate Trump's life, liberty or property in any way.

Running for office is not a guaranteed Right like free speech or freedom of religion and in almost all cases already comes with eligibility limitations. Not being allowed to appear on a Presidential ballot because you are 27 years old is not something that requires a lot of court hearings to avail you of due process because your life, liberty and property have not been put at hazard.

If evidence is presented to a Colorado court that Trump instigated, participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who attempted an insurrection they have every right under the Constitution to bar him from their ballot.

Whether his opponents can muster that evidence is a matter for the Court to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No. I say it makes him repugnant from my vote. However, the ability to Pardon rest with the President for Federal Convictions.

He has made it a campaign issue. If the majority of the people vote for him knowing he has said that, subject to the limitation of the Electoral College, then so be it.

No different than President Johnson granting ex Confederate amnesty and pardons. If the House wants to impeach and the Senate convict over such an exercise of Pardon Power, so be it (like President Johnson save one vote).

You get the Government you vote for.

I am not referring to the act of issuing a Pardon, I'm talking about the comfort such a pledge from a Presidential candidate provides to a convicted seditionist looking at 2 years instead of 22.

Distinction wo a difference. My answer is the same. It is his prerogative as a candidate to make the issue a campaign issue. It is up to the sovereign people and the states on the election to decide. Assuming, he wins and so pardons, the matter is up to Congress through our Impeachment and Trail of Impeachment process.

I would not vote to Impeach in the House nor to Convict in the Senate under this fact pattern. The pardon power is a due power to the executive. I would not have voted to impeach President Johnson or convict him of impeachment in the Senate either.

The same can be said about voting. It doesn’t reduce your life, liberty, or property to not vote.

The system is what it is. If CO gives due process re the claims, then it’s an argument about federal preemption for federal elections re qualifications.

Like the arguments about immigration, it seems pretty settled law and I think it’s unlikely to change.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just realized something, the reading of the 14th Amendment Section III would be a de facto Bill of Attainder if applied wo due process found on the 5th Amendment.

I am more convinced from this discussion this reading is untenable.

Colorado’s own state Constitution most likely does not allow a Bill of Attainder. KY does so restrict.

Appearing on a State ballot, or not being allowed to do so, does not implicate Trump's life, liberty or property in any way.

Running for office is not a guaranteed Right like free speech or freedom of religion and in almost all cases already comes with eligibility limitations. Not being allowed to appear on a Presidential ballot because you are 27 years old is not something that requires a lot of court hearings to avail you of due process because your life, liberty and property have not been put at hazard.

If evidence is presented to a Colorado court that Trump instigated, participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who attempted an insurrection they have every right under the Constitution to bar him from their ballot.

Whether his opponents can muster that evidence is a matter for the Court to decide.

The issue is not appearing on the ballot. The issue is can a state declare President Trump a seditionist, traitor, or to have so aided. Thus, keeping President Trump off the ballot wo 5th Amendment due process.

To declare that status would be a Bill of Attainder. I say no.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

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.

and we have an opinion - you won't like it, and will reject it, but hey, you do you, boo

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just realized something, the reading of the 14th Amendment Section III would be a de facto Bill of Attainder if applied wo due process found on the 5th Amendment.

quote:

Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

Yeppers -- while i think trump is a HORRIBLE candidate, that is what I also thought, except i didn't have the term "bill of attainder" in my brain ... I did assume that disallowing an untried person based off an unproven (legally) assumption was constitutionally wrong

Is this not a circular argument, which the case in Colorado and two other states at least, render moot because the case in Colorado is scheduled for trial date starting Oct. 30?

In the due process of that case/trial facts and evidence will be presented and heard specifically on the question of insurrection and aiding and abetting. Thusly, any hypothetical conflict with the 5th and 14th will become moot.

ME -
no, it's not circular -

As I understand the basis of the CO case, is that the court is being asked if Trump can be removed from the ballot due to the 14A,S3 - WITHOUT a conviction of sedition.

So, that raises a 5a question - what FEDERAL court found him guilty of sedition?

If it's so obvious that he did, great, then it should be an easy case for a federal prosecutor to get a guilty verdict and that basis, and TADA, it's a 14as3 violation for him to hold office.

Without a conviction, as Joshua said, would be a writ/bill of attainder - conviction without trial - which is a violation of the 5a, though I'd argue that Congress, specifically the House, could likely have standing to issue same

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ME -
no, it's not circular -

As I understand the basis of the CO case, is that the court is being asked if Trump can be removed from the ballot due to the 14A,S3 - WITHOUT a conviction of sedition.

So, that raises a 5a question - what FEDERAL court found him guilty of sedition?

If it's so obvious that he did, great, then it should be an easy case for a federal prosecutor to get a guilty verdict and that basis, and TADA, it's a 14as3 violation for him to hold office.

Without a conviction, as Joshua said, would be a writ/bill of attainder - conviction without trial - which is a violation of the 5a, though I'd argue that Congress, specifically the House, could likely have standing to issue same

I think the issues you have a problem with will be addressed in the trial in Colorado. If they don't then there is no point. It has to be ripe for SCOTUS, which I think is the point. I think the whole thing will bypass the house, which as we know is dysfunctional, intentionally for this reason and more.

"Sedition" -- is that the same as insurrection, per the 14A,S3? As I understand it the case in Colorado is designed to address the question of insurrection, which there is a specific definition under law, and ties into 14A,S3.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...828175fab350ab&ei=76

Judge rejects attempt to dismiss bid to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot
Story by Jack Birle • 1d

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...52987261c2dc65&ei=34

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...52987261c2dc65&ei=38

Court arguments on blocking Trump from the presidential ballot under the ‘insurrection’ clause begin
Story by By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press • 9h

DENVER (AP) — The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution's “insurrection” clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again enters a new phase this week as hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state.

Whether the judges keep Trump on the ballot or boot him, their rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's highest court has never ruled on the Civil War-era provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding higher office.

Dozens of cases citing Section Three of the 14th Amendment have been filed in recent months, but the ones in Colorado and Minnesota seem the most important, according to legal experts. That's because they were filed by two liberal groups with significant legal resources. They also targeted states with a clear, swift process for challenges to candidates' ballot qualifications.

That means the Colorado and Minnesota cases are taking a more legally sound route to get courts to force election officials to disqualify Trump, as opposed to other lawsuits that seek a sweeping ruling from federal judges that Trump is no longer eligible for the presidency.

The plaintiffs in the cases argue the issue is simple: Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, mean he's disqualified from the presidency just as clearly as if he were not a natural-born citizen, another constitutional prerequisite for the office.

“Four years after taking an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution as President of the United States ... Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, leading to a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol to stop the lawful transfer of power to his successor,” alleges the Colorado lawsuit, filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8e1f0ef9b2ae46&ei=24

Donald Trump Faces Legal Week From Hell
Story by Sean O'Driscoll •
1h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0cd96a37a83cdb&ei=11

Trump Could Be Kicked Off the Ballot in Days and Still Become President
Story by Andrew Stanton • 1h


Trump is facing several legal challenges to his 2024 candidacy over the 14th Amendment, including in Colorado. However, being removed from Colorado's ballot won't necessarily stop Trump from returning to the White House, and he remains the frontrunner in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

Colorado is an increasingly Democratic state that gave President Joe Biden a double-digit victory in the 2020 election. It means Trump is unlikely to win the state, regardless of whether he is disqualified from the ballot.

The Cook Political Report lists the state as "Safe Democrat" in 2024, and every statewide poll shows Biden leading.

Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University, told Newsweek Monday morning that he believes the Colorado plaintiffs have "a very strong case" and "clearly have 'standing'" under Colorado law.

"When Trump publicly and obviously took the law into his own hands in an attempt to overturn the basic structure of four-year presidential terms that is at the core of our Constitution, he did exactly what the Disqualification Clause means by engaging in 'insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,' which is the very definition of disqualifying conduct under that Clause," Tribe wrote in a statement.

However, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, told Newsweek that he does not believe the 14th Amendment theory "can be ultimately sustained on appeal." He added that he does not believe Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection or rebellion.

"Advocates have claimed that they can bar as many as 120 Republicans from Congress for opposing certification. This ignores that fact the fact that Democrats previously opposed Trump's certification without a scintilla of legal or factual support. It would invite tit-for-tat actions in red and blue states," Turley wrote.

In a September 6 press release, CREW President Noah Bookbinder said, "While it is unprecedented to bring this type of case against a former president, January 6th was an unprecedented attack that is exactly the kind of event the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to build protections in case of. You don't break the glass unless there's an emergency."

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

Regarding Turley's comment highlighted above in bold, I count that as a lie because it's partially true but the conclusion is flawed. If Republicans in Congress can be barred from office under the 14th Sec3 it won't be because they opposed or objected to Biden's certification, stand alone, but the opposition was part of a larger and developed conspiracy, sedition, and there is a lot of legal and factual support for that.

https://www.politifact.com/fac...residential-electio/

PolitiFact:

"Every time a Republican has been elected president over the last few decades, House Democrats have objected to the result"

House Democrats have objected to presidential election results, though under different circumstances

=============================
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
Democrats made objections to election results during election certifications in 2001, 2005 and 2017.

In all three of those years, the losing candidate had already conceded the race.

In 2021, 147 Republicans objected to the results, and Trump was actively trying to stay in office.
============================

Some Democrats filed objections in 2001, 2005, and in 2017, following elections that Republicans won. But the circumstances were different from those in 2021. In the earlier years, the losing candidate had already conceded. After the 2020 election, Trump was trying to overturn the election, and he had met with some House Republicans to further that goal. In the previous years, not even the losing candidates were seeking to overturn the results. The objections were more symbolic than the 2021 effort to block the election results. In 2021, the objections could have overturned the presidential election.

Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate this Mostly True.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8e1f0ef9b2ae46&ei=24

Donald Trump Faces Legal Week From Hell
Story by Sean O'Driscoll •
1h

One of the choices in the survey from your link should have been: YES, I hope so.

They livestreamed the event in court today.

It's long. But look at the comments below the video. It's really unbelievable how Trump supporters can justify their BS belief.

https://www.youtube.com/live/n...?si=6-WzoPB4ljBHbl9U

(I can't figure out how to get the video to start at 0:00, the beginning, but if you really want to watch it all you can scroll back. Some good evidence is presented in the beginning.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4fb098ce1082da&ei=25

Court fights to prevent Trump from running again for the White House turn to Minnesota
Story by By STEVE KARNOWSKI and NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press • 8h

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Efforts to use the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to prevent former President Donald Trump from running again for the White House turn to Minnesota on Thursday with oral arguments before the state Supreme Court, a hearing that will unfold as a similar case plays out in Colorado.

Those lawsuits are among several filed around the country to bar Trump from state ballots in 2024 over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an assault intended to halt Congress' certification of Joe Biden's win. The Colorado and Minnesota cases are furthest along, putting one or both on an expected path to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never decided the issue.

The central argument is the same — that Section Three of the 14th Amendment bars from holding office anyone who previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it.
In the Minnesota case, the plaintiffs are asking the state’s highest court to declare that Trump is disqualified and direct the secretary of state to keep him off the ballot for the state’s March 5 primary. They’ve also broached the possibility of the court ordering an evidentiary hearing, which would mean further proceedings and delay a final resolution, something Trump’s legal team opposes.

The petitioners wrote: “The events of January 6, 2021, amounted to an insurrection or a rebellion under Section 3: a violent, coordinated effort to storm the Capitol to obstruct and prevent the Vice President of the United States and the United States Congress from fulfilling their constitutional roles by certifying President Biden's victory, and to illegally extend then-President Trump’s tenure in office”.

The insurrection clause does not mention the office of president directly but instead includes somewhat vague language saying it applies to the “elector of president and vice president.” That was an issue debated during the Colorado case on Wednesday, when a law professor, relying on research into the thinking at the time the amendment was adopted, testified that it was indeed intended to apply to presidential candidates.

That case already has delved into whether the Jan. 6 attack meets the definition of an insurrection and whether Trump was responsible for inciting the mob of his supporters and met his responsibility as president to stop the attack.

The relative lack of case law on how to apply the provision means that both sides are having to reach back as far as 150 years to find precedents. Congress passed the 14th Amendment in 1866, a year after the Civil War ended, and it was ratified two years later.

The Minnesota Supreme Court justices have scheduled just over an hour for oral arguments Thursday. They'll hear from attorneys for the petitioners, who include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former Justice Paul Anderson, as well as lawyers for Trump, the Republican Party of Minnesota and current Secretary of State Steve Simon.

The Minnesota case was filed by Free Speech For People, while the Colorado case came from another long-established group with significant legal resources, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In Colorado, ballot challenges first go to a judge for a hearing and then can be appealed to the state Supreme Court. In Minnesota, they go straight to the high court.

Simon, the secretary of state, has asked the court to rule quickly so he can send instructions to local election officials about Minnesota's March primary no later than Jan. 5.

https://youtu.be/X2NKnF5_xpw?si=RadqBA6BFKXwdPwK

14th amendment disqualification cases take center stage Nov 4, 2023

This is a long video but explains the situation better than I've seen before or elsewhere. The part regarding the 14th sec 3 is about 23 minutes. Many questions are answered.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...winp2fptaskbar&ei=17

Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Trump on 2024 primary ballot, but leaves door open for general election
Story by Caroline Cummings • 5h

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against a petition seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot, but left the door open to a potential subsequent challenge should Trump be selected as the Republican nominee in the general election.

The court's ruling stated that " petitioners have standing and that their claims are ripe as to the issue of whether former President Trump should be excluded from the 2024 Republican presidential nomination primary" but that "we reach a different conclusion regarding petitioners' claim that it would be error for the Secretary of State to place former President Trump's name on the ballot for the 2024 general election ballot."

"Although the Secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, this is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes, and winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States," the ruling states. "There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office."

The court went on to argue that, "because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary, and petitioners' other claims regarding the general election are not ripe, the petition must be dismissed, but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims as to the general election."

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon released this statement on the ruling Wednesday evening:

In just 72 days, on January 19, voters in Minnesota will begin to cast their ballot for the March 5 Presidential Nominating Primary. I'm grateful that the Minnesota Supreme Court acted quickly in this case to provide Minnesotans with certainty about who is eligible to appear on the ballot for that particular contest. The court has made it clear that former President Trump's name will appear on the primary ballot , should the Republican party choose to submit him as a candidate. We respect the decision and will uphold the outcome.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e0c3beda273a89&ei=14

Trump lawyers claim judges have no authority to enforce 14th Amendment
Story by Matthew Chapman • 15h

During oral arguments this week, lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued that a Michigan challenge to his constitutional eligibility to appear on the ballot is invalid because judges don't have authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, The Messenger reported on Thursday.

"One of Trump's lawyers, Michael Columbo, said that the power to enforce the section of the amendment 'resides in Congress alone,' adding the section only applies to elected officials-to-be and not to candidates running for office," reported Aneeta Mathur-Ashton. "He added that the 'judicial review, if any, should occur only after the Electoral (College) and congressional processes have run their course,' arguing that those challenging Trump’s eligibility want to turn an after-the-fact 'Section 3 disqualification into a ballot access qualification'" — in other words, any case on this should be heard in 2025 after he hopes to have won the election.

The opposing counsel, Mark Brewer, argued this standard would be absurd, saying, “We’ve heard this morning about chaos… talk about chaos. That would require the country then to what, rerun the entire presidential election.”

Voters and legal activists around the country have sued in multiple states, arguing that the 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause prohibits Trump from running for office, as he is accused of helping to incite the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The challenge faces a number of legal questions, because there isn't clear case law established on how to enforce the amendment — which is Trump's counsel's justification for his argument.

Other states where such challenges have been filed include Colorado, where the case is ongoing, and Minnesota, where the state Supreme Court just ruled the state lacks authority to enforce the disqualification with respect to a primary ballot but could re-hear the case again during the general election proceedings.

Trump is miles ahead of any other contender and if he knows he cannot run or win the presidency, why would he be continuing in the race or why isn't he being prevented in doing so?

Something just doesn't add up.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:
Trump is miles ahead of any other contender and if he knows he cannot run or win the presidency, why would he be continuing in the race or why isn't he being prevented in doing so?

Something just doesn't add up.

Idiots send him money.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:
Trump is miles ahead of any other contender and if he knows he cannot run or win the presidency, why would he be continuing in the race or why isn't he being prevented in doing so?

Something just doesn't add up.

Idiots send him money.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't, yet his popularity is on a steady rise, indictments notwithstanding and the final outcome of all these charges will be interesting.

I wonder the reaction if he wins 2024.

https://www.citizen-times.com/...outcome/71500303007/

Opinion: NY Times poll shows Trump tops Biden for 2024; but still too soon to tell
Dr. Christopher Cooper Guest Opinion 11/12/23

This poll reinforces that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump could win the 2024 presidential election. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Trump is not suddenly a favorite in five battleground states and he's certainly not up by 11 percentage points in Nevada.

Perhaps most importantly, the election is a year out and most people are thinking about other things. After all, college football is rolling along, ski season is about to begin and the WCU Women’s Soccer Team is in the NCAA tournament. A lot of what this (or any) poll is picking up this far out is just noise. The few people whose opinions are malleable just aren't paying attention to the presidential election yet. And there's a lot that can happen between now and the election.

None of this means this poll is bad or pointless — it's neither. This poll represents a notable and important attempt to understand public opinion in six states a year before an election. Its findings reinforce that neither Biden nor Trump is a shoe-in to win the 2024 presidential election. That's it.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:
Trump is miles ahead of any other contender and if he knows he cannot run or win the presidency, why would he be continuing in the race or why isn't he being prevented in doing so?

Something just doesn't add up.

Idiots send him money.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't, yet his popularity is on a steady rise, indictments notwithstanding and the final outcome of all these charges will be interesting.

I wonder the reaction if he wins 2024.

Trump IS ahead of other Republican contenders.

Quote:
"if he knows he cannot run or win the presidency, why would he be continuing in the race"

Money, ego, revenge, power, because he can, something to do besides golf, to fuck things up, fear, hate, rage, contempt and loathing, etc.

And he doesn't "know" he cannot run or win, and no one or thing or circumstance is stopping him, not even the constitution.

If he wins the GOP primary, then he will be sued again to prevent him being on the ballots. If he wins the election, he will be sued again to remove him from office. If the House and Senate are GOP majority, then he will be free to rampage on the Nation and the world and the universe if he thinks there's money and power in it; they will do nothing but assist in any way imaginable. If the House and Senate are democrat majority, he will be impeached ASAP. If he wins there will be mass pardons, and try to fully implement Project 25.

https://www.newsweek.com/what-...l-deep-state-1825780

What is Project 2025? Trump Shadow Network Plans to Overhaul 'Deep State'
Sep 09, 2023 at 12:24 PM EDT

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
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

BTW, MAGA Mike is already working on and guided by Project 25 especially imposing the "Biblically based" part, gutting the EPA, etc.

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

What if he wins - you ask:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...winp2fptaskbar&ei=27

Ex-RNC Chair's Stark Warning on 'Threat' Posed by Donald Trump
Story by Natalie Venegas • 9h

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...UTw?ocid=socialshare

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...82ce81ca8887246&ei=9

Is Mike Johnson Constitutionally Disqualified From Running for Congress in 2024?
Story by Alex Kasprak • 12h

Following the election of U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, to speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a claim went viral that said Johnson's role in efforts to halt the certification of Joe Biden's election could disqualify him from running for Congress in 2024, under a provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

Stating as fact that Johnson is "disqualified from running for Congress in 2024 due to a violation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment" would be false.

hat does not mean, however, there isn't at least a theoretical argument to be made for applying this part of the Constitution, known as the Disqualification Clause, to Johnson, based on his association with the events of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Section Three of the 14th Amendment stipulates:
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.

There are, then, two basic requirements for disqualification. The first is that the person has "previously taken an oath" at any state or federal level "to support the Constitution of the United States." Johnson unambiguously meets the first requirement, having taken his oath of office many times following his first swearing in as a freshman U.S. Representative in January 2017.

The second requirement is that the person had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the Constitution or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." These are not precise legal terms, but U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicates that a person subject to disqualification need not have committed a crime, and that participation in an insurrection can occur without committing a crime, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Johnson played a central role in developing legal arguments behind the discredited theory that representatives could object to the certification of electoral votes. On Jan. 6, 2021, he was one of the 146 Republican representatives to object to the certification of Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Notably, as reported by The Associated Press, Johnson "organized more than 100 House Republicans to sign onto an amicus brief filed in support of a lawsuit from Texas’ Republican Attorney General, Ken Paxton, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Biden’s wins in four states that gave him his winning margin in the Electoral College — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Does Jan. 6 constitute an insurrection? There is precedent to suggest that the answer is yes. Of the only eight people who have been disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment since it was written in 1868, one of them was disqualified in 2022 for participation in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

That person, Cowboys For Trump founder Couy Griffin, swore an oath to the Constitution in 2019 when he took office as the county commissioner for District 2 of Otero County, New Mexico. He was later convicted of trespassing when he entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6.

Three residents filed a civil case against Griffin, arguing he was disqualified from holding that office after that conviction. A New Mexico district court agreed, and the Supreme Court of New Mexico upheld that decision on appeal.

Do Johnson's actions before and during Jan. 6 constitute participation in an insurrection? Such a claim would likely need to be adjudicated in federal courts following a civil lawsuit challenging Johnson's qualification for holding office. A move by Congress to deny Johnson a seat following a theoretical 2024 reelection win would, in theory, be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

While there are, in fact, Constitutional mechanisms to prevent politicians from serving in office after participating in an insurrection, no efforts, at the time of this reporting, have yet been made to apply them to Johnson's theoretical fourth term in office.

Another one bites the dust…


https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14...%27s%202024%20ballot.

Huvirus, read the article carefully. It says a lot, but it doesn't say the issue bites the dust.

Here's a sample:

Rejecting arguments from the anti-Trump challengers that this was the right time to disqualify Trump, the judge said it was far too early in the election cycle. Trump has yet to clinch the GOP nomination, and the 2024 general election hasn’t been held, he said.

Even if Trump wins the presidency, and then faces new lawsuits over whether he is disqualified from serving, the 20th Amendment spells out a process for what should happen if the president-elect is no longer “qualified” to serve: The vice president-elect would ascend to the presidency.

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

I read somewhere that Trump is considering Tucker Carlson as VP. Imagine that!!!!

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

This dog and pony show ain't over till the fat lady sings. https://youtu.be/dIVfbylUU-M?si=FIL4gWfvQMM9bX1r

Another version: https://youtu.be/tb8iH3F28LA?si=MNZDHkXNsnzCoUGD

The case was dismissed.
In other words, it bit the dust.

Why do judges say without prejudice?

A judge can dismiss a case without prejudice if they detect legal errors that prevent the case from going forward. However, dismissing the case without prejudice allows the two sides to correct those errors and re-file the case.

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

I think the matter has not reached its end stage.

IOW, as I read it, the judges are saying that the RNC can nominate a candidate that is not eligible to hold office, per the 14th, sect 3, thus he can go through the primary.

Once the RNC has declared such candidate ready for the general election, then a case challenging his eligibility for inclusion on the various state's ballots may be brought forward as ripe. If somehow that also fails, then a suit can be brought to prevent him from assuming office, per the 14th. Sect 3. Failing that, he can be impeached pursuant the 14th Sect 3.