I've thought about it.

Let's get re-centered a bit.

This thread has over 6500 views for a reason.

It's important to know that my purpose is to persuade and inform, not merely to express opinion. Argument is counterproductive.

I read and view many articles and videos that I don't post links to.

I don't want to risk distraction from my main purpose, which is to persuade and inform.

However, now I'll risk it and post two videos that I consider relevant and thoughtful.

https://youtu.be/T7aiPmnpUJc?si=lasF0CU3gS2AId-a

Capitol Riot Analysis | What Role Did Narcissism Play?

https://youtu.be/yWHX1MZXahc?si=hzYBvWavc4vdS_Sj

Is Trump Guilty of Inciting an Insurrection? | "mens rea" & Impeachment

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
you can't seem to learn that this is a closed item

you have been asked an answered, repeatedly - it's time to get over it..

oh, and i KNOW the distinction in sir vs sirrah, and intended it - it's not a "personal" attack, it's a statement of contempt

Sorry, but I'm still a bit raw from yesterday.

As I suggested, let's get re-centered on this. For where it started, go back to the OP.

Short story is all the court actions and press that's happened in the meantime.

And it ain't over yet. This is NOT a settled issue.

And I resent being accused of making the shit up, refusing to acknowledge that I'm wrong, and called names. I think I'm due an apology.

I certainly never claimed to be a legal expert. I just read the news articles, and comments from experts, and take them literally - no embellishments, no twist. (Fox excluded, of course)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...aca9ba35fe5c7c&ei=30

'He will be barred': Watergate prosecutor predicts reversal of Trump's Colorado win
Story by David McAfee • 13h

The major legal victory Donald Trump recently scored in Colorado when a judge there kept him on the state's ballot is likely to be short lived, according to a former assistant Watergate prosecutor on Saturday.

The former president celebrated the win at his rally on Saturday, saying the press was having a "meltdown" once it was ruled that he would be placed on the ballot. But legal minds were quick to point out that the judge ruled as a matter of fact that Trump engaged in "insurrection," which could have other ramifications.

Appearing on MSNBC's American Voices with Alicia Menendez, the former Watergate prosecutor and "Sisters in Law" co-host, Jill Wine-Banks, was asked if it makes sense that any public official who engages in insurrection can't run for office again, "with the exception of the president."

"I don't think that's what our founders intended," Wine-Banks said. "The language of the 14th amendment says anyone, any officer, military, or civil, and the president is both a civil officer of the United States, and the military commander in chief, so he falls into both of those categories."

She continued:

"So the argument that he is not an officer, and that there is a difference between his oath and the oath that a senator takes, is a difference without distinction. The difference between protect and support doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, protect is even a higher burden. If the president has to protect the constitution, he also has to support it."

Wine-banks added that the judge's decision is "wrong on the law."

"Of course on the facts she is right, and she made a factual finding that he is insurrectionist. And that would bar him if he were an officer. And I believe that any higher court will find that it was the intent to bar such a person from holding the office of president. and that he will be barred."


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

Regarding the premise that it would be best to just let the voters decide, I tend to agree with that notion except for what the Constitution says per 14a/S3. The reason I think barring him from the ballots is not good is because there is a high probability that his followers will see that as affirmation of their beliefs and lies, about the justice system, etc. Every step along the way, they claim major victories when really that's not what just happened. It would be best if he is soundly defeated at the polls.

As to the claim that it's a "fool's errand" --- I ask the question, given the unique situation with Trump, a one-term POTUS so far, violating his oath of office with insurrection, and clearly stating he will continue the plot and a lot more given the chance, more lies and no remorse, and there is a Constitutional means of disqualifying him, stopping him, should such legit Constitutional means be pursued or ignored?

There is nothing to re-center in.

Publicly the issue has been debated from every angle we can think of.

Legally, the issue has been argued, briefed, and the Courts have been unanimous. The insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply as a bar to President Trumps appearing on the ballot for President. Appeals may follow.


I believe President Trump is a lot of things and should have been impeached, removed from office, and barred from holding office.

I believe President Trump was the yeast that created the alcohol distilled into violence in Jan 6 due to his rhetoric concerning the election.

I believe President Trump failed in his oath and obligation as Commander and Chief to defend the election and Congress on Jan 6.

I believe President Trump gave the VP an unconstitutional directive to de-certify the election, and mused about hanging his VP.

I believe President Trump tried to inappropriately influence the election results in GA through surrogates and personally.

I believe President Trump is a cultural and political traitor for all the above and calling for the Constitution to be suspended, and he to be immediately reinstated.

I believe anyone who would vote for him should never be allowed to vote, but they have a right to vote. So be it. I should not have the power to summarily strip them.

All that being said, President Trump is not charged w the crimes of sedition, treason, nor insurrection. I do not believe President Trump so engaged criminally. To prove that to me, you would have to show a lot of evidence that President Trump or his immediate surrogates coordinated w the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. That has never been alleged.

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

The Courts are not going to summarily declare President Trump to be an insurrectionist and disqualified from the ballot. They are not going to do it. All this is doing is making President Trump more popular, and making bad law. Those are conclusions. I have given the rationale for those conclusions previously.

At this point, the focus must be at defeating President Trump at the ballot box. That includes the Primary and General Election; even if convicted, unless President Trump is impeached or 25th Amendment, he still gets to be president.

This disqualification effort is not helping the cause of defeating President Trump. It is unnecessary Kerosene in the fire that is MAGA. A movement that transcends President Trump.

This legal theory concerning the 14th Amendment is as unfounded, untested, and as dangerous as the Article 3, Decertification by the VP theory.

As the courts have indicated, just like the Right needs to with the election when the courts weighed in, this matter is over. You need to accept it and move on.

I have never called you names. I have never called said you are posting false information. I will say, the opinion pieces you keep bringing up are not authoritative, persuasive, nor important to this discussion at this point.

All the above is notwithstanding appeal. Appeals that will not work.

Do I like at all the prospect of President Trump being re-elected? No. Do we get what we deserve? Yes.
God has very little or nothing to do with it far our Christian Nationalist. The matter is given to us, and the matter is up to us.

If President Trump wins, barring and up to his due removal, he is President Trump. The duly elected President of the United States. It is fine to defeat the movement he is the mouth piece of, the face of, the appointed champion of in the market place of ideas. Most importantly at the ballot box. The prosecutors will focus on beating him in criminal court.

This wild Mike theory is dangerous, and not helping. They tried through legal means. It has been unanimously rejected. Now, accept it and move on.

Well Sir, there is a lot to agree with in your above post, mostly.

I think it's important to disagree or at least clarify some points.

You may assume that I agree with those parts that I don't address in this post.

It's gonna take a bit of effort and some editing, so be patient.

quote:

There is nothing to re-center in.

By re-center, in part I wanted to remind those interested to re-visit the OP, which was significant at the time, and perhaps so now.

quote:

Publicly the issue has been debated from every angle we can think of.

I can think of some angles that I haven't' seen debated, but have seen in press, such as congressional amnesty.

quote:

Legally, the issue has been argued, briefed, and the Courts have been unanimous. The insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply as a bar to President Trumps appearing on the ballot for President. Appeals may follow.

The courts have not been unanimous. At least one made a distinction between the ballots of the primary and those of the general election. I could be wrong, but I think none of them made a decision or conclusion that the 14th didn't apply as bar to POTUS. They kicked that decision down to road to a higher court. I think your conclusion is not correct, for more than one reason. Also, appeals ARE following, not maybe.

quote:

All that being said, President Trump is not charged w the crimes of sedition, treason, nor insurrection. I do not believe President Trump so engaged criminally. To prove that to me, you would have to show a lot of evidence that President Trump or his immediate surrogates coordinated w the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. That has never been alleged.

The Judge in Colorado did not render a FINDING out of the blue sky that Trump is an insurrectionist. Such FINDING is not the same as a criminal conviction, nor was it stemming from a indictment thereof. You have never addressed that distinction and continue to conflate the distinction. It has been alleged but you are correct that he hasn't been criminally charged as such. And that's despite plenty of evidence. Jack Smith's charges are enough for his purposes. The 14a/S3 is not hinged on that criminal due process.

quote:

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

That's mighty open-minded of you.

quote:

This legal theory concerning the 14th Amendment is as unfounded, untested, and as dangerous as the Article 3, Decertification by the VP theory.

I disagree. I don't think it's a theory and I think you are making a false equivalence.

quote:

I will say, the opinion pieces you keep bringing up are not authoritative, persuasive, nor important to this discussion at this point.

They are not all opinion pieces. Some opinions are stated by "experts" with adequate foundation in facts and law. You also state opinions similarly. They are persuasive and important, IMO. If we ignored all the news, or such articles or other media in summary, we might as well declare ourselves ignorant.

quote:

This wild Mike theory is dangerous, and not helping. They tried through legal means. It has been unanimously rejected. Now, accept it and move on.

I agree, it's dangerous, for the reasons you stated. Helping? I dunno. They are still trying through legal means, and it has not been unanimously rejected. My accepting it or not is moot. Not just "I", but "we" can move on at the right time. And the right time is when this is not pending. Claiming it's over, done, is not correct, and neither you nor I have a say in it. All we can do is watch and try to keep an open mind about it.

Some of your claims and conclusions are not open. Some are predictions which I won't argue with. Some are correct. Some are wrong. I might as well throw in "IMO" for disclaimer and good measure .

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
And it ain't over yet. This is NOT a settled issue.

and therein lays the problems - there are SEVERAL issues here - i'll name a couple

the gist of your initial post is that trump should be "Declared" guilty of 14a3s
that there must be due process (that's literally the second post in this thread, btw)
then the question around what due process would have to look like
four states have been asked to remove trump from their ballot, and all have declined

"intent" of the law 14a3s
-

There is, at no point in the spirit of the constitution, a point where it says 'yeah, don't follow due process' as all of the founders and framers had been subject to arbitrary law.

so, points 1,2 - he can't be declared guilty, as we have a fairly well known process to judge people.in my mind, both are closed - but i'll talk more about the 14th in a minute

points 3,4 - it's my belief that it would require the DOJ to take through a grand jury and to prosecute trump, at a federal level. this certainly isn't a small claims/justice of the peace sort of thing, now, is it? it's my opinion that the case would take longer than some might like, and would disclose uncomfortable facts, and should be live on cspan. Let's let the whole world see it. 4 states have reviewed cases to remove trump from the ballot due to 14a3s, and all have declined to do so. the words and wrappings around these decisions is interesting, but ultimately unimportant, rather the results are

sub-plot - i also feel that removing trump from ballots without his due process ALSO compromises the voting rights of anyone not allowed to vote against him

14a3s - frankly, i think the narrow reading of it around confederates-only is, today, incorrect. I don't think it's basis expires when the last confederate did. Just like i feel the 1a applies to books, the internet, high speed printers, etc, and 2a isn't just about muskets - My mind is flexible enough to accept that as a then-contemporary concept, that if the person fought for the CSA, that's a pretty good indictor - HOWEVER, as the 14a3 is silent on the matter of how one judges, then due process must follow, just like the other 99.99% of laws

So, in my mind, this thread and concepts were actually settled on the SECOND post of the thread. The salient facts being that there is a 14a3s and that we have due process.

I thought that the "Due Process" thing was agreed in this thread early on.

Agreed - that Due Process is essential.

Agreed - that it would happen appropriately, intact per Rull of Law.

Otherwise, it's like a Trumpism thing - fuck due process - lock um up.

It seems to me that you think that a civil case, such as in Colorado, is somehow not due process. That it must be criminal case, with jury for example, to achieve due process, is a fallacy.

The Judge in Colorado made a finding that Trump is an insurrectionist. The burden of proof of the claimant was met, or she would not have made such finding. That burden of proof is not as high bar as it would be for a criminal conviction.

================================================================
Research results:

Does the 14th Amendment include the Due Process Clause?
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.
=================================================================

There is no deficiency or discrepancy here, with due process. Trump will not be barred, per 14a/S3, without due process. The courts will see to it.

The way I'm seeing it is that no person has the RIGHT to become POTUS, unless specific conditions or qualification are met.

The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.

In addition, the 14th a, has another qualification. Just as being of 30 years age is a disqualification, an insurrectionist is disqualified - if he has taken the oath of office before, promising to honor the constitution.

Such person has lost his RIGHT to become POTUS by his own acts. Due Process in making that determination is practically the same as determining the other qualifications, such as age or citizenship, and criminal conviction is not necessary.

I've tried -

Dude, i GET IT, you want it to be true, you think it's an obvious "truth", and you want trump off the ballot, likely in all States.

i think i'll give up on this thread - I have no standing to change your beliefs, and it appears I was stupid to even try

no zingers, no barbs, hooks, or springs - I get it, you believe this.

I am disappointed that I haven't changed your beliefs on this subject. I tried.

I wouldn't "believe" it if the facts and evidence didn't point that way.

I have considered your POV on this and you have not persuaded me to change my view. That's simply because the facts and evidence aren't in your support.

I have not said that I want Trump to be disqualified. I have implied that if the 14th/S3 proves valid, and I assume it is, then I want it to have effect, just like any other provision of the constitution, a view which I know you can agree with.

I think Trump is not qualified for the office of POTUS for reasons other than per the 14tha/S3. But if the constitution provides a means to disqualify him, then it should be used.

The Courts have told you the 14th Amendment insurrection clause does not bar President Trump from appearing in the ballot for president.

Sn appeal notwithstanding, the matter is submitted, adjudicated, and closed.

To have someone declared am insurrectionist takes more due process then what the civil courts require. It takes a criminal standard, a criminal procedure, a criminal burden of proof, and a criminal level is due process. That is Jeffeosso’s postponed on what process is due. It is also RollandtheHeadless position.

I agree with them. More importantly, the courts have refused to summarily declare President Trump an insurrectionist, within the meaning of the insurrectionist clause, and remove from the ballot.

For any state or Congress to declare by legislation person X is an insurrection would be a bill of attainder. Most state constitutions do not permit this explicitly. At the Federal level, the Constitution so restricts Congress.

There is no way to get around it. If President Trump is to be declared an insurrectionist, it will have to come from the criminal courts, politically, it could come through impeachment.

Note, insurrection was not one of the charges the House brought to the Senate to try after Jan 6.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Courts have told you the 14th Amendment insurrection clause does not bar President Trump from appearing in the ballot for president.

Sn appeal notwithstanding, the matter is submitted, adjudicated, and closed.

To have someone declared am insurrectionist takes more due process then what the civil courts require. It takes a criminal standard, a criminal procedure, a criminal burden of proof, and a criminal level is due process. That is Jeffeosso’s postponed on what process is due. It is also RollandtheHeadless position.

I agree with them. More importantly, the courts have refused to summarily declare President Trump an insurrectionist, within the meaning of the insurrectionist clause, and remove from the ballot.

For any state or Congress to declare by legislation person X is an insurrection would be a bill of attainder. Most state constitutions do not permit this explicitly. At the Federal level, the Constitution so restricts Congress.

There is no way to get around it. If President Trump is to be declared an insurrectionist, it will have to come from the criminal courts, politically, it could come through impeachment.

Note, insurrection was not one of the charges the House brought to the Senate to try after Jan 6.

Learned folks with far more legal training and experience than I are opining that this Judge merely set the stage for the State Supreme Court to affirm the finding that the evidence shows he instigated an insurrection and overturn the ruling that a President is not an "officer of the United States", which I personally find a bizarre conclusion.

And if the 14th Amendment was meant to apply ONLY to former Confederates it would simply say so; it does not.

Of this is pushed further it will be decided in Federal Court. There is no way this S. Ct., majority is going to keep President Trump off ballot under a legal theory never before used.

It sets up as bad facts creating bad law.

Bottom line we get what we vote for. By extension we get what we deserve. There is no one to blame nor praise than ourselves. God and the courts are not going to rescue us.

LHeym, OK, I "hear" you, finally, even though I'm not in agreement.

But what do I know?

I assume that you know more about this than I do. I'm like that - I differ to authority.

This can't be settled herein. It has to play out in the judicial system.

Obviously, you could be right. I think it's obvious that I'm right. I'm looking forward to however it plays out in the real world.

BTW, I think Jefffive summed it up nicely.

Same here. The bell has rung on this round of litigation. The attempted movement can have a limited review rematch all the way to the Supreme Court if it wishes.

More than likely Fed Circuit Courts will bounce this, and the S. Ct., citing no disparity among the circuits will refuse to hear it.

Of course, a Fed Cir. Court might just give your movement a win to get the matter to the Supreme Court. A ruling should not happen like that, but it is possible. This assumes the movement has the stroke to keep pushing.

You are 100 percent correct. This cannot be settled here. However, one should not consider these ruling to be anything but defeat for the idea the insurrection clause bars President Trump from the ballot.

Appeal away as long as a court will entertain it, and the money is there. The first Fed Circuit Court of Appeals that uphold this theory will be enjoined with all parties before the Supreme Court faster than Bradley (an associate I know who loves beer) can drink a tall pour of beer.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

The part of all this that worries me is the MAGA-Christian Nationalist doctrine does not end with a defeated President Trump.

quote:

your movement

It's not my movement. It's a movement which is noteworthy.

That's if one can deem abiding the constitution a movement.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...27d97c3e16eee5&ei=11

Trump Doesn’t Need Criminal Conviction to Be Disqualified for 2024
Opinion by Claire O'Hare • 21h

This thread has gotten stupid! The judges have ruled......just like they ruled in the rigged election cases.....mangina and maney others here called trump a kook for pushing that narrative after all the rulings...I guess that just confirms that man in a is a kook?

But! Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

quote:

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

Why doesn't this same apply to the 19th ammendment granting freed slaves citizenship......not an anchor baby clause?????

There is historical evidence exactly what the 19th meant!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The part of all this that worries me is the MAGA-Christian Nationalist doctrine does not end with a defeated President Trump.

I have close relatives who are full-fledged Trumpists MAGA Christian Nationalists, Christofascists. I love them but they disgust me. It's difficult to balance that - which will prevail - the unconditional love or the disgust?

I really don't know what will influence them anymore. Certainly not me.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

Your gears are always squealing due to poor ideological grease, and lack of reality lube.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
This thread has gotten stupid! The judges have ruled......just like they ruled in the rigged election cases.....mangina and maney others here called trump a kook for pushing that narrative after all the rulings...I guess that just confirms that man in a is a kook?

But! Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

quote:

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

Why doesn't this same apply to the 19th ammendment granting freed slaves citizenship......not an anchor baby clause?????

There is historical evidence exactly what the 19th meant!

Well, I am not an Originalist. If you want to know the answer to that question, you can read these:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...9649/usrep169649.pdf

This case is way back in 1897 where it is clear that children of aliens born on the United States are citizens. The short answer it comes from:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all per-
sons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The court continues, “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were. settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors.”

The 19th Amendment has little to do with it.

But what does an Emeritus Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard know about the Constitution?

https://youtu.be/-AUIjOHw9pY?si=gQ0Dh6fWIZlSvglB

No more than 4 learned and well briefed judges across the US.

My Constitutional Law Professor was a JAG Lt. Col. He was also cited by Justice Scalia. The citation was in a footnote such as it was. However, he taught at the 3 best out of 3 state schools in KY. So, what did he know.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

Your gears are always squealing due to poor ideological grease, and lack of reality lube.

Yeah! Coming from an estrogenic old woman,like you that is an incredible compliment. Now go back to your knitting....and copying and pasting....



.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
This thread has gotten stupid! The judges have ruled......just like they ruled in the rigged election cases.....mangina and maney others here called trump a kook for pushing that narrative after all the rulings...I guess that just confirms that man in a is a kook?

But! Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

quote:

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

Why doesn't this same apply to the 19th ammendment granting freed slaves citizenship......not an anchor baby clause?????

There is historical evidence exactly what the 19th meant!

Well, I am not an Originalist. If you want to know the answer to that question, you can read these:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...9649/usrep169649.pdf

This case is way back in 1897 where it is clear that children of aliens born on the United States are citizens. The short answer it comes from:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all per-
sons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The court continues, “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were. settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors.”

The 19th Amendment has little to do with it.

So the historical meaning of the 14th you are okay with, but not the historical meaning of the 19th......got it!

Picking and choosing is okay as long as it fits the agenda.....


.

Colorado ruling is 'the very worst decision Trump could get': former solicitor general
Story by Tom Boggioni • 19h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...=winp2fptaskbar&ei=5

Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that a ruling by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace on Friday may have kept Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot for now but it could blow up on him at a later date.

Katyal was quick to note that Judge Wallace agreed with the petitioners that the former president took part in an insurrection at the end of his term but used a narrow interpretation to say he is not in violation of the 14th Amendment.

According to the legal analyst, the ruling was "the very worst decision Trump could get."

'If I were to put the headline on Friday, as an appeals lawyer, it would be this is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court," he began. "Because it's going to go on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court and there Trump is going to face extreme headwinds."

"And the reason for that is the fact — there's two parts," he continued. " There's a factual finding, that the judge said, which is Trump committed insurrection , and then there's a legal part that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the presidency. On appeals, Jen, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding."

"You can overturn the legal findings, because that's basically a fresh look at the legal thing and, here, this judge factually made devastating findings against Trump," he elaborated. "And then looked at this legal technicality, which is the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the president, which is so weak, even the judge themselves admitted that this would be preposterous."

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...27d97c3e16eee5&ei=26

Donald Trump Celebrates 'Gigantic' Legal Victory in Rally Speech
Story by Khaleda Rahman • 1d

https://www.newsweek.com/legal...insurrection-1844983

Legal Analysts React After Judge Finds Trump 'Engaged in an Insurrection'
Nov 18, 2023 at 11:53 AM EST

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...27d97c3e16eee5&ei=11

Trump Doesn’t Need Criminal Conviction to Be Disqualified for 2024

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

Litman: Trump called the latest 14th Amendment ruling a 'victory.' He couldn't be more wrong
Opinion by Harry Litman • 3h

The latest opinion denying a challenge to Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president has occasioned a lot of teeth-gnashing about how the court, in the words of Colorado’s secretary of state, gave Trump a “get-out-of-jail-free card for insurrection.” The frustration is understandable but shortsighted.

In fact, the opinion by Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is a giant step toward disqualifying Trump from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

The Colorado challenge is one of several brought under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies officials who “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding federal office. The provision gives rise to the argument that Trump is not qualified to run for president because of his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
In the last few of its 102 pages, Wallace’s opinion concludes that the president is not “an officer of the United States” for the purposes of the amendment and is therefore not disqualified from the ballot. Trump hailed this as “a gigantic court victory.”

But the former president was either bluffing or being obtuse. In fact, the opinion goes nine-tenths of the way toward recognizing the challengers’ claim and disqualifying Trump before opting for a close and questionable textual reading on the officer question. The ruling is far more important for how it goes against Trump than for the court’s final change of direction.

Every other court that has taken up the 14th Amendment claim to date has shied away from adjudicating it on the merits, finding it was a political question or otherwise unsuited for determination by the courts. The Colorado judge, by contrast, held a week-long evidentiary hearing, taking testimony on the law and the facts.

Wallace’s resulting opinion works methodically through the evidence to determine that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection, which only a trial court can do. In the process, she rejected Trump’s 1st Amendment defense, finding that his intentional incitement of the Jan. 6 marauders overcame any free-speech claim.

The order that will be appealed to higher courts thus has nearly everything that would be needed to disqualify Trump from the ballot. Its final flinch on whether the president is an officer is a discrete question of textual interpretation that any appellate court could decide differently.

The challengers’ brief, in fact, treated the officer issue almost as an afterthought, though a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed by former Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey brought new attention to the question. And the conclusion that the president is not an officer has drawn ferocious criticism from eminent scholars, including the conservative former appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, who called it “unfathomable.”

However weak or strong the claim — I don’t think it’s as ridiculous as others contend — the important point is that higher courts will decide it as a question of law. They may well disagree with Wallace on that point while adopting her far more important finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.

It’s widely assumed that any appellate ruling disqualifying Trump from the ballot would prompt intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final say. And it’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court could or would make the determination that Trump engaged in insurrection without a factual record to review. In that way, Wallace’s opinion sets what had been an empty table for the court.

Of course, appellate courts could agree with Wallace on the officer question or differ with her on other legal grounds. A higher court could, for example, reject Wallace’s definition of insurrection as “any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law” — an expansive definition based on a historical analysis of the term’s meaning during Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Higher courts could also hold that enforcement of Section 3 is a political question that only Congress can answer, though that would raise other questions about the states’ power to ensure candidates meet other basic qualifications for the ballot.

The bottom line, however, is that the Colorado opinion gives the challengers what they needed most — a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection — while raising legal questions that the higher courts would have had to answer in any case. It thereby breathes new life into a potential legal solution to the Trump nightmare that might otherwise have remained quixotic.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...dc042105c3454a&ei=35

A judge says Trump incited insurrection. Other judges have come close.
Story by Aaron Blake • 7h

The effort to get Donald Trump removed from the 2024 ballot over Jan. 6 has thus far failed to achieve its stated objective. But late Friday, it did notch a major victory: A judge ruled that while the former president can’t be disqualified, he did incite an insurrection.

A relatively low-level state court judge in Colorado issued the ruling, but it’s still a remarkable historic document.

And it has been a long time coming.

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling said that Trump’s conduct met the standard for disqualification under the 14th Amendment — that he “engaged in insurrection” — but that the amendment doesn’t apply to the president.

Wallace walked through the evidence for the first component of her finding in detail over 102 pages. She focused on the timeline of Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021 — which she said showed that Trump desired this outcome. And she documented his history of promoting and legitimizing political violence — which she said helps prove he incited the riot.
“The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” Wallace wrote.

She added that Trump’s “inaction during the violence and his later endorsement of the violence corroborates the evidence that his intent was to incite violence on January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021.”

Among her other key findings:

“Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud.”
“He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.”
“[T]he Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.”
She ruled that Trump’s inaction during the riot didn’t itself constitute engaging in insurrection, but that it was evidence “that he intended for the crowd to engage in violence when he sent them to the Capitol ‘to fight like hell.’”
She wrote that Trump’s 2:24 p.m. tweet on Jan. 6 attacking Vice President Mike Pence, an hour after he had been informed of unrest at the Capitol according to a White House employee’s testimony, “caused further violence at the Capitol.”
She said Trump’s comments after the fact show he “endorsed and intended the actions of the mob on January 6, 2021.”
Wallace is the first judge to rule that Trump incited the insurrection. (Trump was impeached by the House for incitement but later acquitted by the Senate, despite historic numbers of Republicans voting against him.)

Wallace is hardly the first judge to lay blame at Trump’s feet, however. Indeed, many judges have gestured in this general direction, including some Republican-appointed ones. They just weren’t tasked with deciding the incitement question, specifically.

The other big ruling on this front came last year from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter. He ruled in March 2022 in a case involving Trump lawyer John Eastman that Trump probably broke the law. Carter’s ruling said it was “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

While Carter was focused more broadly on Trump’s efforts to obstruct Congress’s actions that day, he called the plot “a coup in search of a legal theory.” He said it “spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government” and “led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers.”

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, in a case involving Trump’s Jan. 6 civil liability, likened Trump’s speech on the Ellipse before the Jan. 6 riot to “telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer’s home.” He said that Trump’s speech “can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action.”

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in a criminal case against a Jan. 6 defendant, noted that the “steady drumbeat that inspired” the defendant hadn’t gone away, including via the “near-daily fulminations of the former President.” In another case, she cited the “incendiary statements at the rally … which absolutely, quite clearly and deliberately, stoked the flames of fear and discontent and explicitly encouraged those at the rally to go to the Capitol and fight” to stop the certification.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Jan. 6 involved events “spurred by then President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day.”

And perhaps most strikingly, Republican-appointed U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled in another Jan. 6 case that while Trump’s comments were facially just about protesting, “one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more — perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the certification.”

A Colorado judge has now concluded Trump intended just that.

And while his dual Jan. 6 indictments don’t deal specifically with the incitement question, we’ll soon learn how much fault other courts lay directly at his feet.

I don't understand why the judge would find the case should be dismissed as a matter of law, after holding a six-day evidentiary hearing. What I'd expect would be for the case to be resolved on motion practice (dismissal or summary judgment) before any evidentiary hearing.

Why hear evidence on the insurrection issue, if you're going to dismiss on legal grounds alone? The evidentiary hearing is wasted.

Unusual. And it may weaken the insurrectionist finding's chances on appeal because that finding is not necessary for the court's disposition of the case.

There is a legal doctrine known as collateral estoppel which says a court's finding in one action (assuming due process) can be binding against the same party in another action. The standard of proof must be the same or higher in the first action than in the second. So a finding in a civil action is of no effect in a later criminal action.

My memory is fallible, but I think the finding must be necessary to the disposition of the case in order to be binding. The Colorado judge's finding may be of no effect. How is the insurrection finding necessary to dismissing the case on the ground it's not covered by the 14th Amendment?

This is not the result I'd like to see. I'd love to see Trump barred from running, but somehow I don't see it happening.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
This thread has gotten stupid! The judges have ruled......just like they ruled in the rigged election cases.....mangina and maney others here called trump a kook for pushing that narrative after all the rulings...I guess that just confirms that man in a is a kook?

But! Something was posted that set my gears to really squealing!!!!

quote:

As the Judge is CO stated, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not historically meant to address this situation. It was designed purely for Confederate officers and government officials. Now, I may expand that historical understanding in a modern context. Maybe I would not.

Why doesn't this same apply to the 19th ammendment granting freed slaves citizenship......not an anchor baby clause?????

There is historical evidence exactly what the 19th meant!

Well, I am not an Originalist. If you want to know the answer to that question, you can read these:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...9649/usrep169649.pdf

This case is way back in 1897 where it is clear that children of aliens born on the United States are citizens. The short answer it comes from:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all per-
sons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The court continues, “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were. settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors.”

The 19th Amendment has little to do with it.

So the historical meaning of the 14th you are okay with, but not the historical meaning of the 19th......got it!

Picking and choosing is okay as long as it fits the agenda.....


.

The Supreme Court in 1896 not relying on the 19th Amendment held that citizens of aliens are citizens. This is based on the above quoted clause, and the common law that the Court used to understand the original intent of the clause. The above quotes are from the case. The original intent, as demonstrated by the above case, was to make the children of aligns citizens.

Read the case. I even gave you the controlling language that mandates that holding. I did this because I knew you would not read it.

Jtex, you are not going to like this, but you either refuse to read the controlling caselaw when it is given to you, or you are unable to understand it when it is spoon fed to you. It is not my spin on the case. I gave you word for word quotation of the controlling language that mandated a holding the original intent of the Constitution was to make the children of aliens citizens. This was resolved all the way back in 1896 without relying in the 19th Amendment. Go read the case I gave you and quoted.

I have already answered that question as it relates to the insured insurrection clause. I stayed earlier, I would be of a mind to apply a more modern reading based on the expressed words of the clause. As the question relates to the above question about alien children having citizenship status, the case I cited above is clear the original intent (predating 19th Amendment and 14th Amendment analysis) is the children of aliens under the Constitution are citizens.

I am not an Original Intent person bc I know we have a long and well documented areas of precedent deviating from “original intent.” What I am is controlling precedent, and not overturning controlling precedent on personal views disguised as legal analysis.

Hence, as I have explained numerous times, groups like the Federalist Society are lying to you. Their advocacy is not a return to 18th Century understanding of Federalism applied by the federal courts. They simply want to insure the victories of the New Deal while permitting states power over our lives no one wants.

I have been quoting the wrong amendment..... But my intent was correct And I do believe intent matters much more than faulty precedent and lawyers misrepresentation....

quote:

by Fred Elbel
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

Complete with court cases...... Ratified in 1868.....bastardized, unconstitutionally in 1965....

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
And I do believe intent matters much more than faulty precedent and lawyers misrepresentation....

.

That's interesting.

Scalia said he was big on original intent, if I'm not mistaken. But he was a liar. He was big on it when it suited him.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/...ally-an-originalist/

(excerpt from the article)

In my view, the transition from original to evolved Scalia is a kind of synecdoche, or summary, of the profound transition in the conservative legal movement over roughly the same period, resulting in American legal conservatism becoming increasingly focused on criticism and limitation of the administrative state.

Although Scalia did support a version of the originalism for which he is remembered, Vermeule argues that the justice saw it as the best method for constraining judges from interfering with executive branch decisions . The original Scalia’s aim in arguing for originalism was, the professor said, “to protect and expand executive power.”

“What he cared about was a powerful administrative state headed by a powerful president,” Vermeule argued. Scalia, he said later in the talk, was throughout the 1980s and 1990s, “known as the Court’s champion of Chevron, of the administrative state, and of presidential power.”

By 2013, however, Vermeule argued that Scalia had begun to repudiate some of his earlier views. “We see evolved Scalia becoming increasingly critical of the administrative state and increasingly reliant on, in my view, a simplistic distinction between law and result oriented decision-making that he saw as outside of law. And this is a direct contradiction of his earlier views.”

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

Oh, and BTW, we agree - Trump's intent matters foremost in the application of the 14th/3. The judge in Colorado declared a finding that Trump engaged/incited insurrection with intent.

That will probably not be overturned by a higher court, so it now hinges on whether the 14th/3 applies to the "office" of POTUS.

IMO, this case - on appeal - will be decided or perhaps rejected (not accepted for consideration) by the higher courts based simply on "results oriented decision". This is the kind of case that is ripe for that sort of court decision, results/outcome oriented, and who can criticize them? Certainly not conservatives. Scalia would approve, while playing his little harp singing original intent in the sky, when it's really about outcome. And Trumpsters will go into their projection act and claim it was the liberals who pushed for outcome, and twisted the law for such purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
I have been quoting the wrong amendment..... But my intent was correct And I do believe intent matters much more than faulty precedent and lawyers misrepresentation....

quote:

by Fred Elbel
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

Complete with court cases...... Ratified in 1868.....bastardized, unconstitutionally in 1965....

Dude, the controlling case I gave goes back to 1896.

If you believed in Original Intent so much, you would allow New York to ban the carry of handguns in Manhattan. The organism intent of the Second was purely a restriction on Congress case law has been proved all the way back to the 1800s.

Let's not forget or get distracted by the originalist unhinged/farce/high ground argument.

We all know that this is about outcome.

So, let's not forget that the question of Trump being an insurrectionist has been adjudicated affirmative, with due process. Also, it has been adjudicated that his claim/defense of 1st A free speech is not valid.

Both items are very important and also relevant in other cases he's dealing with, and the gag orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ecae338913afd9&ei=68

Trump is about to learn the truth about the First Amendment

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...cae338913afd9&ei=116

Appeals court judges 'will not let Donald Trump get away with his coded language'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...75babb77ab6366&ei=10

Opinion: What this judge said about Trump is bone-chilling by Dean Obeidallah, CNN • 4h

District Judge Sarah Wallace wrote that Trump had played a role in this insurrection “through incitement” of the crowd during his infamous speech at the White House Ellipse. She gave examples such as Trump telling his supporters some 20 times before the January 6 attack to “fight.” And he goaded his supporters into action with lines like, “You will have an illegitimate president … We can’t let that happen.”
“Such incendiary rhetoric,” the judge noted, coming from “a speaker who routinely embraced political violence and had inflamed the anger of his supporters leading up to the certification, was likely to incite imminent lawlessness and disorder.”

At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, an insurrection was “understood to refer to any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law,” wrote Wallace in her 102-page opinion. The “events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of ‘insurrection,’” she concluded.

The lawsuit before Wallace to try to keep Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment was filed in September by six Colorado voters. But Wallace did not disqualify Trump from standing for election in the state, writing that “for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three [of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution] did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

That seems to fly in the face of reason. It’s hard to believe that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to disqualify from the ballot members of Congress but not a president who engaged in an insurrection. Thankfully, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have said they will appeal this part of the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Putting aside the legal issue, we should all heed Wallace’s warnings about how dangerous Trump is. As she wrote, “Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous.” She added, alarmingly, that “Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.”

The judge couldn’t be more correct. Trump has a documented history of embracing violent rhetoric that has led his supporters to threaten or commit acts of violence, from his 2016 presidential campaign to today.

But the court’s findings are even more alarming against the backdrop of Trump’s unhinged rhetoric in recent months, saying that he would serve as “retribution” against his perceived political enemies — some of whom he referred to as “vermin.” The former president also has made statements indicating that he might be poised, if he returns to the White House, to weaponize the government against those who oppose him.

Taken all together, this paints a deeply frightening portrait of a man who could be willing to use any means available — possibly including violence — to achieve his personal and political ends.

Just as worrisome, Trump has defended those who have committed some of these violent acts. For example, Trump has repeatedly slammed the “unfair” prosecution of his supporters who waged the January 6 insurrection to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory, and he vowed to pardon a “large portion of them.” Trump’s promise to pardon those who engaged in this attack could be seen as a message to his supporters that if they engage in future violence in his name to help him win in 2024, he would pardon them if elected president.

All of this is why Trump’s recent ratcheting up of dehumanizing rhetoric directed at those who oppose him is truly dangerous. Some of the most jarring comments include Trump at the March gathering of conservative activists at the CPAC convention when he told the audience, “for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.”

Later in that speech, Trump listed his political enemies, from Republicans in name only (presumably referring to the Republicans who do not support him) to “globalists” to what he called the “fake news media.” He then vowed that if he wins, “we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

“Retribution” and “liberation” of the nation from political opponents is not something heard before in modern American politics — let alone from the person leading the 2024 field for the GOP presidential nomination.

In recent weeks, Trump has become even more unhinged, irresponsibly telling his supporters that those who oppose him are “vermin” who “lie and steal and cheat on elections.” In that same speech, he added that “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.”

In other words, Trump is conditioning — or even arguably radicalizing — his supporters to believe that those who oppose Trump are “vermin” who must be “liberated” from our nation. This explains why experts such as historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat are warning us that Trump is now employing language “used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”

Wallace found that, though Trump engaged in a violent insurrection on Jan 6, 2021, she could not disqualify him from the ballot. Now nearly three years after that insurrection, today’s Trump is even more desperate; he understands that the most effective way to remain out of prison (given he’s facing 91 felony charges in four jurisdictions) is to win in 2024.

The situation is more than combustible — it very well could be the recipe for the downfall of American democracy as we know it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...de3d664c7f0de61&ei=9

IMO, the title of the article should have been:

Trump's UNholy crusade: Christian evangelicals flock to his version of a "final solution"

https://youtu.be/7hAg-0aEJEc?si=6k8ALnBeKa_U80Um

What happens after Donald Trump’s ‘final battle’?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...battle-evangelicals/

https://youtu.be/0-c1nbbi2YQ?si=gZv3rftOgxbkWuCQ

Trump: 'Radical Left' Colorado Judge Who 'Saw The Light' And Rejected Attempt To Bar Him From Ballot

https://youtu.be/kqGBgb50LwM?si=5uTsUWK5Tsha_WWz

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...winp2fptaskbar&ei=12

Donald Trump's One Ruling Away From the Supreme Court
Story by Katherine Fung • 1h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=43

Trump is appealing the Colorado case that sought to disqualify him from the ballot, even though a lower court already ruled that he should remain on the state's primary ballot.

On Monday, the former president filed an application for review with the Colorado Supreme Court, asking it to reconsider the legal and factual findings made by District Judge Sarah Wallace, which his attorneys argue are "wholly unsupported in the law." Judge Wallace ruled that Trump had "incited" the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but did not agree with plaintiffs that the law applied to the office of president.

It is the second appeal in the case. The group of Colorado voters who filed the case against Trump have also filed a 67-page appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Constitutional lawyer Kent Greenfield told Newsweek that it's likely that the appeals court will make a decision in a few weeks and that if it rules against Trump, "there is little doubt that the Trump campaign will petition for review at the Supreme Court."

"If that happens, it is highly likely that the Court will hear the case, and on an expedited schedule," Greenfield said. "This could be the most important political case the Court has heard since Bush v. Gore."

Greenfield said that if the appeals court does rule in Trump's favor, the Supreme Court which is trying to "avoid it if they can," will be unlikely to hear a petition from the former president.

"It was just a matter of time before the Supreme Court had to address this issue," former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. "It's an unsettled matter of important constitutional significance, and now we have inconsistent rulings across the country."

Trump's appeal comes days after a Colorado judge rejected a 14th Amendment challenge to remove him from the state's primary ballot. Section 3 of the amendment states that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S.

The appeal from Trump's attorneys takes issue with Wallace's ruling, which found that the January 6 Capitol riot was an "insurrection," that Trump's political speech "incited violence" and that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Wallace, however, allowed Trump to remain on the ballot because while her findings would normally be enough to disqualify someone running for office, it only pertains to "officers of the United States," which she ruled does not include presidential and vice presidential candidates.

"I—like most legal scholars—think the notion that the President is not covered by Section 3 is ludicrous," Greenfield said. "Why would the Framers of the 14th Amendment provide for the disqualification of treasonous members of Congress, but not require the disqualification of an insurrectionist occupying the nation's most powerful office?"

Greenfield called the Colorado case "the most serious of the cases winding its way through various state courts challenging Trump's eligibility."

Wallace's Friday ruling is the third in a little over a week to have rejected lawsuits seeking to disqualify Trump based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court has already allowed Trump to remain on the primary ballot, finding that who appears on the ballot is solely decided by political parties, and in Michigan, a judge ruled that Congress should be left to interpret whether Section 3 applies to Trump.

"Some judges have dismissed lawsuits on standing grounds, while others have said it's a political issue to be decided by Congress, or that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to primary races. And in Colorado, surprisingly the judge ruled that a President is not an officer of the United States," Rahmani said.

He said, "The rulings are all over the place, so the Justices have to define the standard to review these 14th Amendment challenges, if it's even something lower courts can address."

Here's an article that supports the premise that the final decision on whether the 14th/s3 applies to Trump is outcome or result oriented, and has practically nothing to do with originalism.

IOW, it agrees with LHeym500 and explains why.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b1c88074a73a13&ei=28

The 14th Amendment Isn’t Going to Save Us From Donald Trump
Story by Elie Mystal • 10h

Yes, Donald Trump’s attempt to foment an insurrection should bar him from running for president, but no judge will have the raw courage to kick him off the ballot.

Before we even get to the law of it all, we should talk as adults about the realpolitik of what these Section Three lawsuits, brought in state after state in order to get him kicked off as many ballots as possible, are asking the courts to do. The lawsuits ask some random state court judge (or federal judge or panel of judges) to rule that the most popular Republican in the country is ineligible to run for president according to state election laws and the Constitution. They ask judges to tell people who want to vote for Trump that they are not allowed to vote for him, and they ask these judges to do this on their own authority and without the implicit backing of the Army of the Potomac or the 101st Airborne Division. They want the judges to do this even as those judges know that any decision kicking Trump off the ballot will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, a body packed with six judges picked by Republican presidents, three of whom were hand-picked by the very man they’re supposed to kick off the ballot.

Who does that? Which judge wants to functionally impale their career as an impartial adjudicator for a cause that will surely be struck down by the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity? Again, real talk: which judge wants to do that, get overturned, and still need to hire extra security for the rest of their life because they ruled that a man with a proven ability to inspire his followers to violence can’t run for office? People want judges to take all these risks based on a Constitutional provision that has been functionally ignored for 150 years—and back when it was used to bar Southern office holders who voted for secession from running for office again, it had to be enforced by a literal occupying army. Come on. Judges are human beings, not ChatGPT algorithms. The practical political reality of kicking Trump off the ballot was always going to make judges find any legal, quasi-legal, or legal-sounding way to avoid doing it.

Once you understand that, you can understand why the lawsuits—largely brought by the nonprofit watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), or other private citizens—have totally failed thus far. It’s not that these lawsuits get the Constitution wrong: for what it’s worth, I remain convinced that Section Three should apply to Trump as obviously as it applied to Jefferson Davis. The problem is that no judge wants that smoke, and even if they did, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court will never strike the Republican candidate from the ballot. Judges don’t have the raw courage to do this and, frankly, I don’t blame them.

Instead, judges—including a federal one appointed by President Barack Obama—have been using all of their skills and legal tricks to try to keep Trump on the ballot. You can almost see their desperation in the variety of reasons they’ve come up with to reject Section Three. Here’s a brief recap of some of them:

In Florida, an Obama-appointed judge ruled that the people who brought the lawsuit had no standing to challenge Trump’s inclusion on the ballot. In so doing, they avoided the question of whether Trump was able to be on the ballot, or who would have the right to sue to stop him.
In Michigan a state judge ruled that there is no law in the state preventing Trump from participating in the primary, and only Congress can decide if he is eligible to participate in the general election; this is convenient, since Congress just so happens to be controlled by lots of people who supported the insurrection in the first place. If Trump can’t run, there are a whole bunch of Congresspeople who also can’t run.

In Minnesota a panel of state judges also ruled that Trump is eligible for the primary, but gave leave for litigants to challenge him again should he make it to the general election. It’s worth pointing out that these judges are focusing on the primary ballot rules, when the primary ballots aren’t really the issue. If Trump is ineligible to hold office, then whether he is eligible to run in the primary is entirely beside the point.

I don’t agree with any of these rulings, but you see what judges are trying to do: avoid the issue and force somebody else to make the call. Still, the ruling in Colorado last week was the most pathetic version of this trend. In that case, the state court judge said that Trump “engaged in insurrection” but wasn’t sure if Section Three applies to the president. I’m not making that up. The judge questioned whether serving as an “officer of the United States” (as is required to make Section Three apply) includes serving as the President of the United States.

It’s the kind of thing you write when you know the right answer but are afraid of the consequences of that answer.

There are still outstanding lawsuits against Trump in 17 states but, with four losses already, I doubt that there’s a judge in Arizona or Virginia who wants to be a hero. At this point, barring Trump from the ballot feels more like a way for a judge to get impeached by a Republican state legislature than a way to stop Trump from running as a Republican.

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

Well, so much for the silly lame notion that no one is above the law.

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

Associated: (I think most herein can at least agree with this)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...TW4?ocid=socialshare

Star Jan. 6 witness says Trump should be 'nowhere near' the Oval Office again

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and author of "Enough", joins Jen Psaki to discuss new reporting on former Trump aides warning voters on the dangers of electing Donald Trump in 2024.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/1...ndment-colorado.html

Colorado Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Trump’s 14th Amendment Case

https://truthout.org/articles/...to-disqualify-trump/

The state’s highest court issued its order approving the writ of certiorari on Tuesday. Both sides in the matter are now required to appear before the court on December 6 to present arguments defending their positions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...40df4e7ca04bab&ei=23

Donald Trump Being Kicked off 2024 Ballot Looks More Likely
Story by Sean O'Driscoll • 3h

(this is a very informative article)

The main thing is that we all know that the reason Trump is doing his best to be on the ballots and win is to avoid accountability. That's first and foremost, but vengeance is second.

It's a contest for power - the rule of law vs Trump.

Zero-sum. (Look it up if you don't know what it means)

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6215475fa4cd6f&ei=80

Legal expert maps out realistic ways Trump can stop all of his trials
Story by Travis Gettys • 7h

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

If you don't already know, it's clear that Trump and MAGA have steered the Nation into a constitutional crisis already. It's unfolding before our very eyes. And it's intentional.

How is it possible for one man to do this? Who would have thunk it a few years ago? It's possible because he has support.

TDS as a lifestyle - who knew?