Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) called former President Trump a “liar,” after he suggested a recent push to use the 14th Amendment to keep him off the ballot in the state was “electio…
Historically speaking, there is precedent for preventing someone from running for office under the 14th amendment without ever having tried them formally for insurrection or rebellion. Former Confederates were never allowed to hold public office ever again after the Civil War was over. None of them were tried for acts of insurrection. Presumably because there was an abundance of evidence of their involvement in the Confederacy (army payroll ledgers, draft notices, eyewitnesses, etc.).
The constitution is quite clear on this. They would have specified that it required some kind of congressional vote or judicial ruling if that’s what they intended, but they didn’t.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn’t establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
There sure is plenty of evidence that Jan 6th was orchestrated by Trump and his allies. I don’t know how you can sit there and play did-he-didn’t-he in regards to Trump’s involvement when there’s videos of him egging on his followers during the rally and watching the chaos at the capitol unfold on live television, all while not lifting a finger to prevent it from happening.
We can be reasonably sure he had involvement, either directly or through one of his cabinet. He should be banned from having his name on ballots across the country. Won’t stop morons from writing his name in anyway, I’d wager.
That’s what I’m saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn’t? What was insurrection and what wasn’t?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden “stole” the election. We know that’s not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn’t true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It’s not about what is believed to be true, it’s about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
And, again, phrases like “aid and comfort” have precise legal definitions. It has to be proven that Trump did this. You can’t just go “Well, look at the Tweets!”
don’t forget that NOT doing something can also be aid and comfort, when you for example actively DO NOT send federal troops to put down an obviously active attack on the government (which included violence against federal police) or by NOT immediately calling for those actions to cease.
These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement.
Easily arguable that he provided “aid and comfort”. Also, you’re full of it as the term has not received a full judicial construction and is not precisely defined, likely on purpose.
holding public office doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same bar as convicting someone… this isn’t restricting individual freedoms; this is about the leader of the most powerful country on earth
It should be a relatively high bar though. Any law you can use can be used by your opponents. MTG will be trying to use these laws to ban her opponents from office if this works.
Our courts are reluctant to get too involved in political decisions - I don’t expect these challenges to succeed. “Don’t want him in office? Vote against him.”
That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.
If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.
The amendment was initially written to prevent people who fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War from running for elected offices after the war was over.
It was written so as to exclude every last member of the Confederacy outright, not ones that happened to be convicted in court cases.
In particular, they realized a few years later exactly how broad it was, and passed a law to clarify that ordinary soldiers wouldn’t count in this, with the 2/3 majority called for in the amendment, as they were intending this to be used on politicians and officers who engaged in insurrection. So it’s quite clear that the people who wrote the amendment intended it to apply without being proven in a court of law first.
We also had congressional investigations and hearings about January 6th, so there is a lot of legwork there that shows his behavior–with sworn testimony. It’s not like there’s not plenty of public evidence, including tweets and voice and video recordings of Trump himself.
But, again, there are millions of folks out there who say his actions were justified. You and I both know they weren’t, but that’s not an objective truth. A court ruling is. You are guilty or not guilty. You are liable or not liable.
If we’re going to tell someone “Sorry, you don’t qualify anymore…” there needs to be an impartial judicial ruling that’s the basis for it, again, like the Cowboys for Trump guy. Convicted for 1/6, then court disqualification.
I don’t believe he would have been disqualified if he hadn’t been previously convicted.
There’s quite a bit about American law (at least in practice if not theory) that’s essentially “we all know he did it.” Civil asset forfeiture, releasing mugshots to publicly shame people that haven’t been convicted, etc. It’s wrong but taking the high road doesn’t work against fascism and doesn’t stop those things from happening to the poor.
The Constitution has places where the word “conviction” is used, e.g. impeachment and treason. If the founders wanted to make the requirement a conviction of insurrection or rebellion, they could have done so, but they chose not to. To me, this seems like a political question and should be kicked to the legislatures to deal with.
And taking a comment from your other post,
But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
So, if this is a political question, a conviction of any crime, even ones labeled as insurrection or rebellion, would still not bar him from office.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
One count of conspiracy to defraud the United States:
Applies to Trump’s repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
One count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding:
Was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote’s certification in January 2021.
One count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding:
Is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators’ alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
One count of conspiracy against rights:
Refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to “oppress, threaten and intimidate” people in their right to vote in an election.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
Says who? There is no enforcement mechanism in the Constitution. Unless a federal court rules otherwise, history shows this is most likely a political question. Thus, Congress is the sole authority on deciding who has taken part in insurrection or rebellion and can be disqualified based on the Fourteenth. Trump could be disqualified if Congress deems it to be the case he was an insurrectionist, a rebel, or aiding or gave comfort to an enemy.
And the current composition of Congress is not only going to refuse to say Trump is an insurrectionist, multiple members were complicit in the same action. They aren’t facing removal from office either.
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
No, it’s just that he isn’t legally guilty of the crime. Besides, this is a states right issue. They are welcome to select their electoral votes as they deam good and just.
A court case (like this) to determine his eligibility under the amendment can be used to examine any evidence and determine if he engaged in insurrection.
I hate that you’re being down voted because you’re absolute right. Though I would dispute this:
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
The conviction, I think, would help but I don’t think it’s necessary. They will argue that what happened on Jan 6 qualifies. I do think it will be a difficult case to argue without any other convictions.
It will be interested to see what is argued though.
It’s a problem I ran into on reddit a lot, people get so hung up on “the way it SHOULD work” vs. the “the way it DOES or WILL work.” LOL.
I remember a thread where a guy got sent to prison for life under a three strikes rule and reddit was up in arms because the 3rd strike was for some felony weed possession.
I got downvoted for telling them “Hey, if you live in a 3 strikes state, and you already have 2 felony convictions, you have 2 choices: a) STOP COMMITTING FELONIES or b) GTFO out of Dodge and get to a state WITHOUT a three strikes rule.”
Kept having to explain that the law doesn’t care if you think making weed illegal is a moral issue. In that state it’s illegal. Don’t LIKE it? Change it or move to another state.
Until he’s convicted, there’s no actual proof he did any of that.
American law isn’t based on “well, we all know he did…” it’s what can be proven in a court of law.
Same with the Cowboys for Trump guy, the conviction came first, THEN he got bounced out of office.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/county-commissioner-cowboys-trump-co-founder-banned-public-office-jan-rcna46465
This is putting the cart before the horse, and I’m afraid it’s going to get bounced out of court because of that.
Historically speaking, there is precedent for preventing someone from running for office under the 14th amendment without ever having tried them formally for insurrection or rebellion. Former Confederates were never allowed to hold public office ever again after the Civil War was over. None of them were tried for acts of insurrection. Presumably because there was an abundance of evidence of their involvement in the Confederacy (army payroll ledgers, draft notices, eyewitnesses, etc.).
The constitution is quite clear on this. They would have specified that it required some kind of congressional vote or judicial ruling if that’s what they intended, but they didn’t.
Being a Confederate was demonstrable.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn’t establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
There sure is plenty of evidence that Jan 6th was orchestrated by Trump and his allies. I don’t know how you can sit there and play did-he-didn’t-he in regards to Trump’s involvement when there’s videos of him egging on his followers during the rally and watching the chaos at the capitol unfold on live television, all while not lifting a finger to prevent it from happening.
We can be reasonably sure he had involvement, either directly or through one of his cabinet. He should be banned from having his name on ballots across the country. Won’t stop morons from writing his name in anyway, I’d wager.
That’s what I’m saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn’t? What was insurrection and what wasn’t?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden “stole” the election. We know that’s not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn’t true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It’s not about what is believed to be true, it’s about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
You seem to purposely leave out the “aid and comfort” clause exists in here.
Some of the underlyings were already convicted of insurrection related acts, and it can be easily proven that he provided aid and comfort to them.
And, again, phrases like “aid and comfort” have precise legal definitions. It has to be proven that Trump did this. You can’t just go “Well, look at the Tweets!”
don’t forget that NOT doing something can also be aid and comfort, when you for example actively DO NOT send federal troops to put down an obviously active attack on the government (which included violence against federal police) or by NOT immediately calling for those actions to cease.
https://www.law-dictionary.org/definitions-a/aid-and-comfort
Easily arguable that he provided “aid and comfort”. Also, you’re full of it as the term has not received a full judicial construction and is not precisely defined, likely on purpose.
holding public office doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same bar as convicting someone… this isn’t restricting individual freedoms; this is about the leader of the most powerful country on earth
It should be a relatively high bar though. Any law you can use can be used by your opponents. MTG will be trying to use these laws to ban her opponents from office if this works.
Our courts are reluctant to get too involved in political decisions - I don’t expect these challenges to succeed. “Don’t want him in office? Vote against him.”
well GOOD! anyone who rallies a mob to overthrow the democratically elected government should never be allowed to run for office again
this isn’t a “sides” issue… it’s irrelevant which “side” someone’s on
It’s about to become a “sides” issue.
It does though. Impeachment, on it’s own, doesn’t bar someone from office, the conviction in the Senate does. Not convicted? Not barred from office.
If you aren’t convicted then you’re simply accused and all accused have the presumption of innocence.
In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.
That is true in terms of penalizing someone criminally, but this wouldn’t be a criminal penalization. This would be a qualification issue.
That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.
If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.
Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.
You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.
He aided and comforted convicted insurrectionists.
The right will question it regardless. So how about we make not handing all of the nukes to that traitorous piece of shit our top priority.
The amendment was initially written to prevent people who fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War from running for elected offices after the war was over.
It was written so as to exclude every last member of the Confederacy outright, not ones that happened to be convicted in court cases.
In particular, they realized a few years later exactly how broad it was, and passed a law to clarify that ordinary soldiers wouldn’t count in this, with the 2/3 majority called for in the amendment, as they were intending this to be used on politicians and officers who engaged in insurrection. So it’s quite clear that the people who wrote the amendment intended it to apply without being proven in a court of law first.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act
Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.
You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.
We also had congressional investigations and hearings about January 6th, so there is a lot of legwork there that shows his behavior–with sworn testimony. It’s not like there’s not plenty of public evidence, including tweets and voice and video recordings of Trump himself.
But, again, there are millions of folks out there who say his actions were justified. You and I both know they weren’t, but that’s not an objective truth. A court ruling is. You are guilty or not guilty. You are liable or not liable.
If we’re going to tell someone “Sorry, you don’t qualify anymore…” there needs to be an impartial judicial ruling that’s the basis for it, again, like the Cowboys for Trump guy. Convicted for 1/6, then court disqualification.
I don’t believe he would have been disqualified if he hadn’t been previously convicted.
There’s quite a bit about American law (at least in practice if not theory) that’s essentially “we all know he did it.” Civil asset forfeiture, releasing mugshots to publicly shame people that haven’t been convicted, etc. It’s wrong but taking the high road doesn’t work against fascism and doesn’t stop those things from happening to the poor.
The Constitution has places where the word “conviction” is used, e.g. impeachment and treason. If the founders wanted to make the requirement a conviction of insurrection or rebellion, they could have done so, but they chose not to. To me, this seems like a political question and should be kicked to the legislatures to deal with.
And taking a comment from your other post,
So, if this is a political question, a conviction of any crime, even ones labeled as insurrection or rebellion, would still not bar him from office.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts
One count of conspiracy to defraud the United States:
Applies to Trump’s repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
One count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding:
Was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote’s certification in January 2021.
One count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding:
Is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators’ alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
One count of conspiracy against rights:
Refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to “oppress, threaten and intimidate” people in their right to vote in an election.
Says who? There is no enforcement mechanism in the Constitution. Unless a federal court rules otherwise, history shows this is most likely a political question. Thus, Congress is the sole authority on deciding who has taken part in insurrection or rebellion and can be disqualified based on the Fourteenth. Trump could be disqualified if Congress deems it to be the case he was an insurrectionist, a rebel, or aiding or gave comfort to an enemy.
And the current composition of Congress is not only going to refuse to say Trump is an insurrectionist, multiple members were complicit in the same action. They aren’t facing removal from office either.
No, it’s just that he isn’t legally guilty of the crime. Besides, this is a states right issue. They are welcome to select their electoral votes as they deam good and just.
It’s Colorado, Trump isn’t going to win or even be close to winning the State.
Doesn’t mean he gets to ignore the constitution in this state.
This isn’t about the general election, this is about keeping him off the primary ballot.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-constitution-2024-election-primary-ballot-19ca3f17881e8818302cb1260e7c2aed
A court case (like this) to determine his eligibility under the amendment can be used to examine any evidence and determine if he engaged in insurrection.
We can HOPE that will be the result, or it could be thrown out for a lack of standing because Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything.
I would LIKE it to be the case, but I’m afraid it won’t be. :)
deleted by creator
I hate that you’re being down voted because you’re absolute right. Though I would dispute this:
The conviction, I think, would help but I don’t think it’s necessary. They will argue that what happened on Jan 6 qualifies. I do think it will be a difficult case to argue without any other convictions.
It will be interested to see what is argued though.
It’s a problem I ran into on reddit a lot, people get so hung up on “the way it SHOULD work” vs. the “the way it DOES or WILL work.” LOL.
I remember a thread where a guy got sent to prison for life under a three strikes rule and reddit was up in arms because the 3rd strike was for some felony weed possession.
I got downvoted for telling them “Hey, if you live in a 3 strikes state, and you already have 2 felony convictions, you have 2 choices: a) STOP COMMITTING FELONIES or b) GTFO out of Dodge and get to a state WITHOUT a three strikes rule.”
Kept having to explain that the law doesn’t care if you think making weed illegal is a moral issue. In that state it’s illegal. Don’t LIKE it? Change it or move to another state.