IANAL but I can find no reference that describes it this way - including the one you quoted. A bill of attainder is about due process. It deems someone guilty without trial. Sure, it’s obviously retrospective in the sense that it is a finding of fact which by definition is about things that have already happened. But it’s not retrospective in the same sense as an ex post facto law in which past actions which were not considered criminal at the time the acts were carried out are made retroactively criminal.
In short - a bill of attainder is a finding of fact by the legislature without trial. An ex post facto law is a retrospective change in what is deemed criminal.
It’s a civil question, not criminal. Is this person eligible to be President, based on the pre-established constitutional provision? There can be civil consequences for one’s actions that do not first require a finding of criminal liability.
As well, my comments assume that the decision of the Secretary of State would be subject to judicial review, which responds to due process concerns.
Nope. If murder is a crime and you are accused of murdering someone, a bill of attainder would be the legislature declaring you guilty without trial. No ex post facto there.
Except insurrection is defined in criminal code. And you would have a government official declare that a person met that definition and should be punished for it without trial.
A person can be found civilly liable for assault without ever being convicted of criminal assault.
A person can be found civilly liable for fraud without ever being convicted of criminal fraud.
The term “insurrection” does not necessarily mean a criminal offence and only a criminal offence. Did the drafters mean to create a civil standard for insurrection to determine eligibility for the presidency?
Considering that the clause only refers to disqualification for “insurrection” and does not say disqualification for being “convicted of insurrection”, I think it’s open to say that the clause was meant to create a civil standard.
There’s a parallel there with impeachment: impeachment is a civil matter, removing the individual from office, but it carries no criminal liability, and does not prevent subsequent criminal proceedings.
Ruling that someone is ineligible to be president is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
AFAIK, the Colorado Supreme Court has seven judges appointed by Democrats. If they can barely squeak out a 4/3 win, it’s highly unlikely that the heavily conservative SCOTUS will uphold this. The only chance this may be upheld is if the republican SCOTUS judges think another republican candidate has better chances of winning, but this is highly unlikely
SCROTUS doesn’t want an emperor Trump. The Supremes would lose all power and just be Donald’s puppets. Thomas would lose leverage to be bribed any longer, and Trumpy could throw him in the clink if Clarence doesn’t toe the line.
If the SC votes to let the Colorado ruling stand
And
If Trump manages to get elected anyway
I predict that any SC justices that went against Trump will be arrested and jailed along with the others on Trumps enemies list. It’s going to be ugly.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure that sexual assault is defined in criminal code. Can we agree?
Yet Donald Trump was found to legally have committed the act of sexual assault in a civil trial, and in so doing was therefore liable for defamation by calling his public accuser an insane liar.
He was not convicted of sexual assault, and faced no criminal charges nor was he given a criminal sentence. Because the statute of limitations had expired and he could not be charged and therefore did not go through a criminal trial to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If he was declared guilty of the crime without a criminal trial, that would be unconstitutional and a violation of his rights.
The same applies here. He has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection, therefore he is not being convicted nor sentenced for it. Instead, it has been determined that he engaged in the act of insurrection, and is facing non-criminal legal consequences for that act, just as he did in his New York defamation trial for his (technically) non-criminal act of sexual assault.
You can’t be convicted of a crime without going through the process of a criminal trial. But that doesn’t mean you can’t face other legal consequences.
He tried the dictator crap the first time around too and was hit hard by the wall of reality that he wasn’t a king and couldn’t order anyone to do anything he wanted to.
That would happen again. Things haven’t changed that much in the last few years.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be bad. It would be awful. Much worse than last time. But the idea of Trump being omnipotent and making everyone pay at his whim is a fantasy being put forth by Trump and his MAGA cult, not something that can actually happen.
According to a page one story in The Washington Post Trump plans on the first day of his new administration to invoke the Insurrection Act so he can dispatch the military to counter any demonstrations that might resist his policies.
Some in the loony tribe may well file something attempting it. In fact, probably. But I can’t see something with zero constitutional basis surviving through appeal even in the reddest of states.
Not to mention, if successful they’re opening the door wide open on bouncing Trump.
For protests, if they occur, he probably can, with limitations.
Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C.§ 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. As part of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, these provisions have since been amended.
There are Constitutional exceptions to Posse Comitatus restrictions rooted in the president’s own constitutional authority. Defense Department guidelines describe “homeland defense” as a “constitutional exception” to Posse Comitatus restriction, meaning that measures necessary to guarantee National Security from external threats are not subject to the same limitations.
The last POTUS to invoke it was George H. W. Bush, who did so twice in his one term in office. Both times it was done during massive riots (including the LA riots). Trump could certainly invoke it if people riot.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with “arresting and jailing any SC justices that went against Trump”, unless they’re throwing firebombs at cops and looting storefronts. Which I have trouble seeing. That is yet again an extreme right wing power fantasy you’re falling for.
I’m confused here. Isn’t this now a split decision, where another district has already ruled that Trump can be on the ballot? Because, if so, my understanding is that SCOTUS pretty much has to take split decisions, since the alternative is that Federal law is different in different parts of the country.
The challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility so far have all been adjudicated in state courts. Once a litigant loses in the highest court of a state, he or she may file a petition for a “writ of certiorari” asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review.