Personally this is why I reject the entire legal theory behind removing Trump from a ballot. (Although Colorado doesn’t tolerate faithless electors, but I don’t agree that is constitutional.)
~Max
Nothing explicitly in the Constitution can be unconstitutionally anything. It can certainly be vague. If SCOTUS finds it unclear, they’re the guys to supply the clarity, as much as they’d prefer not to wade into this mess.
But, again, they can’t conclude “this part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.”
Would like to note that the Constitution gives Trump a remedy, that is, he can appeal to Congress to vote to overturn Colorado’s decision. This is NOT up to the USSC to decide, as per the 14th, and I wish we would insist that future developments follow the Constitution, and not what we feel is “fair”,
MAGAs are addicted to outrage. They log in every day to the outrage machine and find out what they are mad about that day. If it isn’t this, it will be that a movie got announced with a non-white male lead, or someone gay was visible in public, or that Frosted Flakes decided to update the design of Tony the Tiger. They will always find the next thing to be outraged about because that is how the outrage machine works. One of the reasons the rhetoric has gotten so extreme on that side is that it takes more and more outrage to feed the addiction, just like drugs. We can’t stop this process, but we certainly can’t just give into it in the hopes that they’ll stop being outraged. We can’t stop doing what’s right, and throw out the law in the hopes that it will satisfy them and they’ll calm down. I can’t think of much that would discourage voters on the left than capitulating to the rage addicts.
I’m uncomfortable with different state courts enforcing the same federal law (14th Amendment section 3) differently against the same federal candidate. The question before the Colorado court was whether Colorado election law allowed the secretary to put Trump on the primary ballot, however their decision rests on an interpretation of the federal constitution that I think ought to be decided on a national basis.
~Max
Deleted…
To have a state court decide that Trump committed insurrection against the federal government within the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the federal constitution, without a federal trial, to me raises concerns about due process of law.
Said concerns justify federal court involvement.
~Max
(sorry, moved my edit to a new post)
Argue it to Congress, as per the 14th amendment.
I’m not even convinced a state court can impose the federal disability in the first place, and would want a federal court to rule on that question. The strongest argument to me is that Colorado law - above and beyond the 14th - disqualifies Trump from appearing on its ballot. (Compare, different states have different requirements about the number of signatures you need to appear on the ballot.) But then federal Congress would NOT be allowed to remove the disability, imposed by state law.
~Max
Sucks for the insurrectionist then. C’est la vie!
What I have outlined are all grounds for appeal to federal courts.
~Max.
That’s one possible remedy for him: Congress can decide that, even though he committed insurrection, it’s OK for him to hold office anyway. But Congress can’t decide that what he did doesn’t count as insurrection. If that’s the remedy he wants, that one is a matter for the courts.
Yes, a remedy not allowed by the 14th amendment.
Can a state court decide (without possibility of federal court review) that what he did does count as insurrection?
~Max
Of course it’s allowed by the 14th amendment. Someone has to be able to determine who did and did not commit insurrection, and if not the courts, then whom? If someone says “Hey, I saw you in the crowd on January 6th”, and you weren’t even there and had nothing to do with it, you don’t go to Congress; you go to a court to establish that you weren’t there and had nothing to do with it.
The Colorado decision is going to the US Supreme Court where it will most likely be overturned. On the off chance that it is upheld, it would seem that it would then apply in all 50 states. If the 14th amendment is applicable in Colorado, how could it not be applicable everywhere?
Mild piss rant here. All this would have been avoided if McConnell had done his duty in the Senate, not once but twice.
Back to the flailing.
And your response is:
WTF?!
“We don’t want to invoke the 14th amendment against this guy because reasons” is arguing that he is above the Constitution.
Due process is relevant only if someone is being deprived of life, liberty, or property. Wanting to be President doesn’t count.