Trump has been removed from the Colorado ballot (but not really)

[TheGoldStandard]

While I think SCOTUS will overturn this decision based on other issues, the 14th Amendment does not require a conviction.

It does not need to because the 5th Amendment does. What a scary proposition that accusations alone could lead to ineligibility.

 

[One Brow]

It does not need to because the 5th Amendment does. What a scary proposition that accusations alone could lead to ineligibility.

The 5th Amendment is about criminal penalties, not ineligibility for for office, to my limited understanding

 

[TheGoldStandard]

The 5th Amendment is about criminal penalties, not ineligibility for for office, to my limited understanding

The 5th amendment applies to civil and criminal proceedings, despite what you see on Law and Order.

Per section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to adopt appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th. Since they did not do that, you should look to the rest of the Constitution as other states have done to date in refusing to remove him from the ballot before a final adjudication or legislation from Congress, rather than come up with new law as to how to interpret this as the CO Supreme Court did.

I worry that this will cause more people to vote for Trump. I disagree with a lot of his policy, but can't say I hated everything he did as President. There are a number of things he did I agree with, but the way he went about everything, and the divisiveness it wrought was simply unacceptable. This country is currently in a fragile state politically, and Trumpism only exacerbates it.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

the 14th Amendment does not require a conviction.

It also doesn't define 'insurrection'. The Colorado State Supreme Court has just set the precedent that a court can take it upon themselves to define and declare guilt to trigger a 14th Amendment ineligibility. They have also put the US Supreme Court in a difficult position in that they are going to have to decide to overturn this ruling unanimously. If the US Supreme Court does a 6-3 ideological split on this decision and Trump wins the general election then it is civil war because the lefties will never accept Trump as the legitimate president.

 

[Sardines]

It also doesn't define 'insurrection'. The Colorado State Supreme Court has just set the precedent that a court can take it upon themselves to define and declare guilt to trigger a 14th Amendment ineligibility. They have also put the US Supreme Court in a difficult position in that they are going to have to decide to overturn this ruling unanimously. If the US Supreme Court does a 6-3 ideological split on this decision and Trump wins the general election then it is civil war because the lefties will never accept Trump as the legitimate president.

I disagree. Just like 2016, people will be rightfully upset, even extraordinarily upset, but the vast majority of Democrats and people who vote for Democrats will accept the results of the election.

 

[Deleted member 365]

As I am sure you know, the electoral college was designed and implemented to ensure that the larger states would not control all the voting. Many states would not have joined to create the country without this.

Otherwise California and NY would largely decide every election on their own. As it stands now, states are better represented.

There are a lot of conservatives in CA and NY who have no voice. Those two states don’t vote the same way. Why not let people decide?

As it stands now, we let 3-5 swing determine every election.

Why not get rid of that and just move to a popular vote election? Let every voice count. Imagine how much better the GOP platform and candidates would be if they were forced to try and win the popular vote! Trump wouldn’t even be an option because he’s so unpopular and extreme.

 

[One Brow]

... it is civil war because the lefties will never accept Trump as the legitimate president.

Serious projection going on here.

 

[fishonjazz]

As I am sure you know, the electoral college was designed and implemented to ensure that the larger states would not control all the voting. Many states would not have joined to create the country without this.

Otherwise California and NY would largely decide every election on their own. As it stands now, states are better represented.

I disagree. The results of all the voters across the country would control the voting.

All Californians don't vote one way. All new Yorkers don't vote one way. Both of those states, and all states, are full of individual people with their own thoughts and opinions.

The way it works right now the candidate I like might win and might lose. But either way I can rest assured that my vote didn't matter.

That's dumb.

You probably think that California is a blue state. What if we decided to use the popular vote instead of the electoral college and suddenly a **** ton of Republicans who live in California came out and voted who never voted on the past because they knew it was pointless. Wouldn't that be cool. More people taking part on the voting! That's a good thing!

Also, you say California and New York (and Texas and Florida who also have huge populations) would control the vote. Will guess what? Right now a tiny amount of swing states control the vote. So this already happens anyway.

What if we still did electoral votes but instead of all 53 of Californias electoral votes going to Biden they break it down by the actual votes on the state? Like 35 of the electrical votes go to Biden but since there are Republican voters in California then 18 go to trump (based off the actual voting of course)

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[FalseFlagg K]

I hope and pray that it sets a precedent.

I would love it if anyone, democrat or Republican or independent or whatever, who does what trump did is never allowed to be president again.
I didn't like what happened on January 6th. I didn't like the actions and behavior that was on display by the losing candidate in the last election.
I prefer that nothing like that ever happens again. If it does happen again then I hope that person is never allowed to run again.
Would be awesome if this sets a precedent and all the other states follow suit.

Sadly I'm pretty certain that this ruling won't make a difference. Hell, it will probably just make Trump supporters support him more than they already do unfortunately.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

So what if a republican state decides to remove Biden from their ballot because in their eyes he’s been involved in nefarious dealings and benefited from his families dealings with a foreign country ?? Fair or no ??

 

[fishonjazz]

It also doesn't define 'insurrection'. The Colorado State Supreme Court has just set the precedent that a court can take it upon themselves to define and declare guilt to trigger a 14th Amendment ineligibility. They have also put the US Supreme Court in a difficult position in that they are going to have to decide to overturn this ruling unanimously. If the US Supreme Court does a 6-3 ideological split on this decision and Trump wins the general election then it is civil war because the lefties will never accept Trump as the legitimate president.

Yes they will. If he gets the most votes in an election then he is the president. You have lefties confused with MAGA

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

I disagree. Just like 2016, people will be rightfully upset, even extraordinarily upset, but the vast majority of Democrats and people who vote for Democrats will accept the results of the election.

This.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I disagree. The results of all the voters across the country would control the voting.

All Californians don't vote one way. All new Yorkers don't vote one way. Both of those states, and all states, are full of individual people with their own thoughts and opinions.

The way it works right now the candidate I like might win and might lose. But either way I can rest assured that my vote didn't matter.

That's dumb.

You probably think that California is a blue state. What if we decided to use the popular vote instead of the electoral college and suddenly a **** ton of Republicans who live in California came out and voted who never voted on the past because they knew it was pointless. Wouldn't that be cool. More people taking part on the voting! That's a good thing!

Also, you say California and New York (and Texas and Florida who also have huge populations) would control the vote. Will guess what? Right now a tiny amount of swing states control the vote. So this already happens anyway.

What if we still did electoral votes but instead of all 53 of Californias electoral votes going to Biden they break it down by the actual votes on the state? Like 35 of the electrical votes go to Biden but since there are Republican voters in California then 18 go to trump (based off the actual voting of course)

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

You can do that, and two states have chosen two. Your elected state officials can decide how the state electoral votes should be divided.

Forgot to mention that the other long debate the Founding Fathers discussed was whether Congress or the people should elect the President. The Electoral College was the compromise. I used to know more nuaunces on this, but it has been 20 years since I studied this stuff.