The Next President is...

[ClearedHot]

Interesting one off debate on Fox tonight as Desantis and Newsom go cranium to cranium.  It could be a precursor for 2024 should Trump tumble from the legal issues (not likely), or Biden keel over or be removed by the DNC (50-50 on both).  Regardless, it will be a fight over the hardline ideology of both sides.  I will probably watch the Cowboy game instead.

[Sua Sponte]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Interesting one off debate on Fox tonight as Desantis and Newsom go cranium to cranium.  It could be a precursor for 2024 should Trump tumble from the legal issues (not likely), or Biden keel over or be removed by the DNC (50-50 on both).  Regardless, it will be a fight over the hardline ideology of both sides.  I will probably watch the Cowboy game instead.

It’s going to be rough on the Cowboys since they can’t beat a team above .500.

[HeloDude]

[Sua Sponte]

He’s still on the ballot if he appeals to the SCOTUS (which he’ll do) before 4 Jan 24.

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

He’s still on the ballot if he appeals to the SCOTUS (which he’ll do) before 4 Jan 24.

I would be very surprised if this isn’t overruled by SCOTUS.  The left hates him so much that they’re all about removing him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment without him being charged, and much less, not convicted.  So for someone who says they’re all about democracy, etc they sure hate due process.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I would be very surprised if this isn’t overruled by SCOTUS.  The left hates him so much that they’re all about removing him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment without him being charged, and much less, not convicted.  So for someone who says they’re all about democracy, etc they sure hate due process.

He was charged with “incitement of insurrection” during his second impeachment, which he was acquitted of. He’s literally receiving due process by being able to appeal to higher level courts. The interesting focus I believe the SCOTUS look at is can one be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment after being acquitted either in a criminal trial or impeachment trial? The clause just has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and doesn’t say “convicted of insurrection.” However, to me, that’s foolish to disqualify someone due to something when they had due process via a jury of their peers or the Senate and acquitted of it.

[Swizzle]

22 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

He was charged with “incitement of insurrection” during his second impeachment, which he was acquitted of. He’s literally receiving due process by being able to appeal to higher level courts. The interesting focus I believe the SCOTUS look at is can one be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment after being acquitted either in a criminal trial or impeachment trial? The clause just has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and doesn’t say “convicted of insurrection.” However, to me, that’s foolish to disqualify someone due to something when they had due process via a jury of their peers or the Senate and acquitted of it.

Is POTUS an officer, Congressman, and/or state legislator/judicator sworn to the constitution per 14th Amendment, SEC. 3?

// ...member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state...// 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv#

I'd say several on this forum are officers (clearly), one to two are/were congressman, and who knows the last category....but POTUS fitting those categories, likely no. So why was it brought in the first place against #45?

 

[skybert]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

 

[skybert]

There is nothing close to pro democracy with liberals

[BFM this]

Informative primer on what’s going on where.

spoiler alert: Fulton Co DA might be kneecapping DoJ 

[ViperMan]

The solution I'd like to see is CO electoral votes just get tossed. Sorry...you don't want to participate in the election? Fine, your 10 votes are null. See you in 4 years.

[Sua Sponte]

8 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Is POTUS an officer, Congressman, and/or state legislator/judicator sworn to the constitution per 14th Amendment, SEC. 3?

// ...member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state...// 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv#

I'd say several on this forum are officers (clearly), one to two are/were congressman, and who knows the last category....but POTUS fitting those categories, likely no. So why was it brought in the first place against #45?

 

You doing think someone that swears in via the Oath of Office isn’t some type of officer?

Their analysis on the topic starts on PDF Pg. 70 to 89.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The solution I'd like to see is CO electoral votes just get tossed. Sorry...you don't want to participate in the election? Fine, your 10 votes are null. See you in 4 years.

Who said we don’t want to participate in an election? The CO Supreme Court just held to disqualify a candidate via our state election laws. 

[Sim]

 

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Who said we don’t want to participate in an election? The CO Supreme Court just held to disqualify a candidate via our state election laws. 

Your state did.

When your state's Supreme Court unilaterally determined that your states' electoral votes were going to de facto be given to Joe Biden - thereby undermining the very purpose of our national election system and usurping other states' (and the national) election processes. Just try this though experiment: imagine Arizona and Wisconsin "disqualified" Joe Biden from their ballots "according to their state election laws"...blah blah blah. You know as well as I do there would be absolute pandemonium from the MSNBC crowd...which should tell you something is sideways. 

[Swizzle]

49 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You doing think someone that swears in via the Oath of Office isn’t some type of officer?

Their analysis on the topic starts on PDF Pg. 70 to 89.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Interesting read and interpretation. However not convincing. The follow-on rulings will be interesting to watch.

Key reasons/keywords: Oath, 'support', officer, offices mentioned...and words mean things, also lack thereof. 

First, the Insurrectionist clause starts at banning, or 'disabling', at the Congressional level and then under the United States to individual states. Note the primacy writing style used. This undoubtably means officers APPOINTED by public authority as mentioned in your citation's para 130-132 who are found guilty of insurrection, yes? These same insurrectionist must have sworn to "support" the Constitution, while POTUS' oath does not. References follow.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/ (might have to cliffnote more this website after all this...)

&  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-8/

Second, The Office of the President is filled chiefly by an election & electors. POTUS is not an appointed officer in that sense, despite the position being an office, that is the Office of the President of the United States.

Third, and back to that primacy writing style, why would "an officer of the United States" which is written after "member of Congress" include the POTUS when Congress is written out expressly and POTUS is not?

Lastly,  perhaps most importantly, the preposition 'under' versus the use 'of'. Under meaning that which is below or beneath or lower-than. Section 3 says to disable any insurrectionist from holding any office under the United States. So clarify for us, is it the President of OR under the United States?  I await your answer curiously because a new adjudged interpretation of this matter by you and SCOTUS could change the big guy's business card to PUTUS! Which sounds wrong... (and likewise SCUTUS)

[tac airlifter]

Call me when the progressive left applies the same originalist tenacity to our second amendment as they're pretending to want for the 14th.  These people are hypocrites and liars who claim to protect democracy without actually believing in it.  I don't like the person of Donald Trump but clearly he's who these corrupt assholes fear, so chances are high he'll get my vote.  

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Your state did.

When your state's Supreme Court unilaterally determined that your states' electoral votes were going to de facto be given to Joe Biden - thereby undermining the very purpose of our national election system and usurping other states' (and the national) election processes. Just try this though experiment: imagine Arizona and Wisconsin "disqualified" Joe Biden from their ballots "according to their state election laws"...blah blah blah. You know as well as I do there would be absolute pandemonium from the MSNBC crowd...which should tell you something is sideways. 

So, the CO GOP couldn’t put another candidate on the ballot because Trump was disqualified via CO election laws? If Arizona, Wisconsin, or any state wanted to disqualify a candidate base on their state election laws, that’s well within their right to do so. If done, which is what happened here, then it’ll be appealed to the SCOTUS for an interpretation against the Constitution.
 

The CO Supreme Court issued a stay for their decision until 4 Jan for Trump’s attorneys to file an appeal to the SCOTUS, which they’ll do. It’s a Constitutional interpretation that’s never happened before with the 14th Amendment, the CO Supreme Court just set it up. It was also a 5-4 opinion, so it wasn’t without dissent within the court.

[ClearedHot]

9 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

So, the CO GOP couldn’t put another candidate on the ballot because Trump was disqualified via CO election laws? If Arizona, Wisconsin, or any state wanted to disqualify a candidate base on their state election laws, that’s well within their right to do so. If done, which is what happened here, then it’ll be appealed to the SCOTUS for an interpretation against the Constitution.
 

The CO Supreme Court issued a stay for their decision until 4 Jan for Trump’s attorneys to file an appeal to the SCOTUS, which they’ll do. It’s a Constitutional interpretation that’s never happened before with the 14th Amendment, the CO Supreme Court just set it up. It was also a 5-4 opinion, so it wasn’t without dissent within the court.

It is a desperate move by far left lunatics that are scared and it likely opened Pandora's box as California is now exploring doing the same thing California lieutenant governor calls for exploring options to take Donald Trump off the presidential ballot

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Interesting read and interpretation. However not convincing. The follow-on rulings will be interesting to watch.

Key reasons/keywords: Oath, 'support', officer, offices mentioned...and words mean things, also lack thereof. 

First, the Insurrectionist clause starts at banning, or 'disabling', at the Congressional level and then under the United States to individual states. Note the primacy writing style used. This undoubtably means officers APPOINTED by public authority as mentioned in your citation's para 130-132 who are found guilty of insurrection, yes? These same insurrectionist must have sworn to "support" the Constitution, while POTUS' oath does not. References follow.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/ (might have to cliffnote more this website after all this...)

&  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-8/

Second, The Office of the President is filled chiefly by an election & electors. POTUS is not an appointed officer in that sense, despite the position being an office, that is the Office of the President of the United States.

Third, and back to that primacy writing style, why would "an officer of the United States" which is written after "member of Congress" include the POTUS when Congress is written out expressly and POTUS is not?

Lastly,  perhaps most importantly, the preposition 'under' versus the use 'of'. Under meaning that which is below or beneath or lower-than. Section 3 says to disable any insurrectionist from holding any office under the United States. So clarify for us, is it the President of OR under the United States?  I await your answer curiously because a new adjudged interpretation of this matter by you and SCOTUS could change the big guy's business card to PUTUS! Which sounds wrong... (and likewise SCUTUS)

“However not convincing.” Well, no one cares if it’s convincing to you (or anyone else other than a superior court). You would agree with me that a commander at the military level is an officer, correct? Is the president not the “Commander-in-Chief?”

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It is a desperate move by far left lunatics that are scared and it likely opened Pandora's box as California is now exploring doing the same thing California lieutenant governor calls for exploring options to take Donald Trump off the presidential ballot

It’s going to cause a “trigger effect” like the repeal of Row with some red states. If the SCOTUS agrees with the CO Supreme Court, Trump’s 2024 campaign is done due to all blue states disqualifying him (subject to their state’s election laws) via the insurrection clause. If the SCOTUS disagrees, then he won’t have to be worried about being disqualified in any state over the insurrection clause. 

[ViperMan]

I predict SCOTUS disagrees.

If/when they do, I'll re-engage with another "I was right and you were wrong" post.

[Sua Sponte]

18 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I predict SCOTUS disagrees.

If/when they do, I'll re-engage with another "I was right and you were wrong" post.

The question I have is how can a former president be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause if said person was acquitted by the Senate during an impeachment trial charged with “Inciting an Insurrection?”

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

The question I have is how can a former president be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause if said person was acquitted by the Senate during an impeachment trial charged with “Inciting an Insurrection?”

Because of hate, lawfare, and irrationality.

[lloyd christmas]

a few thoughts.  

The Colorado (not lots of electoral votes) play is likely designed to get the SCOTUS response.  The next State (CA) (lots of electoral votes) will know how to more effectively get him off of their ballot having seen SCOTUS’ cards.  

We are in the middle of a “cold” civil war.  There is no way for either side to win.  

The left ALWAYS does what they accuse the right of doing.  It’s their standard play.  Collude with foreign actors?  The Trump collusion story was completely fabricated but it’s becoming very clear the Biden’s did exactly that. Threaten democracy?  Republicans aren’t doing anything close to threatening democracy.  The border is wide open.  The left is attempting to remove Trump from state’s ballots, changing state election laws, trying to keep him in court on baseless accusations, keeping him off social media to suppress his voice, etc.  Insurrections?  You can say the word all you want but that doesn’t mean a bunch of pissed off citizens (for the reasons above) were doing anything other than rioting.  They certainly weren’t trying to overthrow the US government.  Meanwhile, federal buildings and police stations were attacked for an entire summer by leftist.   Racism?  Democrat policies are DESTROYING the black community.  Always have.  Hell, the Republican Party was literally founded to fight the expansion of slavery.  Tyrannical government?  Look at the difference in red and blue responses to Covid.  I could keep going but I won’t.  

This is all pure fucking madness.  It’s like living in a bad dream.  And it gets worse everyday. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by lloyd christmas
Autocorrect