TonyasTaters Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 In my opinion I feel like it's too general like other Constitutional amendments. I will be following closely. Thoughts? Photos 5 BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI Updated 11:13 AM EDT, October 30, 2023 Share DENVER (AP) — Efforts to use the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again entered a new phase Monday in a hearing focused on whether the Jan. 6 Capitol attack meets the Constitution’s definition of the word and whether Trump’s role meets the threshold for being barred. The Colorado hearing is the first of two states’ lawsuits that could end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Monday’s testimony began with details about the 2021 assault that was intended to halt certification of Joe Biden’s election win . ADVERTISEMENT Attorney Eric Olson, representing a group of Colorado voters seeking to keep Trump off the ballot, recounted Trump’s violent rhetoric and encouraging of a crowd that came within “40 feet” of the vice president when they stormed the Capitol. He said Trump “summoned and organized the mob.” READ MORE A federal judge reimposes a limited gag order in Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case Pence’s early exit from the presidential campaign offers a reminder of Trump’s grip on the GOP The Trump era has changed the politics of local elections in Georgia, a pivotal 2024 battleground “We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again,” Olson said. “But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.” At the start of Monday’s hearing in Colorado, the judge rejected a Trump motion that she step aside because she once contributed money to a liberal group. On Thursday, oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state. Whether the judges keep Trump on the ballots or boot him, their rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court has never ruled on the Civil War-era provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding higher office. ADVERTISEMENT “We’ve had hearings with presidential candidates debating their eligibility before — Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, John McCain,” said Derek T. Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, listing candidates challenged on whether they met the constitutional requirement of being a “natural born citizen.” But these cases, Muller added, are different from using an obscure clause of the Constitution with the “incendiary” bar against insurrection. Even if they’re long shots, Muller said, they have a plausible legal path to success and raise important issues. “Those legal questions are very heavy ones,” Muller said. Dozens of cases citing Section Three of the 14th Amendment have been filed in recent months, but the ones in Colorado and Minnesota seem the most important, according to legal experts. That’s because they were filed by two liberal groups with significant legal resources. They also targeted states with clear, swift processes for challenges to candidates’ ballot qualifications. That means the Colorado and Minnesota cases are taking a more legally sound route to get courts to force election officials to disqualify Trump, as opposed to other lawsuits that seek a sweeping ruling from federal judges that Trump is no longer eligible for the presidency. ADVERTISEMENT The plaintiffs in the cases argue the issue is simple: Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, mean he’s disqualified from the presidency just as clearly as if he were not a natural-born citizen, another constitutional prerequisite for the office. “Four years after taking an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution as President of the United States ... Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, leading to a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol to stop the lawful transfer of power to his successor,” alleges the Colorado lawsuit, filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “By instigating this unprecedented assault on the American constitutional order, Trump violated his oath and disqualified himself under the Fourteenth Amendment from holding public office, including the Office of the President.” Trump has castigated the lawsuits as “election interference.” His lawyers contend that none of the issues are simple in a provision of the Constitution that hasn’t been used in 150 years. “This is a legal Hail Mary by the Democrats,” said Mike Davis, an attorney who appeared with representatives of the Trump campaign outside court Monday in Denver before the Colorado trial got started. “This case is going to fail.” ADVERTISEMENT Trump’s campaign said it had filed a motion for the judge in the case, Sarah B. Wallace, to recuse herself because she had made a $100 donation in October 2022 to the Colorado Turnout Project, a liberal group whose website says it was formed to “prevent violent insurrections” such as the Jan. 6 attack. She was appointed to the bench in August of that year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace denied the motion, saying she didn’t recall the donation until the motion was filed and has no preconceptions about the legal issues in the case. “I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” she said as the hearing began. The clause in the 14th Amendment has only been used a handful of times since immediately after the Civil War. Trump’s lawyers contend that it was never meant to apply to the office of president, which is not mentioned in the text, unlike “Senator or Representative in Congress” and “elector of President and Vice President.” The provision allows Congress to grant amnesty — as was done in 1872 to allow former confederates back into government — which has led some to argue that it has no power without an enabling act of Congress. ADVERTISEMENT Finally, Trump’s lawyers contend the former president never “engaged in insurrection” and was simply exercising his free speech rights to warn about election results he did not believe were legitimate. “Trump’s comments did not come close to ‘incitement,’ let alone ‘engagement’ in an insurrection,” his attorneys wrote in a filing in the Colorado case, adding examples of cases where the congressional authors of Section Three declined to use it against people who only rhetorically backed the confederacy. The arguments in Colorado could feature testimony from witnesses to the Jan. 6 attack or other important events during Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. The identities of witnesses have been shielded until they take the stand, part of the court’s effort to limit the heated rhetoric and threats that have become an issue in Trump’s criminal trials. The lawyers are expected to delve deeply into the history of the drafting of the provision in the 14th Amendment and its use between its adoption in 1868 and the amnesty law in 1872. There is scant legal precedent on the issue — so little that the attorneys have had to argue about the meaning of an 1869 case written by Salmon Chase, who was then chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court but wrote only as an appeals judge. After the amnesty act in 1872, legal scholars could only find one other time the provision was cited, when Congress refused to seat a socialist member of the House of Representatives because he opposed entry into World War I. Then last year, it was used by CREW to bar the head of “Cowboys for Trump” from a county commission seat in rural New Mexico. A second liberal group, Free Speech For People, filed lawsuits seeking to prevent Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn from running for reelection. The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn’s case became moot after he was defeated in his primary. Free Speech For People filed the case in Minnesota, where challenges to ballot appearances go straight to the state supreme court. https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-f5d6c6174476ec414208323785df6e15 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 14 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said: Thoughts? Yup, I'm watching it. If Trump's name is on the ballot, he wins. So his name has to come off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyasTaters Posted October 30 Author Share Posted October 30 8 minutes ago, Woody said: Yup, I'm watching it. If Trump's name is on the ballot, he wins. So his name has to come off. You do realize Republicans filed this lawsuit right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodotus Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 He's a seedy, disgusting, power mad, war mongering sonovabich who abuses power, silences critics, and has attempted to use global emergencies to destroy the constitution and turn the country into a right wing authoritarian police state, and honestly, I hope the courts crack down on him and hold him accountable, but enough about the Biden regime, lets talk Trump. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikedLemonade Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 6 minutes ago, Herodotus said: He's a seedy, disgusting, power mad, war mongering sonovabich who abuses power, silences critics, and has attempted to use global emergencies to destroy the constitution and turn the country into a right wing authoritarian police state, and honestly, I hope the courts crack down on him and hold him accountable, but enough about the Biden regime, lets talk Trump. That sounded like you were describing Bibi. 1 Quote Do Your Part to Improve The Range -- Please put the TRIO OF TRUMP FLUFFERSTM on IGNORE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 10 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said: You do realize Republicans filed this lawsuit right? Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodotus Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 5 minutes ago, SpikedLemonade said: That sounded like you were describing Bibi. Zelensky too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HipKat Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 4 hours ago, Woody said: Yup, I'm watching it. If Trump's name is on the ballot, he wins. So his name has to come off. If the election was today, he might win. A year from now? I don’t think so. That as long as he keeps getting more and more and hinged, and his dementia shows itself to be much more extreme than it is already. Quote “There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HipKat Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 4 hours ago, TonyasTaters said: You do realize Republicans filed this lawsuit right? derrrr dA rIIIInOs? 1 Quote “There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HipKat Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 4 hours ago, Herodotus said: He's a seedy, disgusting, power mad, war mongering sonovabich who abuses power, silences critics, and has attempted to use global emergencies to destroy the constitution and turn the country into a right wing authoritarian police state, and honestly, I hope the courts crack down on him and hold him accountable, but enough about the Biden regime, lets talk Trump. Weird since you worship Vladimir Putin Quote “There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodotus Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 9 minutes ago, HipKat said: Weird since you worship Vladimir Putin How many times do I have to correct you on this. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herodotus Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyasTaters Posted October 30 Author Share Posted October 30 34 minutes ago, HipKat said: If the election was today, he might win. A year from now? I don’t think so. That as long as he keeps getting more and more and hinged, and his dementia shows itself to be much more extreme than it is already. Trump's dimensia appears to be worse than Bidens. Trump can't put together a coherent sentence. He said Hungry boarder Russia. Lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RichJ Posted October 30 Popular Post Share Posted October 30 5 hours ago, Woody said: Yup, I'm watching it. If Trump's name is on the ballot, he wins. So his name has to come off. they are desperately finding ways to make sure he doesnt make it in the ballot 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc856 Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 23 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said: Trump's dimensia appears to be worse than Bidens. Trump can't put together a coherent sentence. He said Hungry boarder Russia. Lol Trump can't put together a coherent sentence. He said Hungry boarder Russia. Lol lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted October 30 Share Posted October 30 1 hour ago, HipKat said: If the election was today, he might win. A year from now? I don’t think so. That as long as he keeps getting more and more and hinged, and his dementia shows itself to be much more extreme than it is already. I'm talking about Trump, not Sloppy Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyasTaters Posted October 30 Author Share Posted October 30 6 minutes ago, jc856 said: Trump can't put together a coherent sentence. He said Hungry boarder Russia. Lol lol. Damn autocorrect lol. Welcome back. Hope all.is well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HipKat Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 4 hours ago, RichJ said: they are desperately finding ways to make sure he doesnt make it in the ballot Right, because those 91 crimes were made up. Never happened. All an illusion. ParTY of LAw aND orDEr 1 1 Quote “There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.