CO supreme court disqualifies Trump from ballot [SCOTUS overturns]

[dannno]

If you seriously think people would come out in mass numbers and write in Trump if his name was off the ballot, you're sorely mistaken. He wouldn't even come close to winning any state regardless of the states it ends up happening in.

Lol, you are really out of touch.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Which of these two fits your description of a republic and which fits a democracy:

- Enforcing constitutional qualifications for candidates

- Ignoring the Constitution when a loud enough and large enough mob desires an unqualified candidate

This embodies a false dichotomy. The (small-"r") republican and (small-"d") democratic dimensions of the American polity cannot be tidily separated and treated as mutually exclusive elements that function independently of one another.

It is not a matter of "either / or", but of "both / and" [1] - especially given that the republican "enforcing [of] constitutional qualifications for candidates" is performed by democratic partisans (or their bureaucratic appointees/agents/payees/etc., who are themselves apt to be partisans and to act as such). As for the other prong of the dichotomy, "loud enough and large enough mob" have never been required for "ignoring the Constitution". Indeed, the latter occurs far more frequently without the former than with it (hence, Michael Malice's observation that "'Our [republic-cum-]democracy' is always code for 'our hegemony'.").



[1] And as far as the "both / and" goes, the (small-"d") democratic dimension has waxed predominantly over the (small-"r") republican dimension. The republican dimension has waned significantly ever since the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, and on through Reconstruction (which gave us the 14th Amendment, the source of one of the bones presently being contended over), the 17th Amendment's implementation of the popular election of federal senators, etc. - to the point that America as a "republic" is little more than a collection of a few dozen or so pseudo-autonomous administrative districts of "our" federal democracy (LOL).

 

[Madison320]

Show me where in the 14th it says you must be convicted of insurrection. You won't because it says engaged not convicted.

You think there was an insurrection???

I don't even like Trump, after all he doubled the size of govt, but dang, insurrection?

 

[TheCount]

A judge can't just claim somebody committed a crime if they haven't even been indicted or charged for said crime.

That's exactly how the amendment was understood and used in the 1860s. The US did not try every single confederate for insurrection.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

That's exactly how the amendment was understood and used in the 1860s. The US did not try every single confederate for insurrection.

Exactly correct - it was designed specifically to apply to those who literally fought a war against the federal government... not for a sitting president who explicitly told his supporters to peacefully seek redress of their grievances; a right specifically protected in the First Amendment.

And the notion that a court or a secretary of state can unilaterally, without any counter-argumentation, decree that an "insurrection" occurred effectively ends the rule of law in the United States. If these decrees stand, the US will have effectively become a banana republic; there will likely never again be another election that is not plagued with lawfare, contested results, and potentially partisan violence. And this is as obvious as the hat on your head, and to deny it is to deny that the sky is blue. And, frankly, you know that.

 

[TheCount]

This embodies a false dichotomy. The (small-"r") republican and (small-"d") democratic dimensions of the American polity cannot be tidily separated and treated as mutually exclusive elements that function independently of one another.

You have completely ignored my point.

The claim was that enforcing a constitutional disqualification of a candidate amounts to ignoring the law to instead appease the mob. That is an Orwell-level inversion of the truth.

If the mobility scooter mob demands to elect a 24 year old, is it "against the republican dimension" to uphold the constitutional age requirement in the face of their pontoon boat parades?


This entire thread is about state control of elections and differences between states' laws. Isn't support for state control of elections also support for the republican dimension?

The mob thinks that colorado state law does not regulate a colorado election. What do you think?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You have completely ignored my point.

The claim was that enforcing a constitutional disqualification of a candidate amounts to ignoring the law to instead appease the mob. That is an Orwell-level inversion of the truth.

If the mobility scooter mob demands to elect a 24 year old, is it "against the republican dimension" to uphold the constitutional age requirement in the face of their pontoon boat parades?


This entire thread is about state control of elections and differences between states' laws. Isn't support for state control of elections also support for the republican dimension?

The mob thinks that colorado state law does not regulate a colorado election. What do you think?

4 judges in Colorado do not have the authority, particularly without citing evidence or hearing counter-argumentation, to unilaterally determine that an insurrection occurred. You're advocating for opening a can of worms here that it seems you do not fully understand the consequences thereof.

If this absurdity is allowed to stand, forever more elections will be contested on the most frivolous bases. This is the inauguration of the end of representative government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. And - again - you know that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

4 judges in Colorado do not have the authority, particularly without citing evidence or hearing counter-argumentation, to unilaterally determine that an insurrection occurred. You're advocating for opening a can of worms here that it seems you do not fully understand the consequences thereof.

If this absurdity is allowed to stand, forever more elections will be contested on the most frivolous bases. This is the inauguration of the end of representative government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. And - again - you know that.

He/she does not care.

Getting rid of Trump, by fair means or foul, is all he/she cares about.

 

[TheCount]

4 judges in Colorado do not have the authority, particularly without citing evidence or hearing counter-argumentation, to unilaterally determine that an insurrection occurred.

Yes, they do. The people of Colorado gave it to them.

 

[Dr.3D]

Seems like first, it should be proven there was in fact an insurrection.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Seems like first, it should be proven there was in fact an insurrection.

Pipe down about these supposed facts, comrade, and keep your mind on your labors.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1740721533629386816

 

[TheCount]

Seems like first, it should be proven there was in fact an insurrection.

Pipe down about these supposed facts, comrade, and keep your mind on your labors.

Imagine if it had been proven.

Wouldn't that be something?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Imagine if it had been proven.

Wouldn't that be something?

If what had proven?

 

[acptulsa]

Seems like first, it should be proven there was in fact an insurrection.

What? You want some habeus corpus ? Buddy, you can't destroy western civilization by honoring milestones of justice and rationality such as habeus corpus .

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, they do. The people of Colorado gave it to them.

They have the authority to decree that Trump was involved in an insurrection against the United States - a claim which the United States government itself has yet to assert, let alone prosecute him for? Well that's certainly an interesting take.

Let's hope these judges don't decide that sky is green... After all, the people of Colorado have spoken!

You're beclowning yourself... and at this point of your membership here, that's a real accomplishment.

 

[Madison320]

That's exactly how the amendment was understood and used in the 1860s. The US did not try every single confederate for insurrection.

I asked you in another thread and you didn't answer.

Do you think Trump engaged in an insurrection?

 

[TheCount]

They have the authority to decree that Trump was involved in an insurrection against the United States - a claim which the United States government itself has yet to assert, let alone prosecute him for?

Yes, they do. Colorado election law establishes a due process for challenging the constitutional qualifications of a candidate.

 

[TheCount]

I asked you in another thread and you didn't answer.

Do you think Trump engaged in an insurrection?

I think there's a good argument to be made. As more of his cronies are pleading guilty, it's only becoming more obvious that he personally directed election fraud to his own benefit, then resorted to mob violence when certain key people refused to participate in his fraud.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://youtu.be/dugvoRmJs7o?si=roJAS0gK5pysBm42