Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling. These stunts are actively destroying trust in the political system. The whole system is fundamentally a social contract that requires majority of the population to believe that elections are fair in order to accept the results. Once you get to the point where people no longer believe that elections are fair then there’s no reason to accept the party you don’t support holding power. Both republicans and democrats are actively helping create the conditions that will ultimately result in the unravelling of the entire political system. Both democrats and republicans are becoming increasingly convinced that the other party is illegitimate, and whoever wins the election will not be accepted by the other side.
Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling.
Citation needed. Maine’s Secretary of State fully addressed this exact topic. There is no language in the constitution or the amendment that says they must have been charged or convicted of insurrection and the SoS makes a pretty solid argument that she’s bound by her duties to make a call on the matter. She used the official Jan 6th hearings as an evidence-based proceeding while acknowledging that it was curated with intent and needs to be put in that context. She did stay her decision until higher courts ruled on the matter.
My gut instinct was the same as yours actually. But it’s not about my instinct, it’s about the interpretation of the law as written and the record of events of J6 when applied in that specific context.
Making an honest judgment call referencing the case law, constitution, state law, and precedent and then staying the decision to not go into effect until higher courts can rule on it is, despite my gut instinct, exactly the right call.
We all know this will end up at the Supreme Court, including the people who did their due diligence to write their best legal opinions.
This interpretation of the law is completely is completely absurd, and it will obviously be overturned once it gets to the supreme court. You can read the 14th amendment clause yourself and see in black and white what cases it applies to. It’s worded in a very specific way:
Just trying to be clear before I respond, are you saying it doesn’t apply to the office of the president as the court initially ruled before it going to the Colorado Supreme Court? The Maine Secretary of State addressed that argument as if it were kind of nonsense and hinged on an interpretation of the word office inconsistent with the aim of the amendment in its context, missing the forest for the trees in terms of intent.
This argument takes wild and unprecedented liberties with the interpretation of the law. It’s basically ignoring what the law actually says, and claims that it was written wrong. That’s an absurd claim to make. And coupled with the fact that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of anything, this amounts to a complete farce. There’s very clearly no sound legal basis for any of this, and it’s obvious to anybody who’s able to look at this objectively.
Is that a yes that you’re trying to use the “POTUS isn’t an office” ruling from before it was overturned? Because that one did seem absurd to me. Since the amendment was designed to prevent confederates from taking power, it was silly on its face to assume it wouldn’t apply to the president, a leap in logic and sound judgment only made possible by hyper-fixating on the word “office.” Especially when it contains a provision to remove the disqualification by a 2/3 vote, but not a provision to remove it if you win the presidency.
Sounds like you’re taking wild and unprecedented liberties with your resume acting like your backseat driver legal instincts are better than the Colorado Supreme Court’s legal decisions…people who I assume are far more educated, qualified, and experienced than you.
The amendment actually says “…engaged in ainsurrection or rebellion…” Trump did, factually speaking, engage in insurrection. The plain text of the amendment does not say anything about a criminal conviction for insurrection, and being ineligible for office holding is not a criminal penalty. Seems pretty plainly like you’re the one taking liberties to me.
Maine has also joined in disqualification on 14th amendment grounds. If you insurrect, we won’t elect!!
Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling. These stunts are actively destroying trust in the political system. The whole system is fundamentally a social contract that requires majority of the population to believe that elections are fair in order to accept the results. Once you get to the point where people no longer believe that elections are fair then there’s no reason to accept the party you don’t support holding power. Both republicans and democrats are actively helping create the conditions that will ultimately result in the unravelling of the entire political system. Both democrats and republicans are becoming increasingly convinced that the other party is illegitimate, and whoever wins the election will not be accepted by the other side.
Citation needed. Maine’s Secretary of State fully addressed this exact topic. There is no language in the constitution or the amendment that says they must have been charged or convicted of insurrection and the SoS makes a pretty solid argument that she’s bound by her duties to make a call on the matter. She used the official Jan 6th hearings as an evidence-based proceeding while acknowledging that it was curated with intent and needs to be put in that context. She did stay her decision until higher courts ruled on the matter.
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions.pdf
If you don’t see the problem with this line of argument, then really don’t know what else to tell you.
My gut instinct was the same as yours actually. But it’s not about my instinct, it’s about the interpretation of the law as written and the record of events of J6 when applied in that specific context.
Making an honest judgment call referencing the case law, constitution, state law, and precedent and then staying the decision to not go into effect until higher courts can rule on it is, despite my gut instinct, exactly the right call.
We all know this will end up at the Supreme Court, including the people who did their due diligence to write their best legal opinions.
This interpretation of the law is completely is completely absurd, and it will obviously be overturned once it gets to the supreme court. You can read the 14th amendment clause yourself and see in black and white what cases it applies to. It’s worded in a very specific way:
Only thing that’s been accomplished here is to bolster Trump’s claims that there’s a political witch hunt against him and to galvanize his supporters.
Just trying to be clear before I respond, are you saying it doesn’t apply to the office of the president as the court initially ruled before it going to the Colorado Supreme Court? The Maine Secretary of State addressed that argument as if it were kind of nonsense and hinged on an interpretation of the word office inconsistent with the aim of the amendment in its context, missing the forest for the trees in terms of intent.
This argument takes wild and unprecedented liberties with the interpretation of the law. It’s basically ignoring what the law actually says, and claims that it was written wrong. That’s an absurd claim to make. And coupled with the fact that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of anything, this amounts to a complete farce. There’s very clearly no sound legal basis for any of this, and it’s obvious to anybody who’s able to look at this objectively.
Is that a yes that you’re trying to use the “POTUS isn’t an office” ruling from before it was overturned? Because that one did seem absurd to me. Since the amendment was designed to prevent confederates from taking power, it was silly on its face to assume it wouldn’t apply to the president, a leap in logic and sound judgment only made possible by hyper-fixating on the word “office.” Especially when it contains a provision to remove the disqualification by a 2/3 vote, but not a provision to remove it if you win the presidency.
Sounds like you’re taking wild and unprecedented liberties with your resume acting like your backseat driver legal instincts are better than the Colorado Supreme Court’s legal decisions…people who I assume are far more educated, qualified, and experienced than you.
The amendment actually says “…engaged in ainsurrection or rebellion…” Trump did, factually speaking, engage in insurrection. The plain text of the amendment does not say anything about a criminal conviction for insurrection, and being ineligible for office holding is not a criminal penalty. Seems pretty plainly like you’re the one taking liberties to me.