Enforcement of the 14th Admendment, Article 3

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Didn't read this one?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insurrection

"an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:"

I didn't, but I also did qualify my statement with "pretty much everything." There is a reason for that. The number of definitions that would call it an insurrection far outweighs those that don't.

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There was no plan to take and maintain control with installing their own government.  The fact that it's even debateable if it's a riot or insurrection proves the point  It is an exceptional and complicated charge, and there are specific legal criteria and elements beyond the whim of someone parsing the definition of words.  That why NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.  

That's not a requirement in most definitions. Also, there really aren't specific legal criteria. That's part of the problem here.

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If it was actually an insurrection, why was NO ONE charged or convicted of it?  You don't think they would have done that, if there was any hope of success, to give this challenge a modicum of standing?  The election fraud and interference are just that - separate and distinct from insurrection.  And, unfortunately, not disqualifying.

Because those charges are very rare all throughout history and known to be difficult to prove. Therefore, they don't typically get charged. The rest of this section is, well, shwoign your colors a little bit.

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is nothing but a series of hailmary's - there are about 6 elements to this which nearly all seem pretty easily and likely to fail.  It would be nice if the "pro democracy" party would be a little less fascist with their political opponents.  And when the SCOTUS rightfully smacks this down, you can bet the "anti-fascist" party will renew cries to pack the court.

Blame the GOP for this one, they are the ones that made this the law.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 08:20 PM)Dill Wrote: GEEZUS.  There was a PLAN TO THROW THE VOTE TO THE HOUSE. That would have meant "maintaining control" with the then-present government.  No need to "install" a new one.

This is only "debatable" in the sense, and for the same reasons, that some Republicans still debate whether the Capitol Breach was directed by the FBI or not. 

It is faulty logic to argue that if no one has been convicted of a crime one could not have been committed. Asking why there has been "NO ONE charged or convicted" of insurrection just illustrates how deeply you misrecognize the problem, the mismatch between the danger and our institutional/constitutional means of coping with it.

With the exception of those who lost standing and office for doing the right thing, you have an entire political party hindering investigations, and a massive
right wing news media effort to re-brand the insurrectionists as "patriots" and accountability as "weaponization"--thus framing accountability as merely
the effort of one party to get rid of a popular opponent by jailing him, as they do in banana republics. 

And that's the interpretation you appear to be pushing here and in the post immediately following, where you affirm "rule of law" to oppose accountability. 

The core of the issue, which you've yet to acknowledge, is whether Trump and cronies attempted to circumvent a legal election to remain in power. That his party "acquitted" him of wrongdoing is a part of the problem, why democracy is indeed at stake in the prosecution of Trump. That refusal to hold him accountable is precisely what undermines the rule of law by placing him above the law. 

You should try reading a few of the dissents in the Colorado case, one I'll point out reversed a lower court in a 4-3 vote.  It's not nearly as simple as pronouncing a riot an "insurrection", and then manufacturing connections and plotting where there is none to envoke a 150 year old law that's rarely been used.

Being truly for the rule of law and Democracy isn't just when it's convenient or comfortable, but precisely when it's NOT that it's most important hold the line.  That people like you conflate believing in a lawful and judicial process is an abhorent "defense of Trump" is precisely why it's so important for the SCOTUS to get this right.  It's not about accountability and never has been - from Day 1 it's been about obstructing and removing Trump from office, so spare me the diatribe about how only one party and their media engage in this.  They both do it, and they continue to do it because people on both sides are all too happy to look the other way when their side does it.

And it is indeed a slippery slope, as there are efforts to remove Trump supporters in the Senate and House under the same statute.

Also, I've already acknowledged that Trump should have been impeached twice, and should be disqualified for election interference and fraud.  However, that is not the law.  Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when I've already written otherwise.

I'll say it clearly for you if it wasn't already obvious from an objective reading of what I wrote: Trump tried to circumvent the election.  He will likely be convicted on multiple accounts for that.  However, that does not prevent him from running for POTUS, something you continue to either ignore or fail to acknowledge.  And fraud is not insurrection.  Insurrection is not a simple declaration, that are strict and difficult legal tests, which is why no one has been charged.

I guess where you and I defer are I believe in the rule of law and due process to stop Trump, where with you it seems anything is justified to keep him out of office.  Except, apparently, allowing people to vote. 

It's just bizarre to me how people talk about Democracy being at stake out of one side of their mouth, and out the other advocate a decidedly undemocratic approach to achieve that.  But, I guess that's another place we defer.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 09:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The rest of this section is, well, shwoign your colors a little bit.

What exactly are those "true colors" you're referring to?  That the fraud/interference is not disqualifying isn't "showing my true colors", it's stating a fact. I said he SHOULD be disqualified for that, but that's not how the law works in this case.

I have never been a Trump supporter, never voted for him and never will.  He is detestable.  It would be better for the country if he was barred from seeking re-election.  This may be very difficult for you to understand, but it's possible for some people to hate Trump while still believing he's entitled to due process and having no tolerance for abuses in the justice system.  That's what Democracy is actually about, but there's definitely closeted fascism on the left, too.

That doesn't mean this path is good or right  You don't fix a constitutional crisis by inviting another one.  Trump is alarming, but so are the tactics being used to stop him.  And ultimately I believe the latter is more dangerous and persistent than Trump, because once you start blurring the lines the abuses from the right and left will only get worse.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 09:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't, but I also did qualify my statement with "pretty much everything." There is a reason for that. The number of definitions that would call it an insurrection far outweighs those that don't.

It's not defined in the statute, however you should look for the intent on the criminal side with how it should be viewed or defined.

And clearly I think we all intuitively know, and the connotation, that "insurrection" is a much higher bar and seriousness than a riot.  The words are not interchangeable, especially in this context.  I believe the DOJ said they found little to no evidence of planning a rebellion with the Oathkeepers, or even what they would do if they got inside the Capital.  Nor of Trump's involvement/coordination.  And it's problematic to claim Trump's speech incited the riot, when the Oathkeepers admitted they planned to exploit the rally.  We see that a lot at fiery protests, where a few people exploit it and an angry mob blindly follows.

If you don't have those elements, among others, you don't have an insurrection.  You can't non-criminally participate in an "insurrection", which is what you're arguing when you call it an insurrection but no one was charged for that.  If you're not going to have due process, it better be very cut and dry across the board.  And when you have legal scholars on both sides having serious disagreement, then it's clearly anything but cut and dry.

I think I'll revert to "I know an insurrection when I see it", and the fact initial reports called it a riot, and even today many do even with looser definitions of insurrection, kind of crystallizes the point that wasn't an insurrection.

There's a point here that seems to continue to elude people: the only remedy for removal from office is Impeachment, or incapacity.  Not even a felony conviction will suffice. That's not by accident  Section 3 was intended to prevent Confederates from holding office, but 4 years later they were granted amnesty.  I'd also add that the reason neither a charge or conviction was required is likely because of the urgency and that dragging out the case in the courts would defeat the purpose.  But Jan.6 was 3 years ago - there was plenty of time to pursue charges.  And, obviously, hundreds have been convicted for their involvement in Jan.6

Disqualification needs to be expanded and codified, but that's not an excuse for twisting and obfuscating the law no matter how well-intentioned, ESPECIALLY when it involves a Presidential election. I find people who advocate such because "Democracy is at stake!" to be missing the forest through the trees.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 07:37 PM)pally Wrote: I agree that this whole thing is walking a very fine line.  But in no way shape or form does a decision from the Legislative branch of government replace or prevent actions from the Judicial branch of government concerning the constitutionality of any topic and that includes what is meant by insurrection and the ballot

And I don't disagree with that.  But when I look at Maine and Colorado, especially with what has happened in other courts, those outcomes look purely political instead of based on sound, constitutional reasoning.  And that's when the SCOTUS needs to step in.

I just think a 4-3 ruling OVERTURNING a lower court shows how unbelievably flimsy the argument is.  For this case, the standing has to be crystal clear to suspend due process and boot someone off a ballot when no charges or convictions were ever filed.  It LOOKS political, and that's a BAD look when talking about removing people from a ballot.  If there's any doubt - and there clearly is - then this is is not for the courts to decide but the voters.  "To preserve Democracy, we have to remove Trump from the ballot".  I can't imagine what kind of mental gymnastics are required for those two thoughts to co-exist in someone's head.

The point I guess I'm struggling to make is that in order to implement this without a trial - which the statute provides for - the culpability and legality have to be obvious and beyond reproach such that reasonable people would know the outcome of the trial.  And the inconsistency across the courts, even within Colorado, says we are nowhere near that threshold.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Didn't read this one?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insurrection

"an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:"

There was no plan to take and maintain control with installing their own government.  The fact that it's even debateable if it's a riot or insurrection proves the point  It is an exceptional and complicated charge, and there are specific legal criteria and elements beyond the whim of someone parsing the definition of words.  That why NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.  

If it was actually an insurrection, why was NO ONE charged or convicted of it?  You don't think they would have done that, if there was any hope of success, to give this challenge a modicum of standing?  The election fraud and interference are just that - separate and distinct from insurrection.  And, unfortunately, not disqualifying.

This is nothing but a series of hailmary's - there are about 6 elements to this which nearly all seem pretty easily and likely to fail.  It would be nice if the "pro democracy" party would be a little less fascist with their political opponents.  And when the SCOTUS rightfully smacks this down, you can bet the "anti-fascist" party will renew cries to pack the court.

The definition you provide is exactly what Trump and his band of Jan 6th insurrectionists did on Jan 6th, 2021.  Trump sent these people to the Capitol in an attempt to stop hinder or delay the certification of the electoral college and the peaceful transfer of power. That would have resulted in him illegally staying in power in direct opposition to the laws of the Constitution.

Had Trump been successful in stopping the transfer, do you honestly think he would have just gone away?  Hell No, he's still promoting the BIG LIE that over 60 courts tossed out as total BS.  Trump still calls himself the president and will not accept he lost to Joe Biden and still promotes his BIG LIE.  You still must not be aware of the fake electors scheme that Trump has his fingerprints all over the place. By itself, the fake elector's scheme is enough to prove insurrection.  Capitol police officers lost limbs, had heart attacks from being tased,  were blinded for life, and one eventually died as a direct and proximate result of Trump's orders to, "Go down to the Capitol and fight like HELL to take our country back and stop the steal!"  You're not trying to suggest that doesn't qualify as violence are you?

You seem to not realize the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, and really in this instance, all that needs to be proven is PROBABLE CAUSE as it has to do with qualification under Administrative Law contained within the Constitution. The threshold is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, not a conviction proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just like a person under the age of 35, or a foreign national cannot be President, b/c the Constitution disqualifies them.  Trump willfully chose to illegally stay in power by stopping Congress in the counting and certification of the electoral ballots, and by false accusations that he knew were not true.  Willful ignorance is not a defense. That's all that needs to be said.

I started the thread by providing the history of how the enforcement of the 14A, Article 3 has taken place throughout history, and in no place has anyone ever been charged nor convicted of insurrection.  You should take the time to educate yourself on this as it would address many of your concerns.  All that needs to be shown is probable cause. Reliable,  probative that's substantial.  Probative is the probability of evidence reaching its proof purpose of a relevant fact in an issue. Trump's attempt to stop Congress in its official duties meets this requirement. Any first-year law student will tell you that is a very thin gauze.  You accuse another poster of not knowing how the law works, but I don't think you know the procedures of administrative and/or civil Law.

You say this is undemocratic, when in fact it is the most democratic b/c the Constitution "We the people" ratified the amendments to reflect the will of the people.  Donald Trump chose to violate the will of the people by illegally attempting to stay in power, willing to subvert the will of over 80 million voters, and it's very ironic that his supporters now want the "voters to decide" when they caused an insurrection when said voters did decide to elect Joe Biden as President in the first place.   You are attempting to muddy the water with specious arguments that are irrelevant.  You're grasping at straws.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-07-2024, 11:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And I don't disagree with that.  But when I look at Maine and Colorado, especially with what has happened in other courts, those outcomes look purely political instead of based on sound, constitutional reasoning.  And that's when the SCOTUS needs to step in.

I just think a 4-3 ruling OVERTURNING a lower court shows how unbelievably flimsy the argument is.  For this case, the standing has to be crystal clear to suspend due process and boot someone off a ballot when no charges or convictions were ever filed.  It LOOKS political, and that's a BAD look when talking about removing people from a ballot.  If there's any doubt - and there clearly is - then this is is not for the courts to decide but the voters.  "To preserve Democracy, we have to remove Trump from the ballot".  I can't imagine what kind of mental gymnastics are required for those two thoughts to co-exist in someone's head.

The point I guess I'm struggling to make is that in order to implement this without a trial - which the statute provides for - the culpability and legality have to be obvious and beyond reproach such that reasonable people would know the outcome of the trial.  And the inconsistency across the courts, even within Colorado, says we are nowhere near that threshold.

100% WRONG!

• All 8 Judges in Colorado found Trump DID ENGAGE in an INSURRECTION
• As far as standing-  Republican voters brought the challenge in Colorado, and Maine, a State GOP Senator.
• The Constitution is of "We the People, " and the amendments we ratified by the will of the people so this is a VERY democratic procedural action.
  Over 80 million voted for Joe Biden to be our President, and Trump illegally attempted to subvert their will, so it's ironic that now he all of a sudden cares about "Democracy."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-08-2024, 07:50 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: 100% WRONG!

• All 8 Judges in Colorado found Trump DID ENGAGE in an INSURRECTION
• As far as standing-  Republican voters brought the challenge in Colorado, and Maine, a State GOP Senator.
• The Constitution is of "We the People, " and the amendments we ratified by the will of the people so this is a VERY democratic procedural action.
  Over 80 million voted for Joe Biden to be our President, and Trump illegally attempted to subvert their will, so it's ironic that now he all of a sudden cares about "Democracy."
  

Well his opinion is that it is flimsy, but he is 100% correct that four of the eight judges in this case ruled that Trump should not be barred from the ballot under the 14th amendment.  The original trial judge and three of the seven appellate court judges.  Who brought the case to the court's attention and what political party they belong to is irrelevant to the argument before the court.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-09-2024, 12:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well his opinion is that it is flimsy, but he is 100% correct that four of the eight judges in this case ruled that Trump should not be barred from the ballot under the 14th amendment.  The original trial judge and three of the seven appellate court judges.  Who brought the case to the court's attention and what political party they belong to is irrelevant to the argument before the court.

The descent was ONLY to Colorado election law, not if Trump was an insurrectionist to which all 8 ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist. The lower court ruled that the 14th A didn't apply to the President.  The 14A, Article 3 to include ANY OFFICE and that question was addressed in the original debate by Sen Johnson and Sen Morill.  The 14A Article 3 says you only need to have ENGAGED to be DISQUALIFIED from HOLDING ANY OFFICE.  All 8 agreed to this fact.

The poster mentions STANDING, maybe in a different context than what I thought he meant.  However, in law standing is the right of a party to challenge the conduct of another party in court. Standing is not about the actual issues of the case. Instead, it is about the parties to the lawsuit and where they “stand” in relation to each other. Courts treat standing as an “antecedent” to a lawsuit. In other words, a party must prove they have standing before the court will consider the merits of the case.  So a voter in California couldn't challenge Trump in Colorado, b/c they lack standing.  If someone damages your friend's property, you cannot sue for your friend b/c you lack standing.  Only your friend would have the standing to bring a suit.  So YES, I agree, it's only relevant when Trump spreads the disinformation that this is all Joe Biden's efforts to keep him off the ballot.

For the record, These cases were brought by Colorado Republicans, and in Maine, a GOP state Senator which gave the plaintiffs legal standing in their respective states.  Joe Biden or the "Deep State" didn't bring these lawsuits as some of these conspiracy theorists wackos want to think.

Anyhow in other breaking news, the SCOTUS announced late yesterday that they will only rule on if a state's Supreme Court has the authority to bar Trump from their ballots in regard to their election laws.

[*pally*]

Who brought the cases is relevant in the public discourse as it has been constantly argued, including from people on this board, that Democrats are trying to keep Trump off the ballot when in fact it is REPUBLICANS who are bringing the cases against him. Just like every single witness in the Jan 6 hearings was Republican. Judges who have ruled against him were appointed by him or other Republican Presidents

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2024, 12:59 PM)pally Wrote: Who brought the cases is relevant in the public discourse as it has been constantly argued, including from people on this board, that Democrats are trying to keep Trump off the ballot when in fact it is REPUBLICANS who are bringing the cases against him.  Just like every single witness in the Jan 6 hearings was Republican.  Judges who have ruled against him were appointed by him or other Republican Presidents

Even calling republicans who do stuff you don't like "treasonous RINOs" or "antifa/FBI plants" is too much work now.  It's just easier to say everything is a liberal plot against Trump because he's awesome and they're scared of him because he's awesome.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2024, 10:56 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Anyhow in other breaking news, the SCOTUS announced late yesterday that they will only rule on if a state's Supreme Court has the authority to bar Trump from their ballots in regard to their election laws.

That would be an interesting discussion. Gorsuch, specifically, has a ruling from lower court days that was cited for this question in Maine. This could be bad news for Trump. Where did you see this at?

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2024, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be an interesting discussion. Gorsuch, specifically, has a ruling from lower court days that was cited for this question in Maine. This could be bad news for Trump. Where did you see this at?

Bad news for Trump eh?  Where I come from people call that good news for Trump!

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-09-2024, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be an interesting discussion. Gorsuch, specifically, has a ruling from lower court days that was cited for this question in Maine. This could be bad news for Trump. Where did you see this at?

I heard it this morning on Joe Scarbrough's show.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-09-2024, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be an interesting discussion. Gorsuch, specifically, has a ruling from lower court days that was cited for this question in Maine. This could be bad news for Trump. Where did you see this at?

I agree and that's why I think the GOP is trying to put pressure on Kavanaugh, b/c they know Gorscuh has addressed this as a Colorado Supreme Court Justice and ruled that a State can keep someone off the ballot under their election laws.

Also, for the folks screaming where's the due process in all this?!?  Well, first of all, Due Process is found in the 5A and 14A and ONLY applies to matters regarding CRIMINAL LAW.  This is an Administrative Law procedure so due process does not apply b/c Trump's life, liberty, nor property are at risk.

Secondly, there has been a form of process and that was when the case was heard with both sides being represented by counsel in a Colorado court of law.  Both sides presented witnesses and a lower court judge made a ruling.  Her ruling was then appealed and subsequently heard by the Colorado Supreme Court.  So there's your process.

[Dill]

(01-07-2024, 10:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Being truly for the rule of law and Democracy isn't just when it's convenient or comfortable, but precisely when it's NOT that it's most important hold the line.  

I quite agree with you on this. Where you lose me is in the following.

(01-07-2024, 10:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That people like you conflate believing in a lawful and judicial process is an abhorent "defense of Trump" is precisely why it's so important for the SCOTUS to get this right.  It's not about accountability and never has been - from Day 1 it's been about obstructing and removing Trump from office, so spare me the diatribe about how only one party and their media engage in this.  They both do it, and they continue to do it because people on both sides are all too happy to look the other way when their side does it.

What is "abhorrent" about defenses of Trump is not only that they are defenses of someone who has misused his office to stay in power and hurt "enemies," but also that they gain traction by systematic RWM misrepresentation and organized party partisanship which contest both law and facts via gaslighting and the creation of false, alternative narratives ("Russia, Russia, Russia").  The most recent example would be the threat of Missouri Republicans now to take Biden off the ballot for "insurrection" too. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/missouri-republican-secretary-of-state-biden-trump-ballot-rcna132600. There's your "threat to the judicial process." Trump's attempts to stay in power generate new such threats every month, eroding our legal system from within.

People who have recognized Trump's incompetence, ignorance, vindictiveness and narcissism from the get go have certainly opposed his presidency. 

But referring to that history to explain current prosecutions of Trump just continues one of the most prominent RWM alternative narratives--that dislike of Trump is not really grounded in his criminal actions, but some vague and inexplicable "Trump hate" which has just always been there. 
 
This separates causes from effects, and enables right wing "independents" to generate false equivalences at the level of headlines--Biden "stole" documents too, and weaponized the government too, and soon he'll be impeached too. See, no difference! 

And voila!--the most singular event in the history of the US presidency, buttressed by the most partisan network of newsrooms since the 1930s, is reduced to "both sides do it." 

(01-07-2024, 10:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You should try reading a few of the dissents in the Colorado case, one I'll point out reversed a lower court in a 4-3 vote.  It's not nearly as simple as pronouncing a riot an "insurrection", and then manufacturing connections and plotting where there is none to envoke a 150 year old law that's rarely been used.

"Manufacturing connections and plotting"???  Was it the Dems who created the false lists of electors forced some 40+ Republican officials to sign off on the fraud?  Was it the "weaponized" FBI who pressured Mike Pence to sign off on the false lists? 

You understand that the 150-year-old law has "rarely been used" because no president has ever sought to overturn a legitimate succession to power, right? 
If you get the causes--the FACTS--clearly in sight, then the conspiratorial side of Trump prosecutions disappears. It IS about accountability and always has been.