The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, has issued a ruling that would keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot in that state in 2024. They base their reasoning on Section III of the 14th Amendment. That is a Civil War era amendment that states:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a 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, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Similar lawsuits have been filed in several other states.
I must preface this by reminding the reader that I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional expert. Nevertheless, my opinion is that this ruling is wrong and will be reversed on appeal by the US Supreme Court. The ruling is based entirely on the above-mentioned amendment. It is also based on the apparent opinion of the majority judges that Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection or rebellion against the US Government. Many people share that opinion, but it is just that, an opinion.
It appears here that the judges have taken on the roles of investigator and juror. The problem is that Trump is not convicted of insurrection or rebellion. In fact, he is not even charged with such crimes. He is charged in connection with the January 6 incident and conspiracy to overturn the election result, but that case has yet to be tried. Yet, the Colorado decision means that the judges can rule based on their own opinion that Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Wouldn't it be better to wait until he is convicted of such charges?
This highlights the danger that activist judges pose. In this case, it appears that Democrat-appointed judges (all the judges, including the 3 dissenting judges, are Democrat-appointed) have not only put their hands on the scales of justice, but our election system as well.
How ingenious this is. Trump is leading in all the polls. For the Republican nomination, he is way ahead of his closest competitors. The indictments have not changed that fact. He also leads Biden by a few points. Clearly, the left and the Democrats are alarmed. But now they have come up with what appears to be a knockout blow. That is to disqualify him from the ballot based on this amendment that was originally drafted to preclude former Confederate officials from participating in the government. If this ruling stands, and other states follow suit, Trump has no chance. Is this what our democracy is becoming?
You add this to all the other Democrat tricks, mail-in ballots, ballot harvesters, restoration of voting rights for convicted felons, lower the voting age to whatever, and open borders with a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal migrants. Step by step, the Democrats are trying to lay the groundwork for making the Republican party all but irrelevant far into the future. Say hello to a one-party nation. Say goodbye to democracy.
This decision cries out for a quick reversal. Presently, Trump stands convicted of no crime. He is presumed innocent of the charges against him (which do not include insurrection or rebellion). Whatever you think of Trump and his actions/inactions on January 6, how do you make the case that this decision is fair to Trump, his supporters, or those who would vote for him?
While I agree with your analysis regarding this ruling, I have to wonder what kind of bass-ackward, unhinged, bizzaro world you have to be living in to accuse the party that's making it EASIER FOR MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE as the one that's going to lead to us saying "goodbye to Democracy". And you call those strategies "tricks"?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the party whose current leader literally tried to overturn the election? What about the party where the leader says that he'll be dictator "only on the first day?" What about the party where a candidate is talking about raising the legal voting age? (Ramaswamy)? What about the party who recently had a speaker calling for the end of women's suffrage? (Jason Whitlock at Turning Point USA.) And what about the party where the candidates are talking about giving pardons to the January 6 rioters (Trump, Desantis, etc.)?
Do you even know what democracy IS? If the Republican party cannot win as more people are allowed to vote, then it deserves to die. Maybe we'll finally get a decent alternative to the Democrats than one that's led by a delusional rapist con-artist who's borrowing Nazi talking points. (Did you catch the one about immigrants "poisoning the blood of our nation"?)
Dear lord, but would you just listen to yourself?
CBS: "On Saturday, at a rally attended by thousands in Durham, New Hampshire, Trump said of undocumented migrants, "They're poisoning the blood of our country."
ReplyDelete-Did you catch the word, "undocumented"?
Even as to illegal aliens, I don't completely agree with Trump's statement, but let's report it accurately, OK?
'Rapist", "con-artist", Nazi talking points? The latter was apparently coined by (ex) MSNBC host Medhi Hasan, who has his own past comments to worry about.
You should listen to yourself. Whatever Trump is guilty of, my whole point was that he has not been charged, much less convicted of insurrection or rebellion. But the Colorado SC decided he is guilty of that, and so cannot be on the ballot. He may be a racist, con-artist, or use Nazi talking points, as you claim, but he does have rights.
I stated from the start that I agree with your assessment of the Colorado verdict. My issue is that you seem to think that Democrats are threatening Democracy when it's the Republican party that is actively trying to destroy it.
ReplyDeleteI don't watch or know anything about Medhi Hassan. I do know that "poisoning our blood" is right out of the Nazi playbook. Trying to make it seem less bad by emphasizing the word "undocumented" is pretty disgusting.
And Trump is a rapist. He's been found civilly liable for a rape, and he's had to pay out the nose for calling his victim a liar. As for a con artist, he's had to pay more than once for that.
I'm not just doing talking points. These are facts.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf your arguments are based around Republicans trying to destroy democracy by reducing the number of voters while Democrats are trying to increase the number of voters, keep in mind that the Democrats are fiercely opposed to Voter ID laws. That is their principal argument against Republicans when it comes to voting. Why is that?
Is it asking too much for a registered voter to produce his/her ID when voting? We have to produce a picture ID when getting on an airplane.
And you can keep listing all the bad things that Trump may or may not be, but the question remains: has he done something that disqualifies him from being a candidate. The Colorado Supreme Court did not issue its ruling because Trump is a racist, con-artist or used Nazi language in talking about illegal migrants. They decided on their own that he was an insurrectionist.
Why do you keep arguing the point about the Colorado ruling? I've stated twice already that I agree with you on that.
ReplyDeleteAnd voter ID laws are voter suppression strategies. They're solutions in need of a problem. Its advocates have presented absolutely zero evidence that it's needed. They just argue for it because it will disproportionately target poor people living in urban areas.
If we're going to make voting harder, we need a good reason to do so. Show me some evidence that it's necessary to prevent fraud, and I'll change my mind.
You might start by researching the 1960 presidential election, specifically what happened in Illinois.
ReplyDeleteSo, over 60 years ago, some people suspected voter fraud in one state. (And I'm not sure how voter ID would have prevented it even if the allegations are true.)
ReplyDeleteThat's not even weak evidence.
What happened was that most of the residents of Chicago's cemeteries voted (for JFK) and Illinois made the difference in the election. Nixon refused to challenge the result because he felt it would tear the country apart.
ReplyDeleteThe "voter suppression" that Republicans are supposedly guilty of is insisting that only legally-registered people vote, that they vote only once and only in one voting district. You call voter id laws a form of suppression because it will impact poor people as if getting a picture ID, like a driver's license is too hard for some people. How patronizing. Georgia offered to supply such people with a photo ID.
The 27 electoral votes would have resulted in Kennedy getting 276 and Nixon getting 246. Feel free to check my math.
ReplyDeletePutting that aside, the case has not been made that the state was stolen for Kennedy. There were some issues, but "This figure of slightly less than 8,000 votes is not sufficient to make a convincing case that Nixon was cheated out of Illinois' electoral votes."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168?seq=1
I'll reiterate my point. If we're going to make it harder, even slightly, to vote, we need a good reason. A reason would be evidence of voter fraud (enough to sway an election).
So far, the best bit of evidence is a debunked talking point about something that happened over half a century ago.
What else have you got?
Well, I could bring up a lot of fishy business from 2020 etc. but whatever I submit, you will dismiss it out of hand.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up, I am not claiming the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, but I think concerns about voter fraud are justified, and we should do whatever we can to prevent it. I don't advocate voter suppression. Anyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote even if I don't like the way they vote. But if we lose honest elections, democracy is gone.
Just admit that you don't have any evidence. "Fishy business" is as vague as "I've just got this feeling..."
ReplyDeleteAnd what is your evidence that the Republicans are engaging in voter suppression?
ReplyDelete