News

19 readers

12 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago

Colorado Supreme Court, in landmark ruling, bans Trump from state’s ballot under insurrection clause (apnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by Madison_rogue@kbin.social to c/news@kbin.social

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

DENVER (AP) — A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Personally, I don't think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It's self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.

That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn't be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you'll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

[–] FreeBooteR69@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

14th Amendment Section 3
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.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's preposterous to allow that traitorous criminal to run for any office. While it may cause individuals to rise up in rebellion again, for which they would pay a heavy price, the damage would be much worse should he get into office.

[–] RoboRay@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This is not actually setting a precedent... This determination was made numerous times before without convictions, mostly in the aftermath of the Civil War. The precedent of a conviction or even a formal charge being unnecessary is long-standing.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Notably, it's part of the matter of fact ruling of the CO courts that Trump committed sedition. It would be VERY uncommon for federal courts to change those matters of fact -- they would instead rule on matters of law.

There's a lot to be said about the flaws in this disqualification. Is the 14th self-enforcing such that courts even have the authority to make a ruling to disqualify? Was there full due process? Why didn't the 14th specifically name POTUS if it named electors of the POTUS as subjects of disqualification? Will the SCOTUS just step in and be a political & lawmaking body because they feel like it as usual?

But it would be VERY weird for the courts to rule "not seditionist". That would surprise even the most cynical legal scholars, I think.