California’s lieutenant governor sent a letter to the state’s secretary of state on Wednesday asking her to explore "every legal option" to remove former President Don...
Was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion? Please remind me when he went to jail for insurrection. Ill agree with you 100% if he was proven guilty in a trial for insurrection. If not, then the state is taking it upon themselves to make shit up.
The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn’t have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don’t have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn’t eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.
Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.
The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it’s well within the Colorado supreme Court’s remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.
A criminal conviction is not required to be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It’s not a criminal punishment, but a requirement for holding public office, in the same vein as being at least 35 is a requirement to be President. There haven’t been many that have been disqualified under the 14th amendment, but none of them were convicted either.
Whats the precedent here then? Or is the intent for this to be the precedent? I will actually send you a crisp $100 dollar bill if this doesnt get overturned by the US supreme court.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion? Please remind me when he went to jail for insurrection. Ill agree with you 100% if he was proven guilty in a trial for insurrection. If not, then the state is taking it upon themselves to make shit up.
The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn’t have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don’t have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn’t eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.
Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.
The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it’s well within the Colorado supreme Court’s remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.
The precedent is that he doesn’t need to be convicted of insurrection for the insurrection clause to apply.
You can be guilty of something without being guilty of something. Thats an interesting way to frame it. What is the precedent here?
A criminal conviction is not required to be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It’s not a criminal punishment, but a requirement for holding public office, in the same vein as being at least 35 is a requirement to be President. There haven’t been many that have been disqualified under the 14th amendment, but none of them were convicted either.
Whats the precedent here then? Or is the intent for this to be the precedent? I will actually send you a crisp $100 dollar bill if this doesnt get overturned by the US supreme court.
What’s going to qualify as “precedent” to you? Another elected official being disqualified from public office after their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, even though they weren’t convicted of insurrection? Or something else? Please be specific, I could really use that hundred bucks.
Former Confederates were barred from holding public office regardless of whether they were actually charged with treason, or anything else