Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from Primary Ballot

@mott-the-hoople said
Congress has passed the legislation in this case…a person has to be a natural born citizen.

I thought you claimed to be a lawyer 🙄

Show me where in the Hassan case, Judge Gorsuch mentions or relies on any Federal statute. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/12-1190/12-1190-2012-09-04.html

He doesn't; Congress doesn't need to pass laws when the Constitution itself directly addresses a question. Both persons who are not Natural Born citizens and those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution are barred from the Presidency.

@no1marauder said
Show me where in the Hassan case, Judge Gorsuch mentions or relies on any Federal statute. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/12-1190/12-1190-2012-09-04.html

He doesn't; Congress doesn't need to pass laws when the Constitution itself directly addresses a question. Both persons who are not Natural Born citizens and those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution are barred from the Presidency.

Should non-citizens be barred from voting?

@averagejoe1 said
Should non-citizens be barred from voting?

What does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Start another thread if you want to talk about subjects that are off-topic here.

@averagejoe1 said
Should non-citizens be barred from voting?

you're not smart enough to debate this question.

and it's off topic anyway.

@metal-brain said
Abby Martin and Mike Prysner bring you up to date about the DC Capital attack with shocking new details about the seriousness of the operation, the depths of the inside job, and who from the government may land in prison for it (including Trump). Brian Becker, host of The Socialist Program podcast, joins the conversation with deep analysis about the intervention of the im ...[text shortened]... the reality of the fascist threat.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/jan-6-was-an-inside-job/

Anyone who talks about an "inside job" regarding the Jan. 6 insurrection is a fool who can be safely disregarded.

@no1marauder said
Of course they do like Colorado did here and in Hassan. And they didn't have to wait for Congress to pass any specific legislation (though Congress was given the power to do so).

How did Trump violate the constitution? Many legal pundits all day are saying he has not. How did he? Are we having fun or not. This has boiled into nothing but a ‘who can type the most’ thread!

@no1marauder said
What does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Start another thread if you want to talk about subjects that are off-topic here.

On it.

@metal-brain said
The Capitol police let in some of the protesters, even opened the door for some of them. All the ranting in the world will not change that fact. The CP entrapped them and it was an inside job just as Vivek said it was.

If you open the door and let in a guest with a warm smile do you accuse them of trespassing and press charges?

Did SHouse comment on this fact, which seems to deflate his above post?

@averagejoe1 said
How did Trump violate the constitution? Many legal pundits all day are saying he has not. How did he? Are we having fun or not. This has boiled into nothing but a ‘who can type the most’ thread!

Among many other things, pursuant to this thread he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. That prevents him from being "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,". https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

@no1marauder said
Among many other things, pursuant to this thread he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. That prevents him from being "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,". https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

“Among many other things, pursuant to this thread he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.”

Dayyyuuummmm what a fool you are 😂

@no1marauder said
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the speech alone creates a "close case" as to whether Trump knowingly incited the crowd to insurrection. If that was all the evidence, perhaps an overruling of the State's court decision would be justified.

But there is far more than that both before, during and after the insurrection. For the before and after, I'd refer you to ...[text shortened]... asn't quite pleased his supporters attacked the Capitol with the intent of overturning the EC count?

Understood, but being pleased about an insurrection or failing to try to stop an insurrection is not really the same thing as participating in it.

Did he participate in it? Well, he certainly caused it, no question about that. But did he intentionally incite it? Did he know the mob was going to storm the Capitol or did he think they would go down there, stand outside and yell and wave signs and take out their phones, go on social media and whine?

Did he intend that they engage in unlawful activity at the time he said it? It's hard to say that beyond a reasonable doubt (I know it's not technically a criminal case, but I would think the same standard would apply).

I don't know if this is cut-and-dried enough to justify this kind of step.

@sh76 said
Understood, but being pleased about an insurrection or failing to try to stop an insurrection is not really the same thing as participating in it.

Did he participate in it? Well, he certainly caused it, no question about that. But did he intentionally incite it? Did he know the mob was going to storm the Capitol or did he think they would go down there, stand outside and yell ...[text shortened]... standard would apply).

I don't know if this is cut-and-dried enough to justify this kind of step.

Appellate court reviews of a trial court's factual findings are generally deferential unless there is clear error. Nor have I ever heard of an appeal being decided on a higher evidentiary standard i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt than the one applied by the trial court in a civil case.

I disagree that as a practical matter doing nothing in this instance but sending tweets supportive of the insurrection did not amount to engaging in it by the President since he was perfectly aware of the scope of the violence and believed he could end it by simply requesting his followers to leave. At any rate, I do not believe that precedent allows the SCOTUS to "correct" State courts on matters of State law nor overrule factual findings of a trial court absent clear error or new evidence.

@sh76 said
Understood, but being pleased about an insurrection or failing to try to stop an insurrection is not really the same thing as participating in it.

Did he participate in it? Well, he certainly caused it, no question about that. But did he intentionally incite it? Did he know the mob was going to storm the Capitol or did he think they would go down there, stand outside and yell ...[text shortened]... standard would apply).

I don't know if this is cut-and-dried enough to justify this kind of step.

If you don't "stop the steal" you won't "have a country anymore" directed to a large group near the Capitol which Trump had already been informed contained elements poised for violence intended to stop the certification doesn't seem to me to run afoul of a Brandenburg analysis. His words and actions before, during and after the invasion of the Capitol seem to be a clear incitement to imminent unlawful action. To reiterate:

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

I find it difficult to believe that Trump "accidentally" caused the invasion of the Capitol.

@sh76 said
Understood, but being pleased about an insurrection or failing to try to stop an insurrection is not really the same thing as participating in it.

Did he participate in it? Well, he certainly caused it, no question about that. But did he intentionally incite it? Did he know the mob was going to storm the Capitol or did he think they would go down there, stand outside and yell ...[text shortened]... standard would apply).

I don't know if this is cut-and-dried enough to justify this kind of step.

“Did he participate in it? Well, he certainly caused it, no question about that. ”

How many fbi/cia/govt assets were there and what was their role?

@no1marauder said
If you don't "stop the steal" you won't "have a country anymore" directed to a large group near the Capitol which Trump had already been informed contained elements poised for violence intended to stop the certification doesn't seem to me to run afoul of a Brandenburg analysis. His words and actions before, during and after the invasion of the Capitol seem to be a ...[text shortened]... 444/

I find it difficult to believe that Trump "accidentally" caused the invasion of the Capitol.

actual lawyers found it not advisable to charge Trump with insurrection…do you claim to know more than them?