Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (bbc.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I don't really think the argument should be about if or not the President is "Holding an office" so much as it should be: "He wasn't been convicted of any such charges yet. You can't accuse someone of a crime and use the accusation as a reason to preclude them from the vote."

If they could, I guess the Republicans just accuse every Democrat candidate of "Insurrection" for, I dunno, encouraging BLM riots and the small part of that city that declared itself no longer part of the US?... Boom, don't have to wait for a verdict, kick them off each Red state's ballot, refuse to acknowledge them if they win, guess it's civil war?

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They wrote that section into the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Confederate politicians from holding office in the United States. There was no expectation that they be "convicted of a crime." They were Confederates, thus they were excluded.

The question that's going to come before the SCOTUS is: what constitutes an insurrection? Obviously the Civil War did, because that's specifically what the framers of the Amendment were thinking about, but what else constitutes an insurrection? Define it.

I don't envy John Roberts the task.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There may have been no expectation of conviction, but this isn't the civil war era where there is open warfare and two cut and dried sides and one has just been victorious over the other. Even if we were to accept that explanation - Trump wasn't involved in the civil war and isn't a Confederate solider, so that application can't apply to him.

He isn't currently guilty of an insurrection. He's accused, but the nature of what is and isn't an insurrection isn't, yet, relevant. This isn't war time. The American states can't decide that the due process that is meant to be offered to all Americans doesn't apply here. It's essentially election tampering, isn't it?

Look, I'm no American legal expect, I shouldn't speak with authority, but if the courts aren't putting down the first argument as: "We haven't yet confirmed that he's done anything wrong", that's scary.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What I think you're missing is that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" refers specifically to whether the government can lock someone in prison or levy fines against them.

Citizens don't have to be found guilty of a crime to be fired, or declared ineligible for something, or basically to suffer any number of consequences other than "locked up or fined." For example, the military could declare someone ineligible for service because they can't do ten push-ups. That's not a crime; they're simply ineligible.

The legal question of "Is Donald Trump ineligible for office because he participated in an insurrection," strange as it may seem, is completely distinct from the legal question of "Did Donald Trump commit a crime."

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, I don't believe that's the case. You're not talking about someone firing him, you're talking about a branch of the government refusing to acknowledge his run for president. That's the government enforcing a punishment for a crime he has yet to be proven guilty of. This isn't a private company saying: "Sorry, Jim. We can't have these accusations hanging over us as a company.", this is a State saying: "You are no longer able to run for president."

Hell, even in the other case, he'd still have grounds to sue for unfair dismissal once he was innocent.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But ineligibility isn't legally considered a punishment. For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not eligible to practice medicine or law. Elon Musk is not eligible to run for President. David Harbour is not eligible to join the Marines. None of these are punishments; none of these people have been convicted of a crime.

And of course Donald Trump can and will file lawsuits regarding this decision.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it is! This is something he is perfectly eligible to do, has done in the past, has made it clear he intends to do again and is, at least on the surface, the backbone of the American election system. They are removing him from that as a punishment for a crime he hasn't been convicted of. This would be like California saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can't be an astrophysicist because someone accused him of something. There's a direct correlation between the accusation, unfounded or not, and a government body deciding to punish him for it.

Anyway, like I mentioned in the other thread, I'm going to stop talking about this one. I'm not American, so I shouldn't spend so much time being amazed by how their country is being run. Thanks for the conversation though.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

"He wasn't been convicted of any such charges yet. You can't accuse someone of a crime and use the accusation as a reason to preclude them from the vote."

Insurrection isn't defined as a crime in the 14th amendment and the federal crime of Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 only dates from WWII. The Colorado court found that he had committed insurrection as part of this judgement. By applying the Brandenburg test.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So you're saying they applied an archaic interpretation of a crime that has, since, been updated, arguing that the definition of that offense, clearly intended to be used for civil war fighters, applies today despite the law being updated? Isn't this like saying that the "Right to bare arms" applied to muskets, so modern guns aren't covered because, despite new laws being created, the original meaning wasn't that? Isn't that like claiming that "All men are created equal" was applied to older understandings of the word "Men", so transexuals can be slaves?

Again, I'm no expert in this. I trust Americans to know this better... But if states around my country were just digging through older laws, applying outdated interpretations of things to them for the sole purpose of removing someone they didn't want people voting for, I think that would be considered a major miscarriage of justice and those people would face serious consequences... At least, I should hope they would!

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you're saying they applied an archaic interpretation of a crime that has, since, been updated, arguing that the definition of that offense, clearly intended to be used for civil war fighters, applies today despite the law being updated?

No, I'm saying that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't refer to the crime 18 U.S. Code § 2383. The courts decide what constitutes insurrection based on case law.

Isn't this like saying that the "Right to bare arms" applied to muskets, so modern guns aren't covered because, despite new laws being created, the original meaning wasn't that?

No case law has determined that it includes modern assault rifles, but not tanks.

Isn't that like claiming that "All men are created equal" was applied to older understandings of the word "Men", so transexuals can be slaves?

The declaration of independence isn't law. But I presume that there would be old laws that refer to "men" but mean "the people". I can't think of an instance, but surely case law would have settled the meaning to include women and others.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're being too literal with the examples, but...

No, I'm saying that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't refer to the crime 18 U.S. Code § 2383. The courts decide what constitutes insurrection based on case law.

If the court is trying to rule that this law doesn't apply to modern law, than it's basically attempting to argue that some parts of the law are immune from updates directly related to them. There is a law concerning insurrection, and if this law doesn't refer to that currently accepted law, then it's either not talking about the currently, legally accepted understanding of an insurrection or, if the argument is that it was created to prevent civil war era fighters from running for office, isn't relevant at all any more. Saying a law was referring to murder before the current understanding of murder, ergo the current definition doesn't apply isn't a strong argument - their objective is clear in the mental gymnastics required to reach this point.

I should bow out of this conversation. I'm not even American. It's just mind boggling that your states can basically bunch up their panties, take their ball and run home crying in what is meant to be the ultimate expression of the will of the people.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's just that the meaning of insurrection in the 14th amendment is based on case law.

Making it consistent before and after 1943.

Which makes sense. You don't want a law made in 1943 to change the constitution.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I said, I'll leave that one there. Thanks for the chat, that was interesting. I'm curious to see how it turns out.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure. I'm curious too.