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 -  (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 But if states around my country were just digging through older laws, applying outdated interpretations of things to them for the sole purpose of removing someone they didn't want people voting for, I think that would be considered a major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.