Let's get this straight.

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect The Following will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

 

It still comes down to one basic fact. They are trying to take away the right of a man to run for president and the right of the people to vote for him with no due process. Without that due process, it takes only a very few people to take away that right and that is more dangerous than Trump ever was or will be.

 

Except due process is being followed.

 

No it isn't. Trump is being struck from the ballot based on being guilty of something he hasn't been found guilty of. It's beyond stupid.

 

A small group of people without any input from the opposing side is declaring him guilty of a crime. That is not due process.

 

The CO court REVIEWED the EVIDENCE and made a FINDING of FACT that the TRAITOR-in-CRAP did INCITE an Insurrection against the government of We the People.

In a CRIMINAL court that is a GUILTY verdict.

Hence the RULING by the CO Supreme Court which UPHELD that he HAS engaged in an INSURRECTION.

Being CONVICTED of Insurrection is NOT a STIPULATED requirement of 14.3.

Just giving Aid and Comfort to the Insurrectionists is SUFFICIENT to DISQUALIFY him and we have his TWEETS to PROVE that he did EXACTLY that on J6.

 

And to my knowledge its a judge that did it, due process.

 

Except they aren't.

 

My 2 cents on this, SCOTUS will NOT rule on whether Agent Orange ran the Jan 6th failed coup, their lying eyes will not be tested! They will rule strictly on the Colorado case and the merits of that one alone. They will not rule on the strict interpretation of the actual Constitution and section 3, they simply can't. They would become lifetime pariahs in conservative circles if they do, they will find "a way to punt" maybe through one of the Colorado dissenting judge's opine.

 

Please provide something besides your two or three word declarative statements. They are meaningless.

 

They aren't declaring him guilty of a crime.

 

They declared him not eligible to run for president without him being able to provide any evidence to the contrary.

 

Since its not a criminal trial they don't have to, but I believe that he can appeal the decision all the way to the SC which is the due process necessary.

 

Nope.

Before a lower court last month, lawyers made wide-ranging arguments during closing arguments, grappling over the ins and outs of specific language in the 14th Amendment and the extent to which Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to insurrection.
https://rollcall.com/2023/12/19/gop-in-uproar-after-colorado-court-bars-trump-from-state-ballot/

The final day of a weeklong trial in a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s constitutional eligibility to seek office again began with a protracted dispute over how much expertise an expert witness called by Trump’s legal team really had.

Robert Delahunty, a retired law professor and legal commentator who acknowledged he’d never before given expert testimony on any subject in court, took the stand Friday morning in a case brought by six Colorado voters who allege that Trump must be barred from the 2024 presidential ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War-era clause prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office in the United States. Plaintiffs argue Trump “engaged” in insurrection as part of the Jan. 6 attack.
https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/03/testimony-14th-amendment-colorado-trump-trial/

 

My man Lee Atwater, coming up on the three year anniversary now of my question to you Sir,

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...w-of-government.582758/page-3#post-1072361197

 

How do you prove Section 3 applies to the President? Early drafts of Section 3 included the President and they chose to remove that position in the final draft that was ratified. Hamilton wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, recent a Supreme Court ruling from 2010 says the President is not an officer of the United States as it pertains to Section 3. How do you get past the authors of the amendment making the conscious choice to remove the President from Section 3 and Supreme Court precedent? This thread comes across as very insurrectiony to me. Trying to remove a presidential candidate based on false pretenses is a clear and present threat to our democracy.

 

Any ambiguity on the matter will no doubt be seized on by the Court's conservative majority to allow Trump to be on the ballot.

To Whom Does Section 3 Apply?

According to the text of Section 3, the bar against office-holding applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Although not expressly referenced, the bar appears historically to have applied to judgeships. There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In contrast, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly applies to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” which suggests that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States” whose oath of office would subject him to possible disqualification. However, it may be more likely that the office of the President is included as an office under the United States (unlike Members of Congress and electors, which may be why they are expressly included), so that any person subject to the disqualification is ineligible to serve as President. One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

 

You don't believe removing someone from the ballot should be more difficult than just saying they are guilty?

 

Why should it be? You don't have a right to run for office.

 

There are only three requirements to run for president. Citizenship, residency and age. If you have those qualifications, you have the right to run for president.

 

14th says otherwise.

 

After due process.

 

Which has been followed.

 

This is why we have a Supreme Court - and I'm very disappointed they did not immediately address this issue as it is a time sensitive Constitutional question - but that's what you get when the Court gets stacked with toadies instead of Justices with backbones.

 

Did Trump get to plead his case? If he didn't, then it was not due process.