Colorado Sec. 3 14th Amendment arguments made. Did Trump 'engage' in an insurrection?

Did Trump engage in an insurrection, give aid an comfort to the insurrectionists?

The answer to that question will litigated and lead to court ruling, which we do not know yet.

I can't make the argument to any degree that the argument is robustly made in this video, link below, but there are two parts, and this video is part one. I'll look around for part two.

I don't think it's necessary to give more details, because it's all about the long, robust, documented argument, all of which are not possible on this forum. But, this point has been debated extensively on this forum, but no one, to date, has put forth an argument as robustly, with all the ramifications, anticipated counter arguments addressed, as that has been done by the lawyers for the plaintiffs, whose objective is a court ruling to compel the Colorado Secretary of State to remove From the ballot in Colorado, all for the ostensible purpose, in my view, to force Trump to sue, and via appeals, the case will eventually go to the Supreme Court, where we will have a decision, once and for all, on this all important issue. Nor has the been been counter argued as robustly as done in the video, either. This is a video for BOTH arguments.

I've heard all the arguments by the right, that all Democrats want to do is prevent Trump from running because we fear he will win.

The answer to that question is yes. However, no on 'Democrats' because the petitioners consist of Republicans, as well. Scholarly treatises have been published,. by Democrats and Republicans as well. We do not believe, therefore, that any argument that declares this as a 'partisan' issue is not being honest, given this fact.

The difference is, for reasons that are just, and in the best interest of the National Security of the United States. A demagogue who incites an insurrection should be disqualified. Both Democrats and Republican legal scholars are making this claim.

Now, in the video, both sides are the argument will be present, in robust detail. I think all of his should watch both videos, part one and part two (I'll have to hunt around for part II, I think it's on the Forbes site, or C-Span will probably be much later, i don't know).

The issue isn't an issue of 'democracy'. It's an issue of QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE, which the Constitution spells out for us. Before anyone can cast a vote, the candidates must qualify. Qualification is not a criminal sanction, it is an administrative action. If you are worried about 'due process' it's no different in any other process of qualification. If you feel you are wrongly disqualified for whatever it is you applied for, you can sue. In court, you will get your 'due process'.

But disqualification does not require due process, there is nothing a candidate is in possession of that the government is depriving you of. Due process is required if something you are in possession of that the Government wants to take away from you, be it something material and of value, or something abstract, like a copyright, or just a 'right' . If you argue, it's depriving you of your 'right' to be on the ballot, note that no one has the right to be on a ballot. What is being taken away? Nothing! You only gain that right AFTER you 'qualify'. This administrative action of qualification only requires fairness and an honest look at the facts, though often it might appear even that is lacking. Remember, section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal sanction, it is an administrative action. And, you can always sue if you feel you have been unjustly disqualified.

Given 1/6, and Trump's relationship to it, is Trump qualified for the office?

See, given 1/6. Trump's potential involvement with it, we have to answer that question before we can allow him to run. There was no 1l6 prior to 2016, so no one tried to disqualify him in any meaningful way then, but I will note I disliked Trump as much back then as I do today, but the idea of trying to disqualify Trump was not on my mind, or anyone's mind, Why? There was no reason, constitutionally, to disqualify him. Morally, maybe, but not constitutionally, and that is the issue. So, nothing before 2016, but for 2024, we have this elephant in the room, 1/6, and we have to deal with it. So, off to the courts.

I think this is a fascinating subject in that it so specifically has to do with the US constitution, and how courts will interpreted section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Also, as I'm watching the video now, I'm about 1/2 hour into it, and no one has even mentioned that a 'conviction' is necessary. Just thought I'd add that point. Though, I don't know that it will be raised later on.




I found part 2:

 

What insurrection? I know of no insurrection. But, I do know of several democrats who have said that you can't keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/12/dem-secretaries-state-trump-ballot-00115461

But, I'm betting you deny what I posted because I didn't put it in my own words, even as you post links, etc.

 

I can.

14A Section 3

'Section Three does not expressly
(1) apply to future rebellions or insurrections,
(2) apply to persons elected as President of the United States,
(3) apply to persons seeking to qualify as a candidate for the Presidency, or
(4) indicate whether the enforcement of Section Three requires the passage of enabling legislation.'

'Prior drafts of Section Three included versions that expressly named the office of the President of the United States, expressly banned presidential candidates from qualifying as a candidate, and expressly applied to both past and future rebellions. Congress omitted all of this language from the final version of Section Three. This final language led the best lawyer in the House to assume that the text did not include the office of the President.'

'Key framers and ratifiers also expressly insisted that Section Three would not be self-executing. As far as future rebellions were concerned, the historical record reveals both framers and ratifiers dividing over the text's possible application to future insurrections. In sum, the historical record supports Jacob Howard's explanation of the original understanding and scope of Section Three: The provision was "intended to put some sort of stigma, some sort of odium upon the leaders of this rebellion, and no other way is left to do it but by some provision of this kind." Whether the public understood the ambiguous text as allowing for anything more remains historically unclear.'

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/0...of-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Where there is not clarity of regulation the default is freedom. Totalitarian Leftists who know that Trump is well on his way to re-election, are trying to keep his name off the ballot, because they do not want the Free American People to have the CHOICE to elect him.

The Totalitarians will lose to Freedom.

 

Absolutely. The left are trying to suppress votes on a major tsunami scale.

 

• They tried to drive Trump from office and overturn the 2016 election.
• They rigged the 2020 election by using the corrupt FBI/CIA to bury Hunter's Laptop that detailed the Bribed Biden International Crime Family operation.
• They are trying to rig the 2024 election by jailing Trump and keeping him off the ballot.
• We may need special tribunals to try these lawless bastards that are trying to overthrow the US Constitutional System in favor of their Oligarchy

Rigged "Investigations": Weiss' Office Ignored Evidence of Biden Corruption

 

The video shows how it was Trump's tweet that Mike Pence betrayed him, that he wasn't going to do what Trump wanted him to do in order to save the country, and what happened next was that someone in the crowed read the tweet through a bullhorn, and that set the mob charging the capitol.

That proves he 'engaged' in the insurrection. now, on the point of whether or not it was an insurrection, on that point there is no doubt. There is no question that is wasn't an insurrection, for what happened on 1/6 fits the definition perfectly. There are counter arguments, and I've heard them but there are counter arguments to the counter arguments which will quell them. The video presents both arguments in great detail.

Moreover, after all that, Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, held off from putting out a video for 3 hours after the attack began, and in the video he told them he loved them. He ordered that the 'mags' (metal detectors) be taken down because he said (paraphrased) "I don't care if they are armed, they are not here to hurt me, so let them through (onto the ellipsis, as the folks with arms were not going to go through the detectors for fear their guns would be confiscated by the Secret Service, this was Hutchinson's testimony, nor has the SS denied her testimony) In his speech at the ellipsis, he mentioned 'peacefully' only once, but incendiary words dozens of times, not to mention that his tweet 'stop the steal' incited the juggernaut of rage, as well. They were enraged because Trump told them that Democrats stole the election. A teaspoon of goodwill will not offset a truck load of ill will, which is the essential point to remember. One must ask, from where did there rage come? there is only one plausible answer to that question, it came from Donald Trump.

We shall see how the courts rule.

 

@Patricio Da Silva

"engaged in an insurrection?"

Please show us a picture of Trump walking around the Capitol on J6. Please show us pictures of any feds or undercover that were at the Capitol and actually engaged in an insurrection on J6.

 

Sweet so according to your logic all the red states can just refuse to qualify Biden?

 

This Hail Mary isn’t going to work lol

 

Until he's convicted of "insurrection and rebellion" he didn't participate in an insurrection.

 

If it does, Red states can bar Biden from the ballot.

 

IMO, and I am no legal expert.

It's hard to charge anyone with supporting, etc, an insurrection when there's been no charges or convictions of insurrection. Isn't it?

 

Your posts seem to be in contradiction.

Or you paint with a very large brush and it's not at all clear of the people you post about.

 

It isn't hard. It's impossible, legally, under our laws.

 

Engaged doesn't necessarily require physical presence, just involvement in the cause and continuance, factoring in 'giving aid and comfort to', in my opinion.

The video shows how it was Trump's tweet that Mike Pence betrayed him, that he wasn't going to do what Trump wanted him to do in order to save the country, and what happened next was that someone in the crowed read the tweet through a bullhorn, and that set the mob charging the capitol.

That suggests that he 'engaged' in the insurrection. now, on the point of whether or not it was an insurrection, on that point there is no doubt. There is no question that is wasn't an insurrection, for what happened on 1/6 fits the definition perfectly. There are counter arguments, and I've heard them but there are counter arguments to the counter arguments which will quell them. The video presents both arguments in great detail.

More detailed analysis: Here is the sequence of events that lit the fuse of the attack:

1. Trump tweeted about Mike Pence.
2. Someone in the crowd read the tweet through a bullhorn.
3. The mob charged the Capitol.

If we strictly go by the dictionary definition, Trump's tweet can be seen as a form of participation or involvement in the events of that day. However, whether this constitutes "engaging in the insurrection" is a matter of interpretation and would likely depend on the context in which the term is being used, as well as the intent and effect of the tweet.

In legal contexts, for instance, "engaging" might require a more direct involvement or a clear intent to incite or support the insurrection. In a political or public opinion context, the bar might be different. But we know that Trump conspired with a number of lawyers to overthrow the election, and this attack is being argued as part of the overall scheme, and that it adds to the 'engaging in an insurrection' claim.

Moreover, after all that, Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, held off from putting out a video for 3 hours after the attack began, and in the video he told them he loved them. In his campaigns he has promised to pardon them if he is elected president. That claim will give solace and comfort to those currently incarcerated. He ordered that the 'mags' (metal detectors) be taken down because he said (paraphrased) "I don't care if they are armed, they are not here to hurt me, so let them through (onto the ellipsis, as the folks with arms were not going to go through the detectors for fear their guns would be confiscated by the Secret Service, this was Hutchinson's testimony, nor has the SS denied her testimony) In his speech at the ellipsis, he mentioned 'peacefully' only once, but incendiary words dozens of times, not to mention that his tweet 'stop the steal' incited the juggernaut of rage, as well. They were enraged because Trump told them that Democrats stole the election. A teaspoon of goodwill will not offset a truck load of ill will, which is the essential point to remember. One must ask, from where did there rage come? there is only one plausible answer to that question, it came from Donald Trump.

I recommend watching both videos, they are long, but the issue is an important one, and both have risen the argument to it's pinnacle level, stuff I never imagined to consider in my opinion. The counter argument is very good, as well. But, I still find the plaintiff's argument more compelling, but that's just me.

We shall see how the courts rule.

Your 'feds' argument has long since been debunked.

 

It can't be done without a conviction. That is the only way the can decide correctly.

 

That's false. A number of confederates who sought office were denied because of their participation as rebels against the United State's constitution, and they weren't 'convicted'. Nor is any mention of 'conviction' required in section 3 of the 14th amendment.

 

It would help, but, legally, it's not required.

A number of confederates who sought office were denied because of their participation as rebels against the United State's constitution, and they weren't 'convicted'. Nor is any mention of 'conviction' required in section 3 of the 14th amendment.

 

I think sedition is pretty much another side of the same coin, and a number have already been convicted of that. Methinks the only reason Trump isn't being charged with 'insurrection' is that they want a speedy trial to be achieved before the election, and insurrection charge would greatly lengthen the trial, and that is the reason why he isn't charged.

But, legally speaking, a conviction isn't required. It would help, no doubt, but historically speaking, the precedent is already set that a conviction isn't required, looking at a couple of confederate rebels who sought office but were denied noting they were not convicted.

 

Trump didn't serve in the Confederate army.

 

How so? You never explain your wild claims, wild bill.

 

The Constitution requires a conviction to lose one's rights.

 

So? Nothing about 'being a member of the confederate army' is mentioned in the Constitution. Clearly, they targeted confederates, but wanted a broader interpretation possible.

 

They can say that Biden took bribes from foreign countries while he was president and call it treason, then bar him from the ballot.

According to you, an accusation is all that is needed to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Right?

 

No one has a right to be on any ballot.

the only time you have a right to be on a ballot, is AFTER YOU QUALIFY.

If you are disqualified, you have no right that the government can take away, so no due process is required.

However, if you believe you have been improperly disqualified, you can sue, and there you will have your day in court.

Capiche?