14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[keith]

I believe the argument is about this point as highlighted above, however. They are arguing whether he met the requirements of office-holding while committing an offense, not whether he meets the requirements of seeking a current office.

So, their argument is that Trump did not in fact take the oath of office (and was therefore not the President on January 6) when he committed his insurrectionist actions? So now he gets a pass against the 14th because he had not taken an oath?

[raison de arizona]

Since when tfg didn’t take an oath? I mean, there’s video and thousands of witnesses.

Also too he’s almost admitting that he incited it.

[bob]

Since when tfg didn’t take an oath?

All presidents take an oath; the argument is the president doesn't take an oath to "support" the U.S. Constitution. Yeah, sure, the president's oath suggests "support," but it doesn't literally say "support."

Relatedly, several arguments about the president not being an officer ultimately rest on the lack of an implied "other," i.e., the difference between "the president appoints officers" versus "the president appoints other officers." While in everyday usage this is a trivial difference, textualists give slavish attention to every word (or omission), i.e., "the Framers were genius demigods; of course the lack of 'other' was intentional and full of meaning. And not mere inadvertence due to time constraints, compromise, and drafting by committee."

[raison de arizona]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I dunno, seems to me that the oath is pretty clear, and that it was violated. Whether it uses the word "support" or not.

[AndyinPA]

Seems to me, you would support the U. S. Constitution by preserving, protecting, and defending it.

[Dave from down under]

Seems to me, you would support the U. S. Constitution by preserving, protecting, and defending it.

Ah
But you are not a would be dictator and all round sleeve bucket..

[Maybenaut]

Seems to me, you would support the U. S. Constitution by preserving, protecting, and defending it.

I think the judge said as much in a footnote (or maybe it was in the main body). Her point was that the oaths were different, which was just another data point for determining that the authors’ intent was different as it relates to the President. I think she also said that if the oaths were the same, she’d still say he wasn’t an officer for all of the other reasons she stated.

[bob]

Her point was that the oaths were different, which was just another data point for determining that the authors’ intent was different as it relates to the President.

Obviously, there's a difference between what the judge actually ruled and whether the judge's analysis was sound (or we would have ruled differently). I mean, we can't be birthers and ignore that the judge actually has made a decision; we may say, "I disagree" or "the judge made the wrong call."

The analysis is further complicated by the historical fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not draft the rest of the U.S. Constitution. We presume the amendment's authors were aware of the U.S. Constitution's text when they drafted the 14th Amendment. But inferring the amendment's authors' use of language different than that found in the U.S. Constitution ascribes an intentional motive when there might not be one. Is there secondary-source evidence to suggest the amendment's authors realized "support" did not match the U.S. Constitution's text, and they proceeded anyway? Or were they just sloppy? Or perhaps intentionally vague (to punt this question to a future generation)?

Canons of Construction presume there was one author for the entire text, which gives rise to inferences like "the exclusion of a word was intentional." But "some dudes who wrote new words after other dudes wrote words nearly a century earlier" doesn't instill the same level of confidence in intent.

[AndyinPA]

One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.

[sugar magnolia]

One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.

How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.

[Frater I*I]

How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.

The US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...

[qbawl]

How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.

The US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...

[much ado]

How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.

The US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...

Also, we have the second oldest constitution in the world that is still active.

Oldest Constitutions Still Being Used Today

San Marino (October, 1600)...
United States (June, 1788) ...
The Netherlands (March, 1814) ...
Norway (May, 1814) ...
Belgium (February, 1831) ...
Denmark (June, 1849) ...
Argentina (May, 1853) ...
Luxembourg (October, 1868)

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/old ... today.html

[keith]

It really depends on your definition of 'democracy'.

Some claim the USA is the oldest because we have the oldest continuous Constitution (except we don't). Britain has a much older Parliamentary system - but no Constitution (unless you count one of the several versions of the Magna Carta - which you can't). Why does the lack of a Constitution negate the idea of democracy? Did anciet Greece have a constitution?

Some say you can't count the USA because the US did not grant suffrage to black citizens until the 1865 or some such and women in the 1920's, while New Zealand granted suffrage to all citizens, male, female, black, white, whatever in 1893.

I really want to give the call to Iceland, but the Althing Parliament that was established in 900CE lost its legislative power for 620 years after union with Norway in 1260. After 1260 it still met except when it was suspended between 1800 and 1844. It regained legislative power in 1902. And the Althing was not established by a Constitution.

So sure, if you don’t take into account the voting rights of women and black people, the United States is the world’s oldest continuous democracy with a constitutional government - if you also discount the Most Serene Republic of San Marino.

(from Wikipedia) The current legal system of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino began on 8 October 1600. The government gave binding force to a compilation of Statuti written by Camillo Bonelli, covering the institutions and practices of Sammarinese government and justice at that time. It was written in Latin and contained in six books. The title in Latin is Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustris Reipublicae ac Perpetuae Libertatis Terrae Sancti Marini.

The new system was an update on the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) which had served San Marino from about 1300. Existing institutions, such as the Council of the Sixty, were carried forward from this period. The Statutes form the basis of all law in effect today, and so it may be the oldest constitution of any existing nation.

San Marino has a written Constitution that has been in continuous force since 1600. That Constitution replaced a written Constitution that had been in force since 1300.

San Marino has to be the 'winner' in that regard.

[northland10]

One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.

And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.

Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.

[Sam the Centipede]

And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.

Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.

Not so much what they believe it to mean as what they wish it to mean. Usually so they can control others. Rarely to limit their own behavior.

[realist]

The analysis is further complicated by the historical fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not draft the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

Which very few, in my experience, ever think about.

In fact, I just had this discussion on another forum with a friend of mine, who is an attorney, and he just didn't believe it, for some reason. No matter the evidence/proof of such. It's not exactly rocket surgery. No, he's not a MAGA, or even close. Several others in the discussion told me I was full of it. Go figger.

[pipistrelle]

Would the authors of the 14th be okay with, say, Jefferson Davis being elected president of the Union?

[bob]

Would the authors of the 14th be okay with, say, Jefferson Davis being elected president of the Union?

The answer to that question is "no."

The (implied) question the courts are grappling with is:

Did the authors of the 14th Amendment believe the already existing constitutional tools (i.e., Electoral College, impeachment) were sufficient, such that they did not mean to extend the 14th Amendment's disqualification section to the presidency?

[northland10]

And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.

Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.

Not so much what they believe it to mean as what they wish it to mean. Usually so they can control others. Rarely to limit their own behavior.

Point taken. And yes, for them it is about controlling others.

[raison de arizona]

Interesting thread at link: https://x.com/rparloff/status/1732573536022097975?s=20

Some reactions to today’s 2-hr oral argument before the Colo supreme court on whether to keep Trump off ballot as insurrectionist. I thought 2 of the 7 were leaning to disqualify, but the others I couldn't read. (All 7 were appointed by Democratic governors.) ...

If Trump wins, it won’t be on Judge Wallace’s grounds—that presidents aren’t covered by § 3 of 14th Am. Though I bent over backwards below to avoid calling those claims “absurd,” at least 2 justices were not as charitable ...
/2

[bob]

Because the primary ballot must be certified in a month, presumably SCOCO will move quickly.

[RTH10260]

Michigan court rejects challenges to Trump’s spot on 2024 primary ballot

By The Associated Press
Published: Dec. 15, 2023 at 12:12 AM CET|Updated: Dec. 15, 2023 at 1:34 AM CET

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Court of Appeals said Thursday it won’t stop former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot, turning aside challenges from critics who argue that his role in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualifies him.

The court affirmed two lower court rulings without determining whether Trump falls under the insurrection clause in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

“Who to place on the primary ballot is determined by the political parties and the individual candidates,” the appeals court said in a 3-0 opinion, citing Michigan law.

The court further said Trump’s possible spot on a general election ballot was not ripe for consideration.

[p0rtia]

Advance Sheet Headnote - Colorado Supreme Court. Dec. 19

Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 6.11.22 PM.png (161.35 KiB) Viewed 7123 times

[Greatgrey]

Full ruling, 213 pages

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf



And I like this comment