 
     |
| Colorado (Page 4/11) |
|
cliffw
|
DEC 21, 08:08 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
FIRST I am not aware you have any rights to decide who gets to say what ...
|
|
Yet you have a right to spout nonsense,  ?
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
DEC 21, 09:42 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Yet you have a right to spout nonsense, ? |
|
Of course he does, the MSM and others do it all the time!
We do have the right to be wrong.....and a few on here exercise that right vigorously!
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
DEC 21, 09:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 21, 10:37 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
It's a surprising decision... and I think you know why. Trump hasn't actually been convicted of anything, and you can't justifiably say he meets the requirements per the 14th amendment if he has not yet been convicted of anything. It very obviously won't stand and will get overturned by the Supreme Court. What it does show though is that the justices in Colorado seem to not really understand how to do their job.
But to be honest, I'm glad that Democrats are doing this... it's making people realize where the threat really is. Biden's polling continues to tank, and I think Democrats are terrified of another Trump administration and what they might end up doing to Democrats. This is all the more reason why we need another Trump administration... |
|
If you read the court's actual opinion, they get into exactly this. The lower court and state's Supreme Court agree that Trump reached the threshold of insurrection as written. They claim that it is subject to judicial determination outside of criminal court, primarily because as the amendments were written, it was not actually a crime to perform insurrection in the first place. They provide multiple examples of why this holds true. They outline that while Congress has now criminalized insurrection, it is not the only way to determine if someone has performed insurrection under Section 3, only that they would be performing a criminal act and be held to Section 3.
I am not a legal scholar and don't really have an opinion to the above. What I find most interesting, is that Trump's lawyers didn't even really argue that point. They argued that Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution, only to uphold the Constitution. On that, I do have an opinion... I think he needs new lawyers.
Edit: Link to the actual opinion. Just CTRL+F "insurrection" and you can find those notes. Page 59/60 is when it actually starts getting into it more.[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 12-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
DEC 21, 09:02 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
If you read the court's actual opinion, they get into exactly this. The lower court and state's Supreme Court agree that Trump reached the threshold of insurrection as written. They claim that it is subject to judicial determination outside of criminal court, primarily because as the amendments were written, it was not actually a crime to perform insurrection in the first place. They provide multiple examples of why this holds true. They outline that while Congress has now criminalized insurrection, it is not the only way to determine if someone has performed insurrection under Section 3, only that they would be performing a criminal act and be held to Section 3.
I am not a legal scholar and don't really have an opinion to the above. What I find most interesting, is that Trump's lawyers didn't even really argue that point. They argued that Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution, only to uphold the Constitution. On that, I do have an opinion... I think he needs new lawyers.
Edit: Link to the actual opinion. Just CTRL+F "insurrection" and you can find those notes. Page 59/60 is when it actually starts getting into it more. |
|
I DO have a law degree, but the whole thing seemed so absurd to me that I had no (nor have any) real interest in reading the opinion BECAUSE of one very specific clause in the 14th Amendment: https://constitution.congre...tution/amendment-14/
Section 5: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Law is often written to be intentionally vague... politicians and lawyers love this because it means the law can be manipulated or... massaged to fit different edge-cases. But when a law is specifically clear-cut (as this one is), then there's no misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what it means. It specifically says here that Congress has the power to enforce THROUGH LEGISLATION, all other sections of the 14th Amendment. What this means is... the House would have needed to pass a law officially banning Trump from being allowed to run for office. The Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to "enact" legislation on behalf of the Federal Congress.
In our Common Law system, we base things on precedent... and this isn't the first time Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used. In the past, they tried to eliminate a judge in Texas, but determined that the Amendment itself wasn't sufficient, so they had to pass a law in order to do it. I'm sure Colorado, if they even bothered to make an effort, probably addressed this... but you can't argue with written law, and precedent has largely already been set. So I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this... and I expect at least one liberal judge to join in too.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 21, 09:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
If you read the court's actual opinion, they get into exactly this. The lower court and state's Supreme Court agree that Trump reached the threshold of insurrection as written. They claim that it is subject to judicial determination outside of criminal court, primarily because as the amendments were written, it was not actually a crime to perform insurrection in the first place. They provide multiple examples of why this holds true. They outline that while Congress has now criminalized insurrection, it is not the only way to determine if someone has performed insurrection under Section 3, only that they would be performing a criminal act and be held to Section 3.
I am not a legal scholar and don't really have an opinion to the above. What I find most interesting, is that Trump's lawyers didn't even really argue that point. They argued that Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution, only to uphold the Constitution. On that, I do have an opinion... I think he needs new lawyers.
Edit: Link to the actual opinion. Just CTRL+F "insurrection" and you can find those notes. Page 59/60 is when it actually starts getting into it more.
|
|
Is it your raging TDS or just ignorance of law that prevents you from acknowledging the real relevant portions of that opinion?
Especially the part where the Leftist chuckleheads essentially say; " we could actually be dead wrong about all of our wishful bullshit":
.
Since I'm such a generous guy this Christmas season I'll help you out:
"First impression is a new legal issue or interpretation that is brought before a court. In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court's jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter. In Fiore v. White, 562 Pa. 634, it was held that “a case of first impression is one that presents an ‘entirely novel question of law’, which ‘cannot be governed by any existing precedent".[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
DEC 21, 10:16 PM
|
|
the civil war is the existing precedent
people were banned from running
without a trial
or even a conviction [for being a tourist or other crimes ]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 21, 11:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I DO have a law degree, but the whole thing seemed so absurd to me that I had no (nor have any) real interest in reading the opinion BECAUSE of one very specific clause in the 14th Amendment: https://constitution.congre...tution/amendment-14/
Section 5: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Law is often written to be intentionally vague... politicians and lawyers love this because it means the law can be manipulated or... massaged to fit different edge-cases. But when a law is specifically clear-cut (as this one is), then there's no misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what it means. It specifically says here that Congress has the power to enforce THROUGH LEGISLATION, all other sections of the 14th Amendment. What this means is... the House would have needed to pass a law officially banning Trump from being allowed to run for office. The Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to "enact" legislation on behalf of the Federal Congress.
In our Common Law system, we base things on precedent... and this isn't the first time Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used. In the past, they tried to eliminate a judge in Texas, but determined that the Amendment itself wasn't sufficient, so they had to pass a law in order to do it. I'm sure Colorado, if they even bothered to make an effort, probably addressed this... but you can't argue with written law, and precedent has largely already been set. So I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this... and I expect at least one liberal judge to join in too. |
|
I find it most interesting how what I’d think of as the clearest defenses weren’t (to my knowledge) attempted by Trump’s team. I can’t really argue with what you said at all.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 21, 11:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Is it your raging TDS or just ignorance of law that prevents you from acknowledging the real relevant portions of that opinion?
Especially the part where the Leftist chuckleheads essentially say; " we could actually be dead wrong about all of our wishful bullshit":
.
Since I'm such a generous guy this Christmas season I'll help you out:
"First impression is a new legal issue or interpretation that is brought before a court. In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court's jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter. In Fiore v. White, 562 Pa. 634, it was held that “a case of first impression is one that presents an ‘entirely novel question of law’, which ‘cannot be governed by any existing precedent".
|
|
As a layman, there are a lot of interesting components to their opinion; I don’t know how to interpret it all and don’t pretend to. But I can read well enough to know that literally nothing in your comment changes any of my comment. Did you read my comment or just see my name and decide to rant about leftists again?
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
DEC 21, 11:52 PM
|
|
|
delete.... adding to my other post since it's on the new page. [This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 12-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|