General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsColorado judge rules Trump 'engaged in insurrection' -- but can still run for president
We cannot count on the courts to protect us from TFG. We need to defeat TFG at the ballot box and not count on the courts/14th Amendment to save us from a TFG second term. If TFG is re-elected there will be no further elections
Link to tweet
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rules-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-can-still-run-for-president-00127909
The ruling came in a case brought by progressive activists who sued the state, arguing that Trump was barred from returning to the office. A handful of courts in other states turned away similar challenges.
The case in Colorado was brought by the liberal government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW argued that Trump is ineligible to run because of a clause in the 14th Amendment, which reads that those who took an oath to defend the Constitution and then have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof are ineligible
The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trumps speech. But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesnt apply to Trump.
ALBliberal
(2,346 posts)Thanks for the article though.
Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Original post)
WarGamer This message was self-deleted by its author.
VeryProgressive
(27 posts)Does she explain how she came to the conclusion that this 14th Amendment section doesn't apply to the President? Such an exemption doesn't exist in the 14th amendment explicitly nor implied. This is bullshit reasoning.
bullimiami
(13,105 posts)Bludogdem
(93 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,021 posts)But apparently the laws of homicide don't apply.
This land has lost its marbles.
Silent Type
(3,004 posts)or close to it. Next time it might be a Democrat or some guy who was protesting.
The so-called progressive activists who file the complaint arent speaking for me.
Beat him in the ultimate court, the polls.
This is a puke argument.
Silent Type
(3,004 posts)A stunt like this 14th Amendment BS, aint democratic. In fact, its more a puke tactic.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Noted.
TSExile
(2,492 posts)These are the cowards who are paid with our tax dollars. Good grief.
TheBlackAdder
(28,226 posts)RANDYWILDMAN
(2,678 posts)he was never for one second that person but he did incite violence against the US and the voters of several states deserve better a lot better !
DemocratInPa
(357 posts)The ruling is very clear and her explanation follows the law.
I hate DT more than anyone, but it was always a pipe dream thinking he was going to ve removed from ballot in any state.
EndlessWire
(6,573 posts)insurrectionist, a rapist, a fraudster, a cheater, a mobster...but still qualified for the Presidency? Scant comfort...judge really reached for that one. As long as you didn't pledge allegiance to the Constitution, you can do what you want. Gee, that makes sense. We need to change the oath of office that the President takes.
Chickenshit judiciary...and he's going to cheat at the polls, so we don't have a lot to look forward to in 2024. I'm still rooting for the prosecutors and judges, but no longer expecting anything.
Of all the things he did, the stealing of our nation's secrets, strewn about his toilets, stages, and floors, is the thing that angers me the most--not that creating an insurrection is a small thing. but I just find the betrayal stunning.
And, why didn't Ginny Thomas get named as a co-conspirator? That's a lapse in justice, too.
Takket
(21,640 posts)I honestly don't object to him being allowed on a PRIMARY ballot. If the rethugs are fucking stupid enough to nominate him that is really their business.
But the next logical step to me is that his status on the general election ballot should be challenged, and he should NOT be allowed on that ballot. But using these decisions as a precedent now, I doubt any judge would agree to that, and THAT is wrong.
GuppyGal
(1,748 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,646 posts)Initech
(100,107 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,646 posts)republianmushroom
(13,727 posts)The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trumps speech. But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesnt apply to Trump.
Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig explain why the Colorado 14th Amendment decision is wrong
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218464807
Link to tweet
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1725899300801016048%7Ctwgr%5E29e88385a5c3a4c120b8756d1d397fb5ab798bb6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F100218464807