US Supreme Court officially asked to take up Trump’s 14th Amendment issue

HipKat

Administrator
Staff member
Colorado’s high court ruled Trump was disqualified from the ballot earlier this month.

The Colorado Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to reinstate Donald Trump on the primary ballot — officially dragging the nation’s top court into the fight over whether the former president can be legally barred from office.

The state Republican committee asked the court late Wednesday to overturn the ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court earlier this month, when it struck Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The court ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualifying him from the presidency under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment — but paused its ruling until the Supreme Court could weigh in.

The state GOP’s petition argues three points: The office of the presidency is not covered by the 14th Amendment, the insurrection clause is not “self-executing” — meaning Congress alone must enforce it, and states cannot make that determination on their own — and that by kicking Trump off the primary ballot, the state Republican Party’s First Amendment rights of association have been violated.

The party is represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian law group. Jay Sekulow, who defended Trump during his first impeachment trial, is the organization’s chief counsel.

The Colorado court’s decision earlier this month to bar Trump from the ballot was a landmark one, supercharging the legal efforts to have Trump barred from office, which has been pushed by a strange bedfellows group of liberal activists and conservative judicial scholars.Their argument rests on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War to stop former Confederates from holding office. The amendment reads that those “having previously taken an oath” to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. cannot hold public office.

Trump’s legal team has maintained he did not engage in the insurrection in the first place. But they’ve also added that, because of the wording of the amendment, it does not apply to the office of the presidency.

So far, Colorado’s top court is the only one in the country to find Trump ineligible to run. Other state Supreme Courts — like Minnesota in November and Michigan on Wednesday — have effectively punted on the issue, allowing Trump to appear on states’ primary ballots while leaving the door open for further challenges for his general election eligibility.

The justices in the majority in the 4-3 ruling in Colorado noted that they were treading on unfamiliar territory at the time, but ultimately found Trump was culpable for the violence at the U.S. Capitol more than two years ago.

“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it,” the majority wrote. “These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have any set timeline for when — or if — they must take up the case. But many legal experts have urged the court to weigh in expediently, as to resolve the issue as far in advance of the 2024 election as possible.

The Colorado court also noted that it anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue. “We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression,” the majority wrote.

The state Supreme Court said an appeal would automatically continue its pause, and election officials there “will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

The Colorado GOP’s appeal this week means Trump will almost assuredly appear on the primary ballot in the state, unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues an incredibly expedient decision. Election officials in the state need to certify the primary ballot by Jan. 5, in order to have time to print and send mail ballots for its March 5 primary.

Both the state GOP and the group of voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility — who are backed by the liberal government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, one of the major drivers behind the 14th Amendment challenges — have asked the Supreme Court to expedite review of the case, should the justices take it up, with the primary calendar fast approaching.

The Court should hear and decide the case on the merits in “an accelerated basis to reduce voter confusion and ensure that primary voters cast their vote knowing whether Trump is disqualified from the Presidency,” the voters’ attorneys wrote in a motion to the court filed on Thursday, asking for oral arguments in the case for mid-January.
 
I've been thinking about this. I actually think Trump and his crazies want this, the good news is it may backfire. The bad news is it may work. Frankly I wish he'd just go away. Now before someone ignores that last sentence, and thinks I am pro Trump, I do think he actually is using these challenges by various states to garner up some sort of persecution narrative. He then can compare himself to Lincoln (because he is that delusional) and rally the base. Especially if he can keep these challenges to states he knows he'd lose anyway. IF it works he can rally his base. That's the bad news. The good news is that there's a major chance this blows up. Its an interesting strategy by him and I am interested and fearful of where it may be going.
 
This ordeal is bigger than Trump. If the SCOTUS lets this stand then expect to see this kind of buffoonery every election cycle.
 
This ordeal is bigger than Trump. If the SCOTUS lets this stand then expect to see this kind of buffoonery every election cycle.
This is the problem with all; this Trump stuff. It's setting precedence for future elections and creating an environment for more corruption that new have already
 
This is the problem with all; this Trump stuff. It's setting precedence for future elections and creating an environment for more corruption that new have already

That corruption has been here all along. It was staying on the downlow until Trump came along are started agitating it.
 
This is the problem with all; this Trump stuff. It's setting precedence for future elections and creating an environment for more corruption that new have already
I agree. Trump did incalculable damage to this country and continues to do so. Worse, I cannot trust the court to do what is wise. After all, these are the same people who not too long ago gave us Citizens United and Bush v Gore.

I just can't see how we the people win in this. On the one hand, Trump broke all sorts of laws. As such, the 14th Amendment argument is sufficiently strong to bar him from running again. Hey, when he said he was going to march together with those at the capitol and the army was so slow in being assembled as were various law enforcement agents to ensure order, he was clearly looking like he was attempting an insurrection. If we don't send a very clear message that this will not be tolerated, someone with slightly more intelligence will try this again, and might just succeed.

On the other hand, if he is removed from the ballots we risk becoming what we accuse Putin's Russia of being. A state where those in power can use laws and legal precedent to keep their biggest rivals from appearing on the ballot.

So we need to be very careful with where we go here. Yes, nobody in this country should be above the law. I mean fucking ever. On the other hand, the law must not be used to promote the interests of those in office.

Ideally, and hopefully, the courts will be extremely specific in their ruling to ensure that nobody can be above the law but will also be very sure to make very clear that people cannot be kept off the ballot unless an extreme, expressed, and clear threshhold has been passed. I do not want Trump to hold office, but I don't want a Putinesque situation set up where a guy can be Navalnyed.

Honestly, the best thing the court can do would be to say the court has no standing because Trump has never been convicted for treason following the rules established by the constitution. However, they should -in ruling this- send a very clear message that no politician should deem himself above the law.

Yeah. This is so complex and honestly I just don't see how we the people of this country win.
 
The US Supreme Court has to weigh in and settle this otherwise it will be a state by state mess.

Good use of the court’s time.
 
Obviously, the SC will shoot this nonsense down as unconstitutional and then the democrats will ignore the opinion and start calling for packing the courts and use it as an agenda issue in the election. Democrats will tear our Constitution apart and burn it the first chance they get. They hate our country and want 100% rule over the people. Its absolutely amazing to me the amount of people who are willing to give up our freedoms for government rule.
 
Obviously, the SC will shoot this nonsense down as unconstitutional and then the democrats will ignore the opinion and start calling for packing the courts and use it as an agenda issue in the election. Democrats will tear our Constitution apart and burn it the first chance they get. They hate our country and want 100% rule over the people. Its absolutely amazing to me the amount of people who are willing to give up our freedoms for government rule.
Is it Democrats tearing the Constitution apart when it's Republicans who are threatening to nullify Democrat votes?
 
I would like to post here, in an intelligent manner, what I did at the other place. I think Trump is going to be able to do an end run around the constitution because orange ass was never convicted of treason in any court except that of public opinion. He was impeached for it, he sure as shit looked like he was engaged in it especially on January 6 but he was never convicted of it and my guess is that the courts rule this way because they will say in this country that you must first be convicted. Otherwise, any asshole with a grudge against another asshole (because unless your name is Jimmy Carter you have to be an asshole to seek elected office) will just say their foe committed treason and get them taken off the ballot. That is why I think the court will rule for Trump. If only one or two of these state or federal courts had convicted his ass of treason it would clearly be an open and shut case and he'd be inelligible to run.

What we have here is akin to a rapist, we have the sob on tape saying how he was gonna fuck the victim, video of him fucking the victim, dna from his semen, a woman who can describe in horrific detail the shape of his junk, but because of some god damned tedious little procedural error by the police and/or prosecution the fucker is gonna walk with a disgusting smirk on his face like well Donald Trump. Therein is why I think Trump gets off. I hope against hope that I am wrong, but I fear I am not
 
Back
Top