Technically you vote for a slate of electors, not the candidate, yes? Barring faithless elector laws electors can vote for whoever they want, yes? So what's to stop, in the event that multiple states exclude Trump from having a slate on the ballot, the GOP putting up a slate of Loyal Citizens Who Will Use Their Judgement To Choose The Best Candidate Who Might Just Happen To Be Donald J Trump?
The Colorado Supreme Court seems to have carefully chosen its cited precedents. From p. 32:
As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”
For the record, Hassan v. Colorado involved a naturalized citizen wanting to be included on Colorado's presidential ballot despite his Constitutional ineligibility to hold the office of President.
Technically you vote for a slate of electors, not the candidate, yes? Barring faithless elector laws electors can vote for whoever they want, yes? So what's to stop, in the event that multiple states exclude Trump from having a slate on the ballot, the GOP putting up a slate of Loyal Citizens Who Will Use Their Judgement To Choose The Best Candidate Who Might Just Happen To Be Donald J Trump?
The Colorado Supreme Court deals with this question on p. 31.
But voters no longer choose between slates of electors on Election Day. Chiafalo, 140 S. Ct. at 2321. Instead, they vote for presidential candidates who serve as proxies for their pledged electors. Id.Accordingly, states exercise their plenary appointment power not only to regulate the electors themselves, but also to regulate candidate access to presidential ballots. Absent a separate constitutional constraint, then, states may exercise their plenary appointment power to limit presidential ballot access to those candidates who are constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President. And nothing in the U.S. Constitution expressly precludes states from limiting access to the presidential ballot to such candidates. See Lindsay v. Bowen, 750 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).
Technically you vote for a slate of electors, not the candidate, yes? Barring faithless elector laws electors can vote for whoever they want, yes? So what's to stop, in the event that multiple states exclude Trump from having a slate on the ballot, the GOP putting up a slate of Loyal Citizens Who Will Use Their Judgement To Choose The Best Candidate Who Might Just Happen To Be Donald J Trump?
Aside from what @Crœsos said, in primaries, you’re voting for candidates, not slates of electors. If a candidate can’t appear on a state’s primary ballot, that candidate can’t get delegates from that state, and that state’s delegates go to another candidate, or is some cases, other delegates. If that happens in enough states, then the barred candidate may not be able to get their party’s nomination.
I have to say that I hear the sound of the constitutional crisis train hurtling down the track if this judgement stands (though on the face of it it probably should).
I have to say that I hear the sound of the constitutional crisis train hurtling down the track if this judgement stands (though on the face of it it probably should).
It's only a Constitutional crisis if enough powerful actors decide that certain parts of the Constitution (like the Fourteenth Amendment) don't apply to them. Of course American conservatives have always hated the Reconstruction Amendments anyway, so maybe they'll take this as another opportunity to render another section of them a dead letter.
But seriously, is "how much insurrection is too much insurrection?" really a question Republicans want to debate in detail at this point? I guess it is, given some of the arguments being advanced in this and similar cases.
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
There's that. Then there's the fake elector scheme. Plus continuing to lobby states to overturn their election results long after they were finalized. (Remember the Raffensperger call?) I could go on.
It should be noted that none of the former leaders of the Confederacy were "actually convicted of insurrection" either, but no one doubts that they were disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plus extensive witness testmony of his actions and omissions. FWIW none of the Confederate leaders or generals were ever formally charged though all were disenfranchised and re-enfranchised by subsequent Amnesty Acts. The Amnesty Act which benefitted former Confederate VP Alexander Stephens was passed in 1872.
This would become a constitutional crisis only if the US Supreme Court decides to nullify the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
The Colorado court did agree that the President is a federal officer. I do not see SCOTUS denying that. About the only question remaining is does he have to be convicted of insurrection related crimes before the amendment applies.
This just in, The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that Trump is ineligible to be on the state presidential ballot This, of course, will go to the US Supreme Court.
Based on what happened in January 2021, this was a logical verdict.
States control who can be on their ballots. If a state denies Trump's eligibility he will not be able to use their delegates in gaining the nomination in the primary election. If he gets the nomination anyway, he will not be able to receive any electors.
It is not only one state, here, but other states can also deny his eligibility to be on their ballot. Suits can be filed using the Colorado court's findings as part of their arguments.
While I do not think Biden will use the court's findings in his campaign against Trump, a number of Democratic PACS could use it in their ads.
States control who can be on their ballots. If a state denies Trump's eligibility he will not be able to use their delegates in gaining the nomination in the primary election.
Which may not matter. I believe the Colorado Republican Party is discussing whether to have a party convention to choose delegates instead of a primary if Trump is kept off the primary ballot.
It is not only one state, here, but other states can also deny his eligibility to be on their ballot. Suits can be filed using the Colorado court's findings as part of their arguments.
Evidence presented in the Colorado case cannot be used as evidence in cases in other states unless all the parties agree to that, which almost certainly won’t happen. And as the mechanics of ballot access is a matter of state law, the relevant laws at play can vary from state to state. (Two of the three dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court case were about state law, not about the Fourteenth Amendment.)
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
There was recently a court--possibly the lowest Colorado court, I can't recall--that did in fact rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection (so, they established this as a fact) but then did not go on to draw any legal conclusions from that fact. It is possible to have legal findings (apparently even ones that would normally draw criminal consequences) established without going further--in that court, at least.
But it would allow another court to build on that finding.
Another case in point--
Trump publicly (again, again, again) denied "raping" E. Jean Carroll, at which point the judge who found him guilty of sexual abuse spoke up and said, "You know, in the common use of the term, what you did WAS rape" or words to that effect. And this, too, might be built upon--for instance, if she decided to sue him yet again for denying what he did to her.
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
There was recently a court--possibly the lowest Colorado court, I can't recall--that did in fact rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection (so, they established this as a fact) but then did not go on to draw any legal conclusions from that fact. It is possible to have legal findings (apparently even ones that would normally draw criminal consequences) established without going further--in that court, at least.
But it would allow another court to build on that finding.
Yes. The lower court ruled on the fact, and higher courts tend to respect lower courts' factual rulings and concern themselves instead with how the law applies to those facts.
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
There was recently a court--possibly the lowest Colorado court, I can't recall--that did in fact rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection (so, they established this as a fact) but then did not go on to draw any legal conclusions from that fact. It is possible to have legal findings (apparently even ones that would normally draw criminal consequences) established without going further--in that court, at least.
But it would allow another court to build on that finding.
Another case in point--
Trump publicly (again, again, again) denied "raping" E. Jean Carroll, at which point the judge who found him guilty of sexual abuse spoke up and said, "You know, in the common use of the term, what you did WAS rape" or words to that effect. And this, too, might be built upon--for instance, if she decided to sue him yet again for denying what he did to her.
Now this is very good. And a couple of links would be, then we can legally say in answer to the first question of the thread, 'An insurrectionist and a rapist'.
Legally speaking, given that Trump has never been actually convicted of insurrection, what exactly qualifies him as an insurrectionist? Is it simply the public comments he made during the events of 1/6?
There was recently a court--possibly the lowest Colorado court, I can't recall--that did in fact rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection (so, they established this as a fact) but then did not go on to draw any legal conclusions from that fact. It is possible to have legal findings (apparently even ones that would normally draw criminal consequences) established without going further--in that court, at least.
But it would allow another court to build on that finding.
Yes. The lower court ruled on the fact, and higher courts tend to respect lower courts' factual rulings and concern themselves instead with how the law applies to those facts.
Generally (there are exceptions), appellate courts are bound by a trial court’s factual findings so long as those findings are supported by competent evidence.
The trial court in the Colorado case held an evidentiary hearing. It also received portions of the January 6 report into evidence, which was challenged as inadmissible hearsay. The Colorado Supreme Court went through the trial court’s factual findings, and addressed the hearsay arguments, and upheld the trial court’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He has not been convicted by a jury. I think the court, though, is implying there is enough evidence to convict him. While Trump has never been convicted of felony rape, he has lost at least one civil trial where he was ordered to pay X amount of dollars for rape.
To clarify, she couldn't say absolutely whether it had been his penis or finger that penetrated her, and apparently that makes a difference to the technical language of the charge filed in that state. But in common understanding, the judge said, it was rape. And since this was a civil defamation case and not a criminal rape trial, he praying a fine and not going to jail.
He has not been convicted by a jury. I think the court, though, is implying there is enough evidence to convict him.
No, the court isn’t implying that all, because the standards of proof are different. The Colorado court was dealing with a civil case, in which the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”—more likely than not. In a criminal case, high is the only kind of case that can yield a “conviction,” the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the evidence is such that no reasonable person could doubt the defendant’s guilt.
One of the dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court is based on the argument that because Trump has not been convicted of insurrection (which is correct), removing him from the ballot is a denial of due process in that it treats him as criminally guilty.
One of the dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court is based on the argument that because Trump has not been convicted of insurrection (which is correct), removing him from the ballot is a denial of due process in that it treats him as criminally guilty.
This seems specious for a few reasons. First, people are frequently kept off ballots for non-criminal reasons (age, citizenship status, residency). Second, running for or holding public office is not a "right" anyone is entitled to. (For some reason the "we're a republic, not a democracy" crowd is pretty quiet on this.) Third, the historical record indicates that a criminal conviction is not necessary for section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to be applied.
One of the dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court is based on the argument that because Trump has not been convicted of insurrection (which is correct), removing him from the ballot is a denial of due process in that it treats him as criminally guilty.
This seems specious for a few reasons. First, people are frequently kept off ballots for non-criminal reasons (age, citizenship status, residency). Second, running for or holding public office is not a "right" anyone is entitled to. (For some reason the "we're a republic, not a democracy" crowd is pretty quiet on this.) Third, the historical record indicates that a criminal conviction is not necessary for section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to be applied.
I don’t find it a persuasive argument either, not least because the Due Process Clause protects against deprivation of “life, liberty or property” without due process of law, and none of those are implicated in the case of getting on the ballot. Then, as you note, there’s the historical record.
But it is an argument being made, and it’s an argument that at least one Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court found persuasive. And it’s one example of how a court could decide a case like this and avoid either explicitly finding that Trump did or didn’t engage in an insurrection and/or avoid removing him from the ballot. The Colorado trial court illustrates another—while the trial judge did find that Trump engaged in an insurrection, he also held that the presidency isn’t an “office” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (FWIW, I don’t find that argument persuasive either, but the trial court apparently did.)
The Washington State Secretary of State has come out saying our laws require him to post all names submitted for the primary ballot by 9 January provided they meet the minimum requirements. Then, if anyone wants to challenge a candidate's name, they are welcome to do so.
Boy, I wish I have the means to join a challenge on you know who.
The Washington State Secretary of State has come out saying our laws require him to post all names submitted for the primary ballot by 9 January provided they meet the minimum requirements. Then, if anyone wants to challenge a candidate's name, they are welcome to do so.
Boy, I wish I have the means to join a challenge on you know who.
I think you and I are reading Gramps post differently, @Martin54.
I read Boy, I wish I have the means to join a challenge on you know who. as a throwaway comment and Stay tuned as referring to the first paragraph.
It makes perfect sense to me, though I can see if you read Stay tuned as referring to waiting for Gramps to have the means to join a challenge it might seem absurd.
On too one of Trump's favorite excuses. Seems like whenever his cronies get into trouble or he gets into trouble, he gaslights, saying he does not know the cronie, or talked to him/her or he nevers said this or did that.
So what is he doing now, when people are comparing his comments about immigrants polluting American bloodlines to comments Hitler made about the Jews (just switch one word and it is the exact comment)? He claims he has never read Mein Kompf and never knew Hitler said such things.
My response in three words: "Oh, Come On."
The pollution comments are getting him into trouble, maybe not in Iowa, but definitely in New Hampshire.
My prediction: a certain "'uge star" is about to burn out and implode on itself.
It would be convincing if his wife Ivana Trump hadn’t told a journalist he kept a copy of Mein Kampf by his bed, thirty years ago - a report he apparently didn’t sue over at the time. (I knew about this, and went googling for it - my link says this has resurfaced now - but I am sure I read or watched about it when he was running for office the first time. I also saw video of him talking about how he believes in “racehorse genetics” i.e. eugenics.)
It would be convincing if his wife Ivana Trump hadn’t told a journalist he kept a copy of Mein Kampf by his bed, thirty years ago - a report he apparently didn’t sue over at the time.
According to an article in last week's Independent, summarizing the Vanity Fair article from 1990, Trump himself admitted to having a copy of what he called "Mein Kampf", saying that it had been given to him by a Jewish friend. The friend is also quoted as saying that was true, and that he'd given it to Trump because he thought he'd find it "interesting", but that it was a collection of speeches, not Mein Kampf, and that he's not Jewish. Ivanka's main contribution seems to have been the detail about the book being in "a cabinet by his bedside", as paraphrased by Vanity Fair.
So, I think the most we can conclude is that Trump did own a copy of Hitler's speeches, but probably hadn't gone out looking for it, and didn't read it enough to remember which book it was. As for Ivanka's detail about where he kept it, Vanity Fair paraphrases it as a "cabinet by his bed". If it was the kind of cabinet where you stash alot of random stuff, I wouldn't read too much into that.
I know "Some of my best friends are..." doesn't prove much, but I don't think someone who subscribed to Hitler's literal views on race would be cool with his daughter marrying a Jewish guy. I don't doubt that Trump holds ethnonationalist opinions, possibly of a biologically determinist sort, though I doubt he's a systemic enough thinker to bother reading the original source theory. If he was gonna read things like that with any serious attention, I think it would more likely be something addressing contemporary American issues. Steve Bannon seems a more likely inspiration for Trump's "poisoning our blood" speech than Hitler.
I would be interested to know if the phrase is in the book of speeches, but not sufficiently interested to read them. I am hoping a journalist will check.
Comments
To the exclusion. 25 states have the question before the courts as to whether Trump can be on their ballots.
Technically you vote for a slate of electors, not the candidate, yes? Barring faithless elector laws electors can vote for whoever they want, yes? So what's to stop, in the event that multiple states exclude Trump from having a slate on the ballot, the GOP putting up a slate of Loyal Citizens Who Will Use Their Judgement To Choose The Best Candidate Who Might Just Happen To Be Donald J Trump?
For the record, Hassan v. Colorado involved a naturalized citizen wanting to be included on Colorado's presidential ballot despite his Constitutional ineligibility to hold the office of President.
The Colorado Supreme Court deals with this question on p. 31.
Italics from the original. Bolding added by me.
It's only a Constitutional crisis if enough powerful actors decide that certain parts of the Constitution (like the Fourteenth Amendment) don't apply to them. Of course American conservatives have always hated the Reconstruction Amendments anyway, so maybe they'll take this as another opportunity to render another section of them a dead letter.
There's that. Then there's the fake elector scheme. Plus continuing to lobby states to overturn their election results long after they were finalized. (Remember the Raffensperger call?) I could go on.
It should be noted that none of the former leaders of the Confederacy were "actually convicted of insurrection" either, but no one doubts that they were disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Colorado court did agree that the President is a federal officer. I do not see SCOTUS denying that. About the only question remaining is does he have to be convicted of insurrection related crimes before the amendment applies.
Based on what happened in January 2021, this was a logical verdict.
It is not only one state, here, but other states can also deny his eligibility to be on their ballot. Suits can be filed using the Colorado court's findings as part of their arguments.
While I do not think Biden will use the court's findings in his campaign against Trump, a number of Democratic PACS could use it in their ads.
Evidence presented in the Colorado case cannot be used as evidence in cases in other states unless all the parties agree to that, which almost certainly won’t happen. And as the mechanics of ballot access is a matter of state law, the relevant laws at play can vary from state to state. (Two of the three dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court case were about state law, not about the Fourteenth Amendment.)
There was recently a court--possibly the lowest Colorado court, I can't recall--that did in fact rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection (so, they established this as a fact) but then did not go on to draw any legal conclusions from that fact. It is possible to have legal findings (apparently even ones that would normally draw criminal consequences) established without going further--in that court, at least.
But it would allow another court to build on that finding.
Another case in point--
Trump publicly (again, again, again) denied "raping" E. Jean Carroll, at which point the judge who found him guilty of sexual abuse spoke up and said, "You know, in the common use of the term, what you did WAS rape" or words to that effect. And this, too, might be built upon--for instance, if she decided to sue him yet again for denying what he did to her.
Yes. The lower court ruled on the fact, and higher courts tend to respect lower courts' factual rulings and concern themselves instead with how the law applies to those facts.
Now this is very good. And a couple of links would be, then we can legally say in answer to the first question of the thread, 'An insurrectionist and a rapist'.
The trial court in the Colorado case held an evidentiary hearing. It also received portions of the January 6 report into evidence, which was challenged as inadmissible hearsay. The Colorado Supreme Court went through the trial court’s factual findings, and addressed the hearsay arguments, and upheld the trial court’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I hope this is right.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict
One of the dissents in the Colorado Supreme Court is based on the argument that because Trump has not been convicted of insurrection (which is correct), removing him from the ballot is a denial of due process in that it treats him as criminally guilty.
This seems specious for a few reasons. First, people are frequently kept off ballots for non-criminal reasons (age, citizenship status, residency). Second, running for or holding public office is not a "right" anyone is entitled to. (For some reason the "we're a republic, not a democracy" crowd is pretty quiet on this.) Third, the historical record indicates that a criminal conviction is not necessary for section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to be applied.
But it is an argument being made, and it’s an argument that at least one Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court found persuasive. And it’s one example of how a court could decide a case like this and avoid either explicitly finding that Trump did or didn’t engage in an insurrection and/or avoid removing him from the ballot. The Colorado trial court illustrates another—while the trial judge did find that Trump engaged in an insurrection, he also held that the presidency isn’t an “office” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (FWIW, I don’t find that argument persuasive either, but the trial court apparently did.)
Boy, I wish I have the means to join a challenge on you know who.
Stay tuned.
To what? For 18 days?
I do realise that @North East Quine. But it stretches the saying to absurdity. It's not as if we will, it would be a waste of attention, of a channel.
I read Boy, I wish I have the means to join a challenge on you know who. as a throwaway comment and Stay tuned as referring to the first paragraph.
It makes perfect sense to me, though I can see if you read Stay tuned as referring to waiting for Gramps to have the means to join a challenge it might seem absurd.
But I am really stretching to see the absurdity.
So what is he doing now, when people are comparing his comments about immigrants polluting American bloodlines to comments Hitler made about the Jews (just switch one word and it is the exact comment)? He claims he has never read Mein Kompf and never knew Hitler said such things.
My response in three words: "Oh, Come On."
The pollution comments are getting him into trouble, maybe not in Iowa, but definitely in New Hampshire.
My prediction: a certain "'uge star" is about to burn out and implode on itself.
Hopefully.
According to an article in last week's Independent, summarizing the Vanity Fair article from 1990, Trump himself admitted to having a copy of what he called "Mein Kampf", saying that it had been given to him by a Jewish friend. The friend is also quoted as saying that was true, and that he'd given it to Trump because he thought he'd find it "interesting", but that it was a collection of speeches, not Mein Kampf, and that he's not Jewish. Ivanka's main contribution seems to have been the detail about the book being in "a cabinet by his bedside", as paraphrased by Vanity Fair.
So, I think the most we can conclude is that Trump did own a copy of Hitler's speeches, but probably hadn't gone out looking for it, and didn't read it enough to remember which book it was. As for Ivanka's detail about where he kept it, Vanity Fair paraphrases it as a "cabinet by his bed". If it was the kind of cabinet where you stash alot of random stuff, I wouldn't read too much into that.
I know "Some of my best friends are..." doesn't prove much, but I don't think someone who subscribed to Hitler's literal views on race would be cool with his daughter marrying a Jewish guy. I don't doubt that Trump holds ethnonationalist opinions, possibly of a biologically determinist sort, though I doubt he's a systemic enough thinker to bother reading the original source theory. If he was gonna read things like that with any serious attention, I think it would more likely be something addressing contemporary American issues. Steve Bannon seems a more likely inspiration for Trump's "poisoning our blood" speech than Hitler.
Someone is unhinged.
Merry Christmas to you too Don. All I can say is it takes one to know one.
I have to admit, ideology aside, part of me really wishes that more public figures would send out holiday greetings like this.
Yeah, like the King, and his late mother, the greatest public servant in history.
Perfectly.