First, the 14A is not the only legal authority regarding disqualification from public office for engaging in insurrection. There is a federal statute, originally passed in the 19th century, but passed again in its current form in 1948 (and well supported by the 14A):
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
“Any office” is pretty explicit in terms of not excluding the president. And second, I have not heard a single reason expressed as to why the authors of the 14A would have excluded the president as an object of that constitutional provision. It’s inconceivable that this would have been the intent. And if there is any doubt as to whether the president is an “officer” of the US government, we can refer to that regularly cited, go-to authority on con law, the Federalist Papers:
Federalist 69, ¶13:
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.
For similar usage, also see Federalist 72, ¶2; and Federalist 76, ¶6.
Thank you for bringing this up Arthur. I also want to highlight the two words in 18 USC 2383 that are crucial, not in the Colorado case, but should be emphasized in public discourse as we contemplate Trump’s actions on Jan. 6: “whoever,” and “incites.”
Every member of Congress and every senator who filed false objections to the formal congressional count if the states that voted for Joe Biden is also committing an act of insurrection, and every senator and congressman who lent his name and support to the false claims that the president was making cone within the Disqualification Clause. Spreading false information is also disqualifying. Any candidate who repeats or endorses false information is disqualified.
This implies there should be a clean sweep off the ballots of those who have committed crimes against the Constitution. I am dismayed that so many games are played with each documents clear instructions.
Every Republican member of the Senate and House of Representatives who was present and voted to support Trump's false allegations and Republican objections to the vote count. This lifetime ban includes Republicans who retire from Congress or who choose not to run in the upcoming election. The Disqualification Clause affects all federal jobs, state governmental jobs, and any other form of paid or compensated post-federal employment. Participation in insurrection is a complete wipeout. It might also bar employment as an official at a public institution of higher education or appointment to a state compensated board, commission, or other public body if that entity requires as a matter of course that membership requires the appointee to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the appointing authority organized and acting under state law. Whew! That is the breadth and depth of the constitutional disqualification. Think about the implications of THAT!
I, too, was struck by the people clinging to crazy who took the position that the President was *not* an officer. He was, in actuality, the top officer. Tiring of these cranks.
That 14th Amendment is a curious beast. Google it up like I did and see it has an unusual history, in that it was pretty much a post facto effort to undo earlier provisions of the Constitution -- without condemning them as wrong or misguided, just rewriting them as if they had no bearing on the recent war -- and it had to be forced on the former rebel states to secure passage. Also that a number of states -- Northern states mainly -- later attempted to rescind their votes to pass, but those were denied.
The whole exercise seems basically a way for the victor in the war to dictate terms to the defeated states and then cloak it as a constitutional mandate, that had not existed before. I'm not sure this was the best way to achieve the intended goals in large measure, but whatever. We have it now, but its imperfections may return to haunt us when this Drumpf case(s) come before the Nine Vestal Virgins of the Potomac.
Still, it *would* be sweet if Drumpf was denied his presidential pension and his Secret Service detail was taken away from him!
The original bargain that was struck between free states and slaveholding states was unsustainable, because slavery was itself the cause of internal strife. The South badly overplayed the hand they were dealt, and thus the nation would no longer tolerate a political system that amounted to slavery after having fought a bloody civil war to end slavery. What was lacking was the political will to carry emancipation to its logical conclusion in the first decades after the war ended. The South took the position that state legislation prohibiting slavery was unenforceable as those restrictions contravened slaveholders rights to take their property anywhere in the Union. The Thirteenth Amendment barring slavery was insufficient to reach broad political inequality that kept former slaves in servitud. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to guarantee the political rights of the former slaves.
Agree, the argument a President/CinC is somehow exempt from disqualification for engaging in an Insurrection or Rebellion is both absurd and inconsistent with the language and intent in the Constitution and US CODE. That part is an easy call for SCOTUS.
The not so easy part or perhaps even easier: To date SC Smith has NOT charged Trump w/Insurrection under Sec. 3 or under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, nor used any language found in iithah, 4e.g. incites, engaged, giving aid and comfort, etc. etc. in any Indictment. Nor has a single Federal Judge found Trump is an insurrectionist. At a minimum these conflict with the Due Process Clause, no? Personally, don't see a single vote on the Court for a finding of Trump is an insurrectionist w/o ever being charged for the crime in any Court, never mind never convicted. And sure as chit SCOTUS can't hold a criminal bench trial and is quite capable of ignoring or dismissing the Co. state Trial Judge and Supreme Court finding altogether. See 2000 election.
SC Smith is homed in on other matters related to 6Jan. Plus has to prepare along w/DOJ for the case involving the 6Jan defendant challenging the current interpretation and application of obstruction and the biggie, presidential immunity (criminal).
Seems on the surface SC Smith wants to try Trump before the election and again after (for insurrection if more evidence is found) if Trump remains a private citizen. Was his team's judgement call.
Yes, the 14A has "Civil War motivations." But it is nonetheless the supreme law of the land and it means what it says. If there is no reason for 14A §3 to exist, it should be repealed. But of course, the provisions of that amendment all make perfect sense at any point in history. So we and the courts should take it seriously. And we should also consider what the most prominent of America's founding jurists wrote:
“If that instrument be not a splendid bauble.”
– Chief Justice John Marshall, opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), referring to the Constitution and question of whether its authority should hold in the case
There is no need for a conviction because of the video evidence, and our own eyes. The former president is a traitor to the Constitution and this country. To afford him the opportunity to again hold it's highest OFFICE is in defiance of the Constitution. Colorado got it right. The Supreme Court must uphold it's finding and ban this man from our elections.
Still waiting for something-- somebody, anything-- to bite t-rump's ass. He's still walking around with his fat ass free, raving on and on to his rallies.
You're admirably optimistic, but I also remember how Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and many other villains (most not even leaders of nations) died in bed of old age.
Let's reconvene when the last dog is shot. By that, I mean the next election. I am more Henny Penny than optimist, btw, but this monumentally evil dumbkopf is destined to be destroyed.
Would it be rational for Mr. Vladonald Trumpski to be angling for providing (still more) grounds to meet any insanity defense the fake courts could demand he meet?
I mean, not so much as a legal strategy, but as posing an abstract philosophical question about paradoxes! I
Even if it IS `rational,' then Trumpski might still meet the standards for an insanity defense, if it is the product of an irresistible impulse to intentionally try, attempt, seek out for, and otherwise deploy it as a strategy...
A magnificent piece of analysis and application. By the time you end, you can feel the "heat" (history and you, both). This may well be the turning point---but the reaction of the "core' (the "violent core") will be important.
The representatives and senators who supported Trump's insurrection and continue to so, must be held accountable. They are, essentially, insurrectionists.
Thank you for that passionate explanation of the 14th Amendment. It is my fervent wish that it bites him in his ass and hard. Unfortunately, we have to ask the Roberts court to stop him, where democracy is on the dinner menu, but still, it is a warm thought.
Based on this comprehensive explanation and the initial comments it seems inconceivable that the Supreme Court could rationalize a win for Trump but given their past favourable rulings to please conservatives I fear that if there is a way to explain their rationale for ruling in his favor they will do so.
There again, given that they have to be aware of all the criticism directed at them maybe they will try to prove they are not biased but I'm not holding my breath. Trump handed several of them their lifetime jobs. In his mind they owe him.
So, I have to ask the obvious question. There is no doubt in my mind that this clause disqualifies Trump, but doesn't it also disqualify all of the other known participants like Jordan, Johnson, Greene, Perry, Biggs, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley and all the rest? If properly applied, this could literally wipe the MAGAs out in Congress.
It is difficult to have any faith whatsoever in the lawyers of this nation, and the judges, not to mention the Supreme Court justices, when they somehow cannot figure out how to apply the plain meaning of these amendments to the insurrectionist-in- chief.
That's what just happened. In Colorado. If the Court takes it, they could very well agree, so hold your horses, there will be plenty of time to rhetorically beat the stuffing out of any SCOTUS justices who can't figure it out, and I guarantee you I will pitch right in.
Never mind of course it's featured in some of the headlines - I spent last two days and now beginning a third, setting up a Mini-PC with Windows 11 installed, migrating lotta files, have just been scanning headlines and missed those until now!
Newsletters
Log in
Politics
Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify disqualifying Trump
Brent D. Griffiths and Paul Squire
Dec 20, 2023, 9:36 AM CST
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Trump is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court ruled.
But the case is sure to go to the Supreme Court.
Colorado's court cited Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision.
Insider Today
NEW LOOK
Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview
Email address
By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can opt-out at any time.
Bull
Colorado's top court appears to be already looking for sympathetic ears on the US Supreme Court to uphold its decision that would boot former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot in the state.
Tucked into the Colorado state court's 4-3 ruling is a reference to Justice Neil Gorsuch, specifically a ruling Gorsuch issued as a then circuit court of appeals judge in a 2012 case concerning a long-shot presidential candidate's citizenship status.
Advertisement
The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"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,'" the state opinion reads.
Citation please! Or tell me where you found it, just the media outlet, because man oh man that would be sweet! Potentially hoist on his own petard, k'pow!
Thinking just one step further: all of these people are going to have to live with any precedent they set, both collectively as it may apply to future cases, cases similar enough to use their decision as precedent, and as individual judges.
C. Thomas doesn't care, has no conscience about it, maybe that applies to the ideologically-crazed Alioto as well - but the rest, even Gorsuch and even Kreepy Krying Kavanaugh , might be concerned.
Thanks! This could be useful as an exact cite as early as a few months from now, to start hammering down the nail into Gorsuch's hypocrisy, or, alternatively, maybe mention some faint praise for him for just admitting that the law applies to Trump, and he shouldn't kowtow to dangerous extremists, or be excessively worried that he will be excoriated by them - that was likely bound to happen anyway, as despite his really callous decision in the case about the freezing trucker, he sometimes manages to be less inhumane in his legal interpretations. Not as far off the beam as Thomas and Alioto.
Oh that WOULD be good. It's a sign even really terrible humans at the age of 16-17-18 can evolve, especially if he has drastically reduced alcohol intake, that would help him experience metanoia, maybe.
Thanks man, I get obsessive about some of this for use as relentless reminders, here, if Gorsuch fails to realize how stupid and politically dangerous HE will also look, upholding a Trump appeal on this one.
Yeah as we have both since realized it IS sort of scattered haphazardly through many of the mass media reporting, which is good, helps educate the readers to look carefully at Justice Gorsuch, see if he is evolving while on the SCOTUS, it does happen! Lifetime appointments are not 100% terrible idea by any means, not in every case anyway.
It seems Attorney Drebben will be making a great case before the Supremes vs. the duds that P01135890 has in his corner!! I have faith in Drebben and Smith!!
Wait, I think LKTIV has been really on the mark repeatedly when setting out possible implications and nuances, as well as the broad contours of plenty of fairly difficult (Jeeez Looeeez it's TRUMP!) legal issues over the last several years!
Laypersons as well as people like Lucian who have some serious formal training in law, can learn a whole lotta law and learn it well, especially when they aren't so much out to use it to "game the system," when biases tend to skew the comprehension.
Section 3 has the power to eviscerated the entire Trump-dominated Republican Party in every federal, state, and local government, foe elective and appointing public office. The effects will be felt across the board, like a tsunami or earthquake. It starts with the presidency, has the power to destroy Trump's hold on Congress, and at the state level has the power to break the Trump GOP's grip on every Republican governor and state legislature. The same effect would be felt at all senior appointed officials if dominated by Trump Republicans.
Superb piece, and thanks to your reader Arthur Beckman for reminding us of 18 US Code [how do you make that little squiggle thing using Google email?] 2383. There's a famous photo you can easily find on the Internet of a man's hand tearing a sheet of toilet paper from a roll, onto which is printed the US. Constitution. The man's fingers are too long to belong to Deranged "Stubs" Trump, and it's a white man's hand, so cross out Justice "Grifter" Thomas. But the meaning is clear.
One thing, though: "Stubs" Trump did not "take an oath" of office. He's a multiple bankrupt businessman turned reality TV performer, and that last gig taught him that the performer is far more important than words on a Teleprompter or cue sheet that were written by some schmuck with a MacBook.
(Do you know what's on your keyboard? § happens if I press my S key longer than necessary to print an s. Almost every key makes an array of characters instantly available—e g, äéèêëēïöü€£.) …
Kurt Andersen posted a link on Bluesky Wednesday to a long 1990 Marie Brenner profile of pre-reality show P01135809. She excels at portraying the jerk New Yorkers already loathed when he was starting to try to go national. Same old. If the link—a freebie—fails here use the part up to the # and do whatever *you* do to evade a paywall.
I'm pretty sure I referred to Marie's piece in a reply to a comment. At the risk of repeating something about her article...she later wrote that after it appeared she was at a large NYC charity gala. So was Trump, and he poured a glass of wine down her dress.
I was one (an "editor") back in the Pleistocene Age when "writers" would deliver their manuscripts to us printed on sheets of paper and we would put our comments in the margins in ink or pencil. My preference was an Eberhardt Faber "Half the Pressure, Twice the Speed" 602. Moving copy blocks meant drawing arrows. My apologies for not catching up.
I'd be more sanguine myself if I weren't reading so many legal experts and journalists saying how the SC is going to toss this out (the path of least resistance), so nothing but a temporary, tissue-paper victory.
Lawyers splitting hairs, arguing about definitions of terms, bending over backwards to interpret 18th century language into 21st century relevance -- it's just farting around the central concepts of Justice.
We can hope that 5 of the conservative Supreme Court justices get it right, although only 3 are needed, leaving Clarence Thomas sitting in the corner alone.
The provisions giving Congress rights to enforce or expand the amendment are sorta irrelevant when you have a one-party, cultist Congress that has already demonstrated fealty to the Dear Leader, and a Supreme Court that will, I fear, uphold all executive privileges as long as it's a right-wing executive who also appointed them. The Founding Fathers never anticipated this (altho' as students of history they should have).
Upvoted for moral fervor in a good cause, severe reservations about criticism of the endless legal struggle to make fine distinctions - what can indeed appear to be "splitting hairs," I grant you that - since we don't want a "one size fits all" approach to cases where the parties may be in a very different relation to one another than the broadest standards of law allow for. It does make it simpler for judges and juries to convict someone for some crime, but often at the cost of fairness to the person convicted. Because their public defender assigned the case, didn't dig deep enough to find something distinguishing his client's situation with respect to the controlling law and precedent, from those outlined in the book diagrams.
If and when the Dumpster is kept off the ballot in Colorado (and possibly elsewhere), I'd very much like to see his congressional allies who clearly supported the insurrection to suffer the same fate. Will it happen? I don't know but it damn sure should!!
Permit me to add a couple of things here.
First, the 14A is not the only legal authority regarding disqualification from public office for engaging in insurrection. There is a federal statute, originally passed in the 19th century, but passed again in its current form in 1948 (and well supported by the 14A):
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
“Any office” is pretty explicit in terms of not excluding the president. And second, I have not heard a single reason expressed as to why the authors of the 14A would have excluded the president as an object of that constitutional provision. It’s inconceivable that this would have been the intent. And if there is any doubt as to whether the president is an “officer” of the US government, we can refer to that regularly cited, go-to authority on con law, the Federalist Papers:
Federalist 69, ¶13:
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.
For similar usage, also see Federalist 72, ¶2; and Federalist 76, ¶6.
Thank you for bringing this up Arthur. I also want to highlight the two words in 18 USC 2383 that are crucial, not in the Colorado case, but should be emphasized in public discourse as we contemplate Trump’s actions on Jan. 6: “whoever,” and “incites.”
Every member of Congress and every senator who filed false objections to the formal congressional count if the states that voted for Joe Biden is also committing an act of insurrection, and every senator and congressman who lent his name and support to the false claims that the president was making cone within the Disqualification Clause. Spreading false information is also disqualifying. Any candidate who repeats or endorses false information is disqualified.
This implies there should be a clean sweep off the ballots of those who have committed crimes against the Constitution. I am dismayed that so many games are played with each documents clear instructions.
Every Republican member of the Senate and House of Representatives who was present and voted to support Trump's false allegations and Republican objections to the vote count. This lifetime ban includes Republicans who retire from Congress or who choose not to run in the upcoming election. The Disqualification Clause affects all federal jobs, state governmental jobs, and any other form of paid or compensated post-federal employment. Participation in insurrection is a complete wipeout. It might also bar employment as an official at a public institution of higher education or appointment to a state compensated board, commission, or other public body if that entity requires as a matter of course that membership requires the appointee to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the appointing authority organized and acting under state law. Whew! That is the breadth and depth of the constitutional disqualification. Think about the implications of THAT!
Absolutely right, Arthur!!
So let us throw them all out! YES!
I, too, was struck by the people clinging to crazy who took the position that the President was *not* an officer. He was, in actuality, the top officer. Tiring of these cranks.
That 14th Amendment is a curious beast. Google it up like I did and see it has an unusual history, in that it was pretty much a post facto effort to undo earlier provisions of the Constitution -- without condemning them as wrong or misguided, just rewriting them as if they had no bearing on the recent war -- and it had to be forced on the former rebel states to secure passage. Also that a number of states -- Northern states mainly -- later attempted to rescind their votes to pass, but those were denied.
The whole exercise seems basically a way for the victor in the war to dictate terms to the defeated states and then cloak it as a constitutional mandate, that had not existed before. I'm not sure this was the best way to achieve the intended goals in large measure, but whatever. We have it now, but its imperfections may return to haunt us when this Drumpf case(s) come before the Nine Vestal Virgins of the Potomac.
Still, it *would* be sweet if Drumpf was denied his presidential pension and his Secret Service detail was taken away from him!
The original bargain that was struck between free states and slaveholding states was unsustainable, because slavery was itself the cause of internal strife. The South badly overplayed the hand they were dealt, and thus the nation would no longer tolerate a political system that amounted to slavery after having fought a bloody civil war to end slavery. What was lacking was the political will to carry emancipation to its logical conclusion in the first decades after the war ended. The South took the position that state legislation prohibiting slavery was unenforceable as those restrictions contravened slaveholders rights to take their property anywhere in the Union. The Thirteenth Amendment barring slavery was insufficient to reach broad political inequality that kept former slaves in servitud. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to guarantee the political rights of the former slaves.
Not only the political rights of former slaves. §3 isn't related to former slaves. It's related to insurrectionists.
Agree, the argument a President/CinC is somehow exempt from disqualification for engaging in an Insurrection or Rebellion is both absurd and inconsistent with the language and intent in the Constitution and US CODE. That part is an easy call for SCOTUS.
The not so easy part or perhaps even easier: To date SC Smith has NOT charged Trump w/Insurrection under Sec. 3 or under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, nor used any language found in iithah, 4e.g. incites, engaged, giving aid and comfort, etc. etc. in any Indictment. Nor has a single Federal Judge found Trump is an insurrectionist. At a minimum these conflict with the Due Process Clause, no? Personally, don't see a single vote on the Court for a finding of Trump is an insurrectionist w/o ever being charged for the crime in any Court, never mind never convicted. And sure as chit SCOTUS can't hold a criminal bench trial and is quite capable of ignoring or dismissing the Co. state Trial Judge and Supreme Court finding altogether. See 2000 election.
SC Smith is homed in on other matters related to 6Jan. Plus has to prepare along w/DOJ for the case involving the 6Jan defendant challenging the current interpretation and application of obstruction and the biggie, presidential immunity (criminal).
Seems on the surface SC Smith wants to try Trump before the election and again after (for insurrection if more evidence is found) if Trump remains a private citizen. Was his team's judgement call.
Jack Smith didn't bring this charge, I believe, probably to avoid the appearance of a political prosecution.
Yes, the 14A has "Civil War motivations." But it is nonetheless the supreme law of the land and it means what it says. If there is no reason for 14A §3 to exist, it should be repealed. But of course, the provisions of that amendment all make perfect sense at any point in history. So we and the courts should take it seriously. And we should also consider what the most prominent of America's founding jurists wrote:
“If that instrument be not a splendid bauble.”
– Chief Justice John Marshall, opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), referring to the Constitution and question of whether its authority should hold in the case
Thank you!
As the nation^s Commander in Chief of the nation s armed forces, he is the senior officer.
There is no need for a conviction because of the video evidence, and our own eyes. The former president is a traitor to the Constitution and this country. To afford him the opportunity to again hold it's highest OFFICE is in defiance of the Constitution. Colorado got it right. The Supreme Court must uphold it's finding and ban this man from our elections.
And now, Maine.
Absolutely!!!
Still waiting for something-- somebody, anything-- to bite t-rump's ass. He's still walking around with his fat ass free, raving on and on to his rallies.
Hang on.Ultimately he will come to bad end. A very, very bad end. He will be totally destroyed.
It will be delicious, and *might* make up for the years this sick, malignant force in America is broken into little. tiny. pieces.
You're admirably optimistic, but I also remember how Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and many other villains (most not even leaders of nations) died in bed of old age.
Let's reconvene when the last dog is shot. By that, I mean the next election. I am more Henny Penny than optimist, btw, but this monumentally evil dumbkopf is destined to be destroyed.
That would be a happy ending! See you here!
Would it be rational for Mr. Vladonald Trumpski to be angling for providing (still more) grounds to meet any insanity defense the fake courts could demand he meet?
I mean, not so much as a legal strategy, but as posing an abstract philosophical question about paradoxes! I
Even if it IS `rational,' then Trumpski might still meet the standards for an insanity defense, if it is the product of an irresistible impulse to intentionally try, attempt, seek out for, and otherwise deploy it as a strategy...
I'll get my coat.
LOL, good one!
A magnificent piece of analysis and application. By the time you end, you can feel the "heat" (history and you, both). This may well be the turning point---but the reaction of the "core' (the "violent core") will be important.
The representatives and senators who supported Trump's insurrection and continue to so, must be held accountable. They are, essentially, insurrectionists.
Amen! And the pipe bomber exists among them. For now.
Superb. Sharing far and wide.
Thank you for that passionate explanation of the 14th Amendment. It is my fervent wish that it bites him in his ass and hard. Unfortunately, we have to ask the Roberts court to stop him, where democracy is on the dinner menu, but still, it is a warm thought.
Based on this comprehensive explanation and the initial comments it seems inconceivable that the Supreme Court could rationalize a win for Trump but given their past favourable rulings to please conservatives I fear that if there is a way to explain their rationale for ruling in his favor they will do so.
There again, given that they have to be aware of all the criticism directed at them maybe they will try to prove they are not biased but I'm not holding my breath. Trump handed several of them their lifetime jobs. In his mind they owe him.
The important one has been there quite a while, and he will not recuse.
I know. Sad!
So, I have to ask the obvious question. There is no doubt in my mind that this clause disqualifies Trump, but doesn't it also disqualify all of the other known participants like Jordan, Johnson, Greene, Perry, Biggs, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley and all the rest? If properly applied, this could literally wipe the MAGAs out in Congress.
We might finally start to make some real progress on the many issues that bedevil us. 🙏
Or start Civil War II.
There is no civil war if we simply kick the red states out...and cut off the flow of blue state money that keeps them afloat.
Yes and they need to brought up on the same charge!
It is difficult to have any faith whatsoever in the lawyers of this nation, and the judges, not to mention the Supreme Court justices, when they somehow cannot figure out how to apply the plain meaning of these amendments to the insurrectionist-in- chief.
That's what just happened. In Colorado. If the Court takes it, they could very well agree, so hold your horses, there will be plenty of time to rhetorically beat the stuffing out of any SCOTUS justices who can't figure it out, and I guarantee you I will pitch right in.
Never mind of course it's featured in some of the headlines - I spent last two days and now beginning a third, setting up a Mini-PC with Windows 11 installed, migrating lotta files, have just been scanning headlines and missed those until now!
Newsletters
Log in
Politics
Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify disqualifying Trump
Brent D. Griffiths and Paul Squire
Dec 20, 2023, 9:36 AM CST
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Trump is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court ruled.
But the case is sure to go to the Supreme Court.
Colorado's court cited Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision.
Insider Today
NEW LOOK
Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview
Email address
By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can opt-out at any time.
Bull
Colorado's top court appears to be already looking for sympathetic ears on the US Supreme Court to uphold its decision that would boot former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot in the state.
Tucked into the Colorado state court's 4-3 ruling is a reference to Justice Neil Gorsuch, specifically a ruling Gorsuch issued as a then circuit court of appeals judge in a 2012 case concerning a long-shot presidential candidate's citizenship status.
Advertisement
The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"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,'" the state opinion reads.
Citation please! Or tell me where you found it, just the media outlet, because man oh man that would be sweet! Potentially hoist on his own petard, k'pow!
Thinking just one step further: all of these people are going to have to live with any precedent they set, both collectively as it may apply to future cases, cases similar enough to use their decision as precedent, and as individual judges.
C. Thomas doesn't care, has no conscience about it, maybe that applies to the ideologically-crazed Alioto as well - but the rest, even Gorsuch and even Kreepy Krying Kavanaugh , might be concerned.
Thanks! This could be useful as an exact cite as early as a few months from now, to start hammering down the nail into Gorsuch's hypocrisy, or, alternatively, maybe mention some faint praise for him for just admitting that the law applies to Trump, and he shouldn't kowtow to dangerous extremists, or be excessively worried that he will be excoriated by them - that was likely bound to happen anyway, as despite his really callous decision in the case about the freezing trucker, he sometimes manages to be less inhumane in his legal interpretations. Not as far off the beam as Thomas and Alioto.
Oh that WOULD be good. It's a sign even really terrible humans at the age of 16-17-18 can evolve, especially if he has drastically reduced alcohol intake, that would help him experience metanoia, maybe.
Thanks man, I get obsessive about some of this for use as relentless reminders, here, if Gorsuch fails to realize how stupid and politically dangerous HE will also look, upholding a Trump appeal on this one.
Yeah as we have both since realized it IS sort of scattered haphazardly through many of the mass media reporting, which is good, helps educate the readers to look carefully at Justice Gorsuch, see if he is evolving while on the SCOTUS, it does happen! Lifetime appointments are not 100% terrible idea by any means, not in every case anyway.
It seems Attorney Drebben will be making a great case before the Supremes vs. the duds that P01135890 has in his corner!! I have faith in Drebben and Smith!!
It's as plain as the nose on a face! Why must be put through all this rigamarole???
All that time you spent over with the Law Department finally paid off. I’m glad I didn’t have to wrestle with that
Wait, I think LKTIV has been really on the mark repeatedly when setting out possible implications and nuances, as well as the broad contours of plenty of fairly difficult (Jeeez Looeeez it's TRUMP!) legal issues over the last several years!
Laypersons as well as people like Lucian who have some serious formal training in law, can learn a whole lotta law and learn it well, especially when they aren't so much out to use it to "game the system," when biases tend to skew the comprehension.
Section 3 has the power to eviscerated the entire Trump-dominated Republican Party in every federal, state, and local government, foe elective and appointing public office. The effects will be felt across the board, like a tsunami or earthquake. It starts with the presidency, has the power to destroy Trump's hold on Congress, and at the state level has the power to break the Trump GOP's grip on every Republican governor and state legislature. The same effect would be felt at all senior appointed officials if dominated by Trump Republicans.
Superb piece, and thanks to your reader Arthur Beckman for reminding us of 18 US Code [how do you make that little squiggle thing using Google email?] 2383. There's a famous photo you can easily find on the Internet of a man's hand tearing a sheet of toilet paper from a roll, onto which is printed the US. Constitution. The man's fingers are too long to belong to Deranged "Stubs" Trump, and it's a white man's hand, so cross out Justice "Grifter" Thomas. But the meaning is clear.
One thing, though: "Stubs" Trump did not "take an oath" of office. He's a multiple bankrupt businessman turned reality TV performer, and that last gig taught him that the performer is far more important than words on a Teleprompter or cue sheet that were written by some schmuck with a MacBook.
(Do you know what's on your keyboard? § happens if I press my S key longer than necessary to print an s. Almost every key makes an array of characters instantly available—e g, äéèêëēïöü€£.) …
Kurt Andersen posted a link on Bluesky Wednesday to a long 1990 Marie Brenner profile of pre-reality show P01135809. She excels at portraying the jerk New Yorkers already loathed when he was starting to try to go national. Same old. If the link—a freebie—fails here use the part up to the # and do whatever *you* do to evade a paywall.
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/share/e515a2cd-a51b-4f83-8d61-6ebb9a104e0a#:~:text=SUBSCRIBE,Mar%2Da%2DLago
I'm pretty sure I referred to Marie's piece in a reply to a comment. At the risk of repeating something about her article...she later wrote that after it appeared she was at a large NYC charity gala. So was Trump, and he poured a glass of wine down her dress.
OMG!! Such a gentleman!
God! No boundaries, ever in his life!
What do you mean “thump did not take an oath of office”?
What did he do on Jan 20 2017 at the inauguration?
From Wikipedia:
“the president-elect of the United States is inaugurated as president by taking the presidential oath of office.“
Yep, that thing(ie). Copy and paste! The first thing any plagiarist learns. Dang.
This thing: § ?
copy & paste; federal codes are online
Hey, it works!
I was one (an "editor") back in the Pleistocene Age when "writers" would deliver their manuscripts to us printed on sheets of paper and we would put our comments in the margins in ink or pencil. My preference was an Eberhardt Faber "Half the Pressure, Twice the Speed" 602. Moving copy blocks meant drawing arrows. My apologies for not catching up.
Smarty pants! No, thank you really. You and Arthure filled in the cracks. As a Federal employee a long time ago, I got CFRed to death.
Thank you for this excellent post Lucian.
I'd be more sanguine myself if I weren't reading so many legal experts and journalists saying how the SC is going to toss this out (the path of least resistance), so nothing but a temporary, tissue-paper victory.
Lawyers splitting hairs, arguing about definitions of terms, bending over backwards to interpret 18th century language into 21st century relevance -- it's just farting around the central concepts of Justice.
We can hope that 5 of the conservative Supreme Court justices get it right, although only 3 are needed, leaving Clarence Thomas sitting in the corner alone.
The provisions giving Congress rights to enforce or expand the amendment are sorta irrelevant when you have a one-party, cultist Congress that has already demonstrated fealty to the Dear Leader, and a Supreme Court that will, I fear, uphold all executive privileges as long as it's a right-wing executive who also appointed them. The Founding Fathers never anticipated this (altho' as students of history they should have).
Upvoted for moral fervor in a good cause, severe reservations about criticism of the endless legal struggle to make fine distinctions - what can indeed appear to be "splitting hairs," I grant you that - since we don't want a "one size fits all" approach to cases where the parties may be in a very different relation to one another than the broadest standards of law allow for. It does make it simpler for judges and juries to convict someone for some crime, but often at the cost of fairness to the person convicted. Because their public defender assigned the case, didn't dig deep enough to find something distinguishing his client's situation with respect to the controlling law and precedent, from those outlined in the book diagrams.
Wonderful. Thank you so much for this elucidation. We need all the help we can get.
If and when the Dumpster is kept off the ballot in Colorado (and possibly elsewhere), I'd very much like to see his congressional allies who clearly supported the insurrection to suffer the same fate. Will it happen? I don't know but it damn sure should!!