So, their argument is that Trump did not in fact take the oath of office (and was therefore not the President on January 6) when he committed his insurrectionist actions? So now he gets a pass against the 14th because he had not taken an oath?
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
- keith
- Posts: 4399
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Since when tfg didn’t take an oath? I mean, there’s video and thousands of witnesses.
Also too he’s almost admitting that he incited it.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
All presidents take an oath; the argument is the president doesn't take an oath to "support" the U.S. Constitution. Yeah, sure, the president's oath suggests "support," but it doesn't literally say "support."
Relatedly, several arguments about the president not being an officer ultimately rest on the lack of an implied "other," i.e., the difference between "the president appoints officers" versus "the president appoints other officers." While in everyday usage this is a trivial difference, textualists give slavish attention to every word (or omission), i.e., "the Framers were genius demigods; of course the lack of 'other' was intentional and full of meaning. And not mere inadvertence due to time constraints, compromise, and drafting by committee."
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I dunno, seems to me that the oath is pretty clear, and that it was violated. Whether it uses the word "support" or not.
I dunno, seems to me that the oath is pretty clear, and that it was violated. Whether it uses the word "support" or not.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Seems to me, you would support the U. S. Constitution by preserving, protecting, and defending it.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
-
- Posts: 4491
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
- Location: Down here!
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
I think the judge said as much in a footnote (or maybe it was in the main body). Her point was that the oaths were different, which was just another data point for determining that the authors’ intent was different as it relates to the President. I think she also said that if the oaths were the same, she’d still say he wasn’t an officer for all of the other reasons she stated.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Obviously, there's a difference between what the judge actually ruled and whether the judge's analysis was sound (or we would have ruled differently). I mean, we can't be birthers and ignore that the judge actually has made a decision; we may say, "I disagree" or "the judge made the wrong call."
The analysis is further complicated by the historical fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not draft the rest of the U.S. Constitution. We presume the amendment's authors were aware of the U.S. Constitution's text when they drafted the 14th Amendment. But inferring the amendment's authors' use of language different than that found in the U.S. Constitution ascribes an intentional motive when there might not be one. Is there secondary-source evidence to suggest the amendment's authors realized "support" did not match the U.S. Constitution's text, and they proceeded anyway? Or were they just sloppy? Or perhaps intentionally vague (to punt this question to a future generation)?
Canons of Construction presume there was one author for the entire text, which gives rise to inferences like "the exclusion of a word was intentional." But "some dudes who wrote new words after other dudes wrote words nearly a century earlier" doesn't instill the same level of confidence in intent.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3890
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.AndyinPA wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:25 pm One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.
- Frater I*I
- Posts: 3625
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
- Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
- Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
- Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
- Contact:
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
The US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:31 pm
How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"
Trent Reznor
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:35 pmThe US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:31 pm
How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Also, we have the second oldest constitution in the world that is still active.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:35 pmThe US is the oldest continuous democracy in the world...sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:31 pm
How long did it take them to start amending their constitutions? We're still a relatively new country.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/old ... today.html
Oldest Constitutions Still Being Used Today
San Marino (October, 1600)...
United States (June, 1788) ...
The Netherlands (March, 1814) ...
Norway (May, 1814) ...
Belgium (February, 1831) ...
Denmark (June, 1849) ...
Argentina (May, 1853) ...
Luxembourg (October, 1868)
- keith
- Posts: 4399
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
It really depends on your definition of 'democracy'.
Some claim the USA is the oldest because we have the oldest continuous Constitution (except we don't). Britain has a much older Parliamentary system - but no Constitution (unless you count one of the several versions of the Magna Carta - which you can't). Why does the lack of a Constitution negate the idea of democracy? Did anciet Greece have a constitution?
Some say you can't count the USA because the US did not grant suffrage to black citizens until the 1865 or some such and women in the 1920's, while New Zealand granted suffrage to all citizens, male, female, black, white, whatever in 1893.
I really want to give the call to Iceland, but the Althing Parliament that was established in 900CE lost its legislative power for 620 years after union with Norway in 1260. After 1260 it still met except when it was suspended between 1800 and 1844. It regained legislative power in 1902. And the Althing was not established by a Constitution.
So sure, if you don’t take into account the voting rights of women and black people, the United States is the world’s oldest continuous democracy with a constitutional government - if you also discount the Most Serene Republic of San Marino.
San Marino has to be the 'winner' in that regard.
Some claim the USA is the oldest because we have the oldest continuous Constitution (except we don't). Britain has a much older Parliamentary system - but no Constitution (unless you count one of the several versions of the Magna Carta - which you can't). Why does the lack of a Constitution negate the idea of democracy? Did anciet Greece have a constitution?
Some say you can't count the USA because the US did not grant suffrage to black citizens until the 1865 or some such and women in the 1920's, while New Zealand granted suffrage to all citizens, male, female, black, white, whatever in 1893.
I really want to give the call to Iceland, but the Althing Parliament that was established in 900CE lost its legislative power for 620 years after union with Norway in 1260. After 1260 it still met except when it was suspended between 1800 and 1844. It regained legislative power in 1902. And the Althing was not established by a Constitution.
So sure, if you don’t take into account the voting rights of women and black people, the United States is the world’s oldest continuous democracy with a constitutional government - if you also discount the Most Serene Republic of San Marino.
San Marino has a written Constitution that has been in continuous force since 1600. That Constitution replaced a written Constitution that had been in force since 1300.(from Wikipedia) The current legal system of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino began on 8 October 1600. The government gave binding force to a compilation of Statuti written by Camillo Bonelli, covering the institutions and practices of Sammarinese government and justice at that time. It was written in Latin and contained in six books. The title in Latin is Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustris Reipublicae ac Perpetuae Libertatis Terrae Sancti Marini.
The new system was an update on the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) which had served San Marino from about 1300. Existing institutions, such as the Council of the Sixty, were carried forward from this period. The Statutes form the basis of all law in effect today, and so it may be the oldest constitution of any existing nation.
San Marino has to be the 'winner' in that regard.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
- northland10
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.AndyinPA wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:25 pm One of the mistakes the people of this country make it to have turned the U. S. Constitution into a religious document, revering it as if it were written by God. (And there are those who clearly believe this.) I think most other democracies amend their constitutions more often, fixing it to meet the present needs.
Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.
101010
- Sam the Centipede
- Posts: 2206
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Not so much what they believe it to mean as what they wish it to mean. Usually so they can control others. Rarely to limit their own behavior.northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 8:13 am
And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.
Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Which very few, in my experience, ever think about.bob wrote:The analysis is further complicated by the historical fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not draft the rest of the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, I just had this discussion on another forum with a friend of mine, who is an attorney, and he just didn't believe it, for some reason. No matter the evidence/proof of such. It's not exactly rocket surgery. No, he's not a MAGA, or even close. Several others in the discussion told me I was full of it. Go figger.
X 4
X 33
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7957
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Would the authors of the 14th be okay with, say, Jefferson Davis being elected president of the Union?
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
The answer to that question is "no."pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:57 am Would the authors of the 14th be okay with, say, Jefferson Davis being elected president of the Union?
The (implied) question the courts are grappling with is:
Did the authors of the 14th Amendment believe the already existing constitutional tools (i.e., Electoral College, impeachment) were sufficient, such that they did not mean to extend the 14th Amendment's disqualification section to the presidency?
- northland10
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Point taken. And yes, for them it is about controlling others.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:07 amNot so much what they believe it to mean as what they wish it to mean. Usually so they can control others. Rarely to limit their own behavior.northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 8:13 am
And yet, the Bible was not written by God. Jesus did not write it either.
Though there are those who believe it was and that ever English word means exactly what they believe it to mean so God does too.
101010
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Interesting thread at link: https://x.com/rparloff/status/1732573536022097975?s=20
Roger Parloff @rparloff wrote: Some reactions to today’s 2-hr oral argument before the Colo supreme court on whether to keep Trump off ballot as insurrectionist. I thought 2 of the 7 were leaning to disqualify, but the others I couldn't read. (All 7 were appointed by Democratic governors.) ...
If Trump wins, it won’t be on Judge Wallace’s grounds—that presidents aren’t covered by § 3 of 14th Am. Though I bent over backwards below to avoid calling those claims “absurd,” at least 2 justices were not as charitable ...
/2
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Because the primary ballot must be certified in a month, presumably SCOCO will move quickly.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Michigan court rejects challenges to Trump’s spot on 2024 primary ballot
By The Associated Press
Published: Dec. 15, 2023 at 12:12 AM CET|Updated: Dec. 15, 2023 at 1:34 AM CET
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Court of Appeals said Thursday it won’t stop former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot, turning aside challenges from critics who argue that his role in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualifies him.
The court affirmed two lower court rulings without determining whether Trump falls under the insurrection clause in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
“Who to place on the primary ballot is determined by the political parties and the individual candidates,” the appeals court said in a 3-0 opinion, citing Michigan law.
The court further said Trump’s possible spot on a general election ballot was not ripe for consideration.
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Advance Sheet Headnote - Colorado Supreme Court. Dec. 19
14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot
Full ruling, 213 pages
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
And I like this comment
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 3SA300.pdf
And I like this comment
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?