Let's remove Biden from the ballot!

"Do the lawmakers not understand the legal issue or are they simply appealing to the stupidity (or ignorance) of their constituents to win political points."
Almost certainly the latter. The narrative is consistent with and reinforces the Trump/Republican narrative that Biden and the Democrats are weaponizing the justice system against Trump even though the Colorado ballot case is a state case involving a decision issued by the State Supreme Court and the lawsuit which resulted in the decision was brought by six Republicans.

 

I want Trump to be removed, but I doubt the ruling stands. The Amendment conspicuously omits mention of the President. In fact, the framers argued over whether to include that office and ultimately decided not to. I think SCOTUS will overrule Colorado on that basis.

 

just say eff it and take everyone off the ballot. that is where current trends will take us eventually.

 

Ha, Colorado themselves didn’t even remove him. It is “paused” until SCOTUS steps in and undoes it.

I imagine SCOTUS will just ignore it until 2024 so they can whitewash it in a non-election year. Roberts still acts like he values the reputation.

Either way, he won’t be kicked off the ballot. Also a dumb move by R’s to promise to respond with brand name Fascism. That crowd is already delivered in full. That just alerts non-partisans that Handmaid’s Tale is just a few successful election wins from reality. Even the commanders in Gilead pretend the sexual bondage is in fact family values. They don’t just tell the world that it’s Rapin’ Time.

 

Except for how if they so obviously wanted to omit POTUS they would have just said that. I guess the framers could be shockingly idiotic morons though.

I suppose it is also possible that if one was so very concerned about treason, one would hammer every possible nail except the one that would actually matter the most. Another idiotic concept, but also in line with the idea that the framers were far from the fairy tale version that gets passed around today.

If they were just rich idiots, not saying the one thing they meant to say and/or expressly granting POTUS treason powers is entirely believable.

 

Do you have a link for that as I'm finding the exact opposite?

"7. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be used to bar individuals from “hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States.” Do those terms bar individuals from the office of the presidency?

Republicans in 1866 almost certainly thought the Section 3 bar on officeholding extended to the presidency and vice-presidency. Republican proponents of the Joint Committee’s Section 3 thought that Congress could treat as illegal any former Confederate who participated in the Electoral College. During the debates over the Joint Committee’s Section 3, Representative Thomas D. Eliot of Massachusetts asked fellow Republicans, “Shall our enemies and the enemies of the Government, as soon as they have been defeated in war, help to direct and to control the public policy of the Government.” Representative Rufus P. Spaulding of Ohio agreed that such men should not “make laws for the loyal people of the country.” Representative Robert C. Schenck of Ohio declared, “those who have proven false traitors and have raised their parricidal hands against the life of the country, who have attempted to strike down our Government and destroy its institutions, should be the very last to be trusted to take any share in preserving, conducting, and carrying on that Government and maintain those institutions.” These comments could be multiplied ad nauseum. No Republican made any statement that suggested a presidential exception to Section 3. Trumbull, as noted above, used the presidency when examining why changing qualifications was not a punishment. Stevens, also as noted above, used the presidency as well in discussing the Joint Committee’s draft Section 3. In the absence of any statement even hinting the contrary, no Republican could have believed that traitors should not become members of Congress, but ought to be allowed to be President of the United States."


Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours

 

No, my comment was from memory in Con. Law. After 45 years, it may be faulty. Besides, my post was meant to say what I think SCOTUS will do given its ultra conservative, pro-Trump leanings. I agree with your recitation above of Section 3. (However, I still wonder why the framers specifically mentioned Senators, etc., but failed to mention the President.)

Also, it’s important to distinguish treason from sedition. “Sedition and insurrection are quite distinct from treason, which is a violation of a citizen’s allegiance to the U.S. by betrayal or aiding the country’s enemies.” Insurrection “is organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the state’s authority, insurrection involves actual acts of violence against the state or its officers.”

Only the attorney general can bring charges of insurrection, which is defined by Title 18, section 2383 of the U.S.C.:

“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.”

Treason, Sedition, and Insurrection: What’s the Difference? | The Saturday Evening Post

 

This gets to the problem with that constitutional clause. It isn’t just insurrection. It’s a lot of stuff including treaso, with no due process. So people could say Biden’s border policy is “treason” and exclude from the ballot and then it has to be adjudicated through the courts.

But for the textualists that is what the constitution says and essentially what we should do, if they are true to their philosophy.

 

Prof. Fletcher Baldwin?

 

Knew him, but not as a student. Will send you PM.

 

My PM to you was rejected.

 

I sent you one.

 

His daughter was a prosecutor here in Hillsborough.

 

“or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”

 

Actually might solve a big problem for Democrats

 

California and Colorado taking part in the largest voter suppression scheme in recent history. Sad state of affairs.

 

That was why the lower court didn't and this had to go to the state supreme court. Trump's lawyers argued that he didn't swear an oath to support the constitution and the lower court agreed. The state supreme court ruled that his oath, while it didn't use the word "support" did use words similar enough in meaning that the 14th amendment does apply to the president.

 

Why doesn't anyone just want to beat Trump fair and square? You know, just beat him.

Biden of all people already did it once.

If he is everything he is made out to be as far as a bad person, the majority of the people who vote will see that and vote accordingly.

 

Are you sure about that? I saw a conflicting piece of journalism where it highlighted two of the drafting Senators arguing over it and the point was made that it covered all offices civilian and military.