Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot

[BugI02]

I'm unsure how it'd be derailing if the discussion stays within the talking of the topic. The topic is politics and I was discussing about the said politics in question while also providing reasoning for my rationale

The sub-forum is politics, the topic of this thread is more narrowly defined. There is no 50 quality post requirement to start a new thread about whatever tangent it is you are trying to discuss, though

 

[Cameramonkey]

Chill out about March19. Staff has already been in discussions behind the scenes. He's not a runner, just has a more succinct posting style. With his cooperation we are testing out a new thing. He couldnt use the classifieds tomorrow even if he hit 50.

He's cool.

 

[BugI02]

T

The founders created this country, supposedly, because another sovereign state was abusing its powers over us and was unjustly persecuting the working man and his inherent "divine" freedoms. And a society's freedom can only be measured by how much say "the people" have.

In before the proselytizing for 'true' democracy starts

 

[BugI02]

Chill out about March19. Staff has already been in discussions behind the scenes. He's not a runner, just has a more succinct posting style. With his cooperation we are testing out a new thing. He couldnt use the classifieds tomorrow even if he hit 50.

He's cool.

suc·cinct
adjective
(especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.

¿Que?

 

[BugI02]

I counter your actual contextual argument based on Constitutional documentation with my philosophy.

 

[Cameramonkey]

suc·cinct
adjective
(especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.

¿Que?

He posts brief but typically not one liners. Stop being argumentative. In thread warning.

 

[BugI02]

Is that anything like a hootenanny?

I think it's the stone pillars in Brice Canyon

 

[manifest destiny]

IBTL. Finally. Wut? Did I use it wrong again?

 

[jamil]

Narrow in scope, or narrow in margin of victory? Because it might possibly be the former (especially with an expected patchwork of concurrences), but shouldn't at all be the latter.

Of course the former. Talking heads have been speculating that the ruling will be narrow in scope. That it will only deal with the Colorado SC ruling. I was saying I think the ruling will likely put the skids on the whole idea of states using the 14th amendment to disqualify a president.

 

[DadSmith]

T

The founders created this country, supposedly, because another sovereign state was abusing its powers over us and was unjustly persecuting the working man and his inherent "divine" freedoms. And a society's freedom can only be measured by how much say "the people" have.

So to clear things up on your personal beliefs.
What kind of government do you advocate?

 

[jamil]

It doesn't require an electoral tie. It only requires that no candidates achieve 270 EV. (EVs can be challenged/thrown out/etc. - or a third candidate could get EVs.)

Even so, I don’t see the outcome being much different than what it is regardless. There are blue states that are locked for democrats. There are red states that are locks for Republicans. There’s no greater likelihood of no one reaching 270 if they removed opposition candidates.

Apart from the primaries, it doesn’t matter if Colorado removes Trump from the ballot for the general election. He’s not winning there anyway. If all the deep red states and all the deep blue states removed the opposition candidate, the outcome would be the same. Trump would win the red, and Biden would win the blue, and the election would only be a race in the moderate states.

 

[DragonGunner]

I just clicked on last page ……???…. For a minute I thought SCOTUS had a 50 post requirement at INGO before they could make a ruling. Might be a good idea. lol.

 

[chipbennett]

suc·cinct
adjective
(especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.

¿Que?

Perhaps "terse"?

 

[KG1]

Of course the former. Talking heads have been speculating that the ruling will be narrow in scope. That it will only deal with the Colorado SC ruling. I was saying I think the ruling will likely put the skids on the whole idea of states using the 14th amendment to disqualify a president.

SCOTUS will be looking to put the skids on the states in such a way as to not have to relitigate the issue over and over again.

Judging by the oral arguments I believe the scope of their ruling will be all-encompassing by making it clear that disqualification under the 14th Sec. 3 is a federal issue only to be enforced under Sec. 5 by Congressional legislation and not left up to the political whims of each individual state.

 

[KG1]

I find it interesting that Constitutional qualifications for running for POTUS are something objective that no one can argue with like age and natural born citizenship which are both self-executing.

Many try to make the same claim about the 14th Sec. 3 but is it really self-executing when it's open to subjectivity? Some view J6 as an "insurrection" while others view it as something less such as a riot.

 

[Ingomike]

natural born citizenship

Please explain exactly what this means, as there is tremendous debate on it, some believe it settled, some do not?

Which the ambiguity makes it not so self executing?

 

[KG1]

Please explain exactly what this means, as there is tremendous debate on it, some believe it settled, some do not?

Which the ambiguity makes it not so self executing?

Well I guess it could be said that the actual qualification of natural born citizenship is self-executing only when it has been determined as well as in the case of age and an established 14-year residency which all three need to be proven. Until then none of them are self-executing. The same goes for the 14th Sec. 3.

Better?

 

[chipbennett]

I find it interesting that Constitutional qualifications for running for POTUS are something objective that no one can argue with like age and natural born citizenship which are both self-executing.

Many try to make the same claim about the 14th Sec. 3 but is it really self-executing when it's open to subjectivity? Some view J6 as an "insurrection" while others view it as something less such as a riot.

IANAL, but the "self-executing" Section 3 argument seems to be undermined by Section 5, which describes the manner in which Section 3 is to be executed.

 

[chipbennett]

Well I guess it could be said that the actual qualification of natural born citizenship is self-executing only when it has been determined as well as in the case of age and an established 14-year residency which all three need to be proven. Until then none of them are self-executing. The same goes for the 14th Sec. 3.

Better?

I consider the "natural born citizen" clause to be largely moot at this point. Obviously, naturalized citizens are still denied eligibility under this clause. But the original intent had broader meaning and impact, in a newly born country. Once all citizens were "natural born" by virtue of having citizenship through birth in the USA, the import and ambiguity of the "natural born citizen" clause was considerably mooted.

It's simple: if your citizenship in the USA is by virtue of your birth, you meet the "natural born citizen" criterion. If you are a naturalized citizen, you do not.

 

[KG1]

IANAL, but the "self-executing" Section 3 argument seems to be undermined by Section 5, which describes the manner in which Section 3 is to be executed.

I agree with that.