Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Colorado Supreme Court's Claim That Trump Incited An Insurection....
Colorado Supreme Court's Claim That Trump Incited An Insurection....
By Skans
20 Dec 2023 12:40 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
20 Dec 2023 3:10 pm
I came across this:Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you ready for this, boys and girls. I just read the Colorado Supreme Court case. I'm going to re-print here the entire basis for that court claiming Trump lead an "insurrection".
"President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which he, along with several others, spoke to the attendees. In his speech, which began around noon, President Trump persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol. . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not “fight like hell, [they would] not. . . have a country anymore.” Before his speech ended, portions of the crowd began moving toward the Capitol."
That's it. That's all the Colorado Supreme court has to justify its bogus claim that Trump conducted an insurrection. Sometimes you just have to read the source document for yourself to see just how bogus the claim being made really is.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the office of the president falls under the insurrection clause, which states those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as a “member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State” cannot engage in a rebellion against it. “The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.” Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
This bolded part, looks like this has already been determined by the high court.
9-0 in Trump's favor.
20 Dec 2023 3:22 pm
another one of trump's lawyers.Fuelman » 20 Dec 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I came across this:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the office of the president falls under the insurrection clause, which states those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as a “member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State” cannot engage in a rebellion against it. “The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.” Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
This bolded part, looks like this has already been determined by the high court.
9-0 in Trump's favor.
-----------------------------------------Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb predicted Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule “9-0” in favor of former President Trump in a potential appeal of Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that would kick Trump off the state’s ballot.“I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” Cobb said in an interview on CNN, adding later, “I do believe it could be 9-0, because I think the law is clear.”The Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday that Trump should not appear on Colorado’s ballot due to his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Citing the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” the 4-3 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court argued Trump engaged in an insurrection by promoting false claims of election fraud and encouraging supporters to go the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
20 Dec 2023 3:48 pm
Yes, I was only pointing to this reference, I don't know if such cases exist.
Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
20 Dec 2023 3:49 pm
Your two authors penned articles before the 2020 election claiming Trump was a danger to democracy, sound familiar, Pedobear?
20 Dec 2023 3:52 pm
Prescient too.Cedar » 20 Dec 2023, 4:49 pm » wrote: ↑ Your two authors penned articles before the 2020 election claiming Trump was a danger to democracy, sound familiar, Pedobear?
20 Dec 2023 3:58 pm
----------------------------------------------------The justices broke from the trial judge on one key issue, reversing her controversial decision that the “insurrectionist ban” applies to every office except the presidency.Fuelman » 20 Dec 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I came across this:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the office of the president falls under the insurrection clause, which states those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as a “member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State” cannot engage in a rebellion against it. “The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.” Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
This bolded part, looks like this has already been determined by the high court.
9-0 in Trump's favor.
READ: Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from 2024 ballotSection 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can’t serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” But it doesn’t mention the presidency.This textual vagueness is why the trial judge kept Trump on the 2024 ballot. But the high court disagreed. And this was the linchpin of their decision to disqualify Trump.“It seems most likely that the Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an ‘office,’” the court said, adding that “a conclusion that the Presidency is something other than an office ‘under’ the United States is fundamentally at odds with the idea that all government officials, including the President, serve ‘we the people.’”
20 Dec 2023 3:59 pm
You're once again on the wrong side of history.
20 Dec 2023 4:01 pm
20 Dec 2023 4:03 pm
20 Dec 2023 4:10 pm
The judge is wrong when it comes to the part in red. Those government officials serve the Cabinet Secretary over their area first, then the President. They do NOT serve the people. If they did, the people could fire them...they cannot. If the President doesn't fire them, Congress would have to impeach to get them out of their position. Since the judge is so obviously out of step with reality on one of their essential points, discount the entire decision.jerrab » 20 Dec 2023, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑ ----------------------------------------------------The justices broke from the trial judge on one key issue, reversing her controversial decision that the “insurrectionist ban” applies to every office except the presidency.
20 Dec 2023 4:21 pm
No. You state whatever it is you want to say, and if I think its thought out well enough for me to respond, I will. If its a troll post, I'll ignore it.
20 Dec 2023 4:21 pm
No doubt an effeminately raised and helpless little ****** bitch like you has no concept of what "Self Defense" is.
No doubt an easily terrified little ****** Bitch like you would be easy to convince that the following list of weapons was capable of overthrowing the US Government
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ters-carry
20 Dec 2023 4:22 pm
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other RightsFuelman » 20 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes, I was only pointing to this reference, I don't know if such cases exist.
Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
- Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
20 Dec 2023 4:26 pm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑ The judge is wrong when it comes to the part in red. Those government officials serve the Cabinet Secretary over their area first, then the President. They do NOT serve the people. If they did, the people could fire them...they cannot. If the President doesn't fire them, Congress would have to impeach to get them out of their position. Since the judge is so obviously out of step with reality on one of their essential points, discount the entire decision.
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12 ... do-ruling/
But in fact, both common sense and history demonstrate that Trump was an officer, an officer of the United States and an officer under the United States for constitutional purposes. Most people, even lawyers and constitutional scholars like me, do not distinguish between those specific phrases in ordinary discourse. The people who framed and ratified Section 3 saw no distinction. Exhaustive research by Trump supporters has yet to produce a single assertion to the contrary that was made in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Yet scholars John Vlahoplus and Gerard Magliocca are daily producing newspaper and other reports asserting that presidents are covered by Section 3
20 Dec 2023 4:28 pm
You posted the correct information. However, some constitutional scholars say the President is not an officer of the United States. They point to Article II, Section 2 which states (in part); " He shall have power,... and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."jerrab » 20 Dec 2023, 5:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
- Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Their contention is the President appoints officers and that the word "other" is used because a partial list of officers was given. It is an interesting argument.
20 Dec 2023 4:30 pm
Of what conceivable relevance is that when ransacking the Capitol?GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑ No doubt an effeminately raised and helpless little ****** bitch like you has no concept of what "Self Defense" is.
No doubt an easily terrified little ****** Bitch like you would be easy to convince that the following list of weapons was capable of overthrowing the US Government
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ters-carry
20 Dec 2023 4:30 pm
See the post I just made. Some constitutional scholars disagree with that assessment and cite Article !!, Section 2.jerrab » 20 Dec 2023, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12 ... do-ruling/
But in fact, both common sense and history demonstrate that Trump was an officer, an officer of the United States and an officer under the United States for constitutional purposes. Most people, even lawyers and constitutional scholars like me, do not distinguish between those specific phrases in ordinary discourse. The people who framed and ratified Section 3 saw no distinction. Exhaustive research by Trump supporters has yet to produce a single assertion to the contrary that was made in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Yet scholars John Vlahoplus and Gerard Magliocca are daily prod
20 Dec 2023 4:31 pm
I agree that the US Supreme court has already ruled that elected officials are not "officers" within the meaning of Article 3. However, even more fundamental than that is that Trump has never been charged with insurrection and certainly not convicted of it. Not only that, his mere statements expressing disappointment at the election process falls far far short of any actual insurrection.Fuelman » 20 Dec 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I came across this:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the office of the president falls under the insurrection clause, which states those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as a “member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State” cannot engage in a rebellion against it. “The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.” Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context.
This bolded part, looks like this has already been determined by the high court.
9-0 in Trump's favor.
One example of a genuine insurrection in American History was Shays Rebellion of 1786. Farmers who could not pay their taxes were losing their property to foreclosures. A group of citizens organized protest gatherings across the state. Daniel Shays led armed rebels and massed at county courts to stop them from processing the seizures of farms. Protestors calling themselves the “Regulators” stormed the courthouse at Northampton to prevent it from convening. Job Shattuck, a farmer from Groton, led an armed confrontation with tax collectors to prevent them from foreclosing on neighbors. In Uxbridge, a mob seized confiscated property and returned it to the former owners.
20 Dec 2023 4:31 pm
DEFENDANTWEAPON
ALAM, Zachary JordanHelmet
ALBERTS, Christopher MichaelHandgun (Alberts was arrested after the riot was over
BALLARD, Thomas JohnPolice baton
BARNETT, RichardStun gun, walking stick
BARNHART, Logan JamesBaton, flagpole, crutch
BLACK, Joshua MatthewKnife
BLAIR, David AlanFlagpole, knife
BROCKHOFF, Nicholas JamesFire extinguisher
BYERLY, Alan WilliamTaser
CALDWELL, Daniel RayPepper or mace spray
CAPUCCIO, StevenBaton
CHRESTMAN, WilliamAx handle
COFFEE, Luke RussellCrutch
COFFMAN, Lonnie LeroyMultiple firearms (Coffman is not charged with being on Capitol grounds.)
COPELAND, Landon KennethMetal fence
CUA, Bruno JosephBaton
DEMPSEY, David NicholasCrutch, metal pole, "lacrimal spray," and "club-like object"
EISENHART, Lisa MarieTaser
FAIRLAMB, Scott KevinBaton
FOY, Michael JosephHockey stick
GIESWEIN, RobertBaseball bat, "aerosol irritant spray"
GOSSJANKOWSKI, VitaliTaser
HARKRIDER, Alex KirkTomahawk ax
IBRAHIM, Mark SamiFirearm
JACKSON, EmanuelMetal baseball bat
JAMES, AaronShield
JENKINS, Shane LeedonTomahawk ax, flagpole, desk drawer, and "stick-like objects"
JENSEN, Douglas AustinKnife
JOHNSON, Paul RussellMetal crowd control barrier
JONES, Chad BarrettFlagpole
JUDD, David LeeFirecracker
KHATER, Julian ElieChemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
KLEIN, Federico GuillermoShield
KRAMER, Philip EdwardSnowboarding helmet, walking cane, Master Lock, climbing rope
LANG, Edward JacobBat, shield
LANGUERAND, NicholasTraffic barrier, "stick-like objects"
LAZAR, SamuelChemical irritant
MCABEE, Ronald ColtonBaton, flagpole, crutch, and "reinforced gloves
"MCCAUGHEY, Patrick E. IIIShield
MCGREW, James BurtonPole
MCHUGH, Sean MichaelBear spray, "metal sign"
MCKELLOP, JeffreyFlagpole
MEREDITH, Cleveland Grover Jr.Firearms (Meredith arrived in Washington after the riot was over but was charged with having three guns in his possession.)
MELLIS, Jonathan GennaroStick
MILLER, Matthew RyanFire extinguisher
MINK, Jorden RobertBaseball bat
MUNAFO, Jonathan JoshuaFlagpole
MUNCHEL, EricTaserNEEFE, MarshallWooden club, "metal sign frame"
NICHOLS, Ryan TaylorCrowbar, pepper spray
OWENS, Grady DouglasSkateboard
PADILLA, Joseph LinoFlagpole, "large metal sign"
PALMER, Robert ScottFire extinguisher, "stick-like object"
PERKINS, Michael StevenFlagpole
POLLOCK, Jonathan DanielFlagpole, riot shield
PONDER, Mark K.PolePOWELL, Rachel MarieIce ax, "large wooden pole"
QUAGLIN, Christopher JosephShield, pepper spray
RANDOLPH, Stephen ChaseMetal crowd control barrier
REFFITT, Guy WesleyHandgun
RODRIGUEZ, DanielFlagpole, "electroshock weapon"
RODRIGUEZ, Edward FranciscoChemical irritant
SABOL, JeffreyBaton, flagpole, crutch
SAMSEL, Ryan StephenMetal crowd control barrier
SANFORD, RobertFire extinguisher
SCHAFFER, JonBear spray
SCHWARTZ, Peter J.Pepper spray
SILLS, Geoffrey WilliamBaton
SMITH, Charles BradfordKnife
STAGER, Peter FrancisBaton, flagpole, crutch
STEVENS, Tristan ChandlerShield
SULLIVAN, John EarleKnife
TAAKE, Andrew QuentinPepper spray, metal whip
TANIOS, George PierreChemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
TAYLOR, RussellKnife
THOMPSON, DevlynBaton
WATSON, WilliamPepper spray
WEBSTER, ThomasFlagpole
WESTBURY, IsaacShield
WHITTON, Jack WadeBaton, flagpole, crutch
WILSON, Duke EdwardPipe
WORRELL, Christopher JohnPepper spray
A few observations on the list. First, on the issue of guns. Five suspects — Christopher Michael Alberts, Lonnie Leroy Coffman, Mark Sami Ibrahim, Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr., and Guy Wesley Reffitt — are charged with possessing firearms. But none are charged with using them during the riot.
20 Dec 2023 4:31 pm
ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑ You posted the correct information. However, some constitutional scholars say the President is not an officer of the United States. They point to Article II, Section 2 which states (in part); " He shall have power,... and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."
Their contention is the President appoints officers and that the word "other" is used because a partial list of officers was given. It is an interesting argument.
and numerous NAMED jurists who say otherwise..However, some constitutional scholars say the President is not an officer of the United States
Who is online
In total there are 5116 users online :: 2 registered, 12 bots, and 5102 guests
Registered users: LowIQTrash, SouthernFried
Bots: LCC, MicroMessenger, YandexBot, GPTBot, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot, Applebot, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit