The judge just nullified the United States Consitution in support of Trump.
Her ruling makes no sense and shows complete disregard for the 14th amendment.
Let’s face it. Nothing makes any sense anymore.
It makes plenty of sense, the reasons are just horrible.
We all know the only true amendment to these people is the 2nd.
Until minorities arm themselves
The only feasible way the left can actually affect gun laws in a regular human lifetime is doing that: arm minorities and have them protest with their firerms. That’s the only way you can have dipshit retard Republicans to vote against their own interests in favor of gun control, by catering to their racism/sexism/genderism.
deleted by creator
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/“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.”
Because no judge in history has ever made a decision based on synonyms. I’m all too familiar with how specific wording is in when it’s pertinent to the judge’s decision, and ‘judges are meant to interpret the meaning’ when the specific wording would be against a judge’s decision. This was stupidity writ in legalese.
Not really. There’s more to this than appears in the news reports.
There are basically two things that both need to be established to remove Trump from the ballot. First, he must have engaged in an insurrection. Second, he must be an “officer” subject to the 14th Amendment.
Despite what everyone thinks, the second is a matter of legitimate debate among law professors. Some very anti-Trump scholars think he isn’t an officer.
But what they think or you think or I think about this doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judges think.
Judges, plural. The judge here gets to rule on the first question, which is a question of fact. Questions of fact are almost never overturned on appeal. Trump did engage in insurrection as far as Colorado is concerned.
On the other hand, the second is a question of law. Anything this judge decides on the “officer” issue can and will be reviewed on appeal. And the key here is that the appellate judge has to ignore what the first judge thought about the officer issue, and start the analysis over from scratch.
So given that this case was going to be appealed no matter what, the judge made the only ruling that matters: on the subject of insurrection. With that set in stone, the rest was irrelevant and she probably knew it.
The judge: “POTUS isn’t an officer of the United States”
Also the judge:
I sure hope questions of fact don’t get overturned on appeal as you say they rarely do, since that excerpt is from the Finding of Fact section of the court ruling.
Look, I don’t agree with her conclusion regarding whether Trump is an officer of the United States. But her argument rests on the specific phrase “Officer of the United States” and how that phrase is used in the Constitution. So in theory you can be the CEO of the executive branch but not an “officer of the United States”.
People who buy that argument point out that the Constitution says the President nominates “all officers of the United States”, logically implying the President is not one of them. It also discusses impeachment of the President, Vice president, and all officers of the United States, again implying they are different things. Again, I don’t like the argument but there it is.
No 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.
I’m confused at the plain language of the 14th amendment, section 3 versus your understanding of the same. They don’t seem to match.
This is a simple case, which should not involve the courts at all. Trump is simply ineligible to hold office. Period. (FYI: Half of the Congress members are in the same boat.) However, (the legitimate) Congress members could save his bacon by voting (with two-thirds of the vote) to remove the restriction. Again, really simple language and really simple remedy, if the government would simply do their jobs and read the dang thing.
The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.
hold any office, civil or military
Doesn’t seem vague to me, at all.
Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.
The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.
But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.
The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.
No 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.
The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:
If he:
- Took an oath
- As an officer of the United States, and
- Engaged in insurrection
then he cannot be president or hold any other office.
I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.
This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.
Only mealy mouthed judges and lawyers could spin an elected office holder as not being an officer of the US. Fuckers have spun their way into negating most of our rights by literally making shit up so they can make their own offices more powerful.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/“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.”
It’s not really about the word “support”.
The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).
The president is the Commander in Chief. That’s a military rank.
The Commander in Chief is nevertheless a civilian. That’s why they are not subject to the UCMJ.
REally?
Judge Wallace you are a complete fucking buffoon.
Either he did or did not engage in the insurrection. If he did he’s off the ballot. If he did not, then he’s off the hook.
This coward judge has doomed us all.
Trump lost Colorado… This is a state judge, and quite frankly the fear and cowardice some of you people are showing for Trump 2024 is hilarious.
And liberals wonder why everyone else calls them spineless.
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
None of that means we shouldn’t talk about the ruling
Its an incoherent ruling.
Sure, it’s obviously partisan hackery, but “Doomed us all” is just outright hysterical.
No u
If he wins, there’s going to be insane backlash, if he loses (while on ballots), there’s going to be insane backlash. After Jan 6, who knows what else they’ll try?
Bring it.
So your response to impending Fascism is to wait and believe you’ll be able to out last/out fight the fascists? Good luck with that
Because that’s not worked before, lol
Imagine being such a rampant and ignorant coward you actually suggest fighting fascists doesn’t work
There is a lot of stupid in this thread, including yours. Trump is the greatest domestic threat to the United States. Attempting to overthrow a fair election and pushing FUD to undermine trust in the system are seriously destructive. Best case scenario is we’re fixing this shit for decades.
Trump didn’t succeed. But he’s opened the gates for others to try. Caesar wasn’t the first to march on Rome.
He referred to his opponents as vermin, and his campaign manager doubled down. So yes, there’s some fear. The man mimics Hitler’s phrasing and attempted a coup.
Your last statement is an ad hominem fallacy, not great for actual debates. Are you suggesting that it’s cowardice to remove him from ballots? What’s the brave tactic in this situation? Let the man attempt another coup using his bigoted dog whistles?
[There’s only one bullet in the cylinder]… This is a [six shooter], and quite frankly the fear and cowardice some of you people are showing for [blowing your fucking head off] 2024 is hilarious.
And liberals wonder why everyone else calls them spineless.
What bullshit is this? So any president can engage in insurrection as recognized by a court completely unpunished as long as they aren’t an officer in the military and “only a civilian”? Maybe this legal system does deserve to be burned to the ground if it’s that ignorant.
So any president can engage in insurrection as recognized by a court completely unpunished as long as they aren’t an officer in the military and “only a civilian”?
It’s even weirder, because she is saying this phrase, "any office, civil or military, under the United States” does not cover the office of the president. Which is a terrible ruling as the president is a civilian officer and thus covered by section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment. The ruling comes off as a blatant misreading of the text.
Maybe this legal system does deserve to be burned to the ground if it’s that ignorant.
Our government is being infiltrated by fascists at all levels. We need to vote the fascists out.
Removed by mod
No, actually the germans voted the fascists in. Then the Allies WWII them. Who is going to WWIII America if we become a fascist dictatorship when our defense budget is larger than the next ten countries’ budgets combined?
Americans
That’s really optimistic. A huge chunk of our armed civilians are actively embracing fascism. Our over developed military isn’t exactly a sandcastle you can kick over either.
There’s also a sizeable chunk, if not nearly all of military leadership that absolutely would not mobilize the military against the civilian population.
Maybe many of the lower enlisted don’t recognize the fascism, but the higher enlisted and officers actually in charge know better than to forsake the oath of enlistment they’ve taken several times. They’re repeatedly taught to refuse unlawful orders.
I have faith in our military leadership to do what’s best for the American people and not whatever yahoo is in office when it comes to mobilizing them domestically. Perhaps that’s naive.
I hope you’re right but I don’t think many have that same faith…
We can hope. At the end of the day, if what you say is true, democracy may depend on the willpower of a relatively small number of people to do the right thing. Because Trump has already said he intends to deploy the military to the streets. If he gets elected, it’s not “if” the military gets involved it’s “when”.
you need to take a lot more drastic action than just voting, because your options are fascists or polite fascists
because your options are fascists or polite fascists
The Republican party is controlled by fascists. The Democratic party is controlled by neoliberals. Neoliberalism leads to fascism. That does not mean that neoliberals are themselves fascists. Neoliberals have simply failed to realize that their idealized society, if left to rot long enough, is the ideal environment for fascism to take root.
This distinction is important, because if we incorrectly write off neoliberals as fascists we are doing the fascists work for them by dividing ourselves needlessly. The truth is, we outnumber the fascists. In order to win, the fascists need us to see each other as the enemy. Instead of lumping everyone to the right of us politically with the fascists, we need to educate people about the dangers of neoliberalism and fascism.
We are in a race to educate and inform people. The answers to our problems are democracy and socialism. We need to spread that message to as many people as possible, before the fascists spread their message of division and hatred. The fascists have a head start, so we have no time to lose. edit: typo
I don’t get why these people say that both parties are fascist because I entirely agree that while Dems in the long term become similar, just with different values, it’s unclear to me how that muddies the political waters.
What people seem to be saying is that even if I vote left every time and even if leftist ideas take more hold, the right will still exist and both parties will swing us right regardless.
I fundamentally disagree. The very very first thing we have to do is make the current state of the right deeply unpopular. What I want to hear is far more Dems saying “this party has gone too far left, I’m republican now” and purifying the left by leaving. I want Dems and republicans competing in that way where conservative Dems slowly bleed to the other side. And then we vote further and further left until we become sensible.
Do I see that happening? Absolutely. But this next point is critical. I realize the meme about every election being critical. But this one truly is. America decides in a year: Fascism or no?
But I’d argue this election isn’t as important as the ones after it. Even if America re-elects trump, he can only do so much to slide us toward fascism(not to minimize). But if his re-election doesn’t cause outrage and huge political shifts, we’re doomed. Two republican victories in a row and this country topples in a big way.
deleted by creator
But I’d argue this election isn’t as important as the ones after it. Even if America re-elects trump, he can only do so much to slide us toward fascism(not to minimize). But if his re-election doesn’t cause outrage and huge political shifts, we’re doomed. Two republican victories in a row and this country topples in a big way.
I can’t overstate how nice it is to see a hopeful opinion for a change. You are correct that it could take two elections for the fascists to takeover. The issue is that they could do it in one in theory.
If they win back the senate and take the executive branch in the next election they will control all three branches of the Federal Government. Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act to mobilize the military against civilians. Also, the Republicans are championing this Project 2025 from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Among other things, it calls for removing every nonpartisan member of the executive branch and replacing them with partisan yes-men who are only loyal to Trump.
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025
civil or military
Even more confused.
It’s an inclusive or. In the US, if a member of the civilian government or the military engages in insurrection or rebellion they are ineligible from holding any office again.
When the word ‘office’ is first mentioned in section 3, ‘civil or military’ is specified. It’s clear then that ‘officer of the United States’ has the same connotation.
An insurrectionist, who took an oath of office, is disqualified from assuming the office of the president and an insurrectionist will be disqualified from holding any office if they committed their insurrection while being president.
Here is the full section:
Section 3. No 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.
Here is a link to the fourteenth amendment for reference.
Oh I was clear on that after your first reply, just confused how that ruling could have possibly occurred given all the text and the actions by Trump. If she were in his pocket, she wouldn’t have acknowledged he engaged in insurrection in the first place, so WTAF, judge?
edit: like… did he cross his fingers behind his back when he took the oath of office for president, so it didn’t count? What the actual hell.
I don’t know if you’ve read this comic, but I would say the judge believes in the message around the red, bottom left hand circle, on the second page, very strongly.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html
Also like, spoilers I guess, if you do read the comic and are behind.
I don’t know how to spell it but there’s a Marge Simpson aggravated noise in my head right now.
It’s some hardcore lawful evil nonsense.
Lmao, I had to check which board I was on for a second.
Our government is being infiltrated by fascists at all levels. We need to vote the fascists out.
~Germans, 1920
Yeah, we need to vote the fascists out of office. Otherwise we will end up like Nazi Germany.
I’m not going to assume. What do you mean?
I mean germans who didnt like hitler might have had faith in democracy a little bit too long.
In a true democracy, people have the ability to throw their democracy away. Hitler won an election to gain power. He was able to do that in part because Fascism was an entirely new political ideology then.
We have the advantage of knowing better. The trick is getting everyone to identify Trump as the fascist he is. Our democracy is only as strong as we are all informed.
It is of course too late for voting once the fascists complete their takeover. Thankfully that hasn’t happened yet.
In a true democracy we wouldn’t be limited to voting for wealthy individuals who had been in power all their lives. This is oligarhy with elements that keep kids beliving they have some kind of freeer freedom than people in the past. There is hardly anything democratic about a party convention deciding who the population will even have a chance to vote for.
We have the advantage of knowing better.
Tell that to MAGA idiots who are gonna vote for Trump again. It doesn’t concern them that we are worried. We cannot protect them from their own stupidity. Even if we try the system is rigged by the rich who rather exploit their stupidity for more money and power than protect them from stupid things they are bound to do.
Remember, there is no justice for trumps extremely illegal and undemocratic behavior simply because the rich and powerful decided he might still be useful.
In short the democracy they keep telling us we live in is a facade to a system where few make the choices that matter and leave the illusion of choice to the many to keep them docile. We make them rich and they make us suffer.
Tell that to MAGA idiots who are gonna vote for Trump again.
Helping people to stop being fascists is a good thing. We are going to need to get on that too. But at this point, there are still so many people who haven’t fully realized what is going on yet.
In short the democracy they keep telling us we live in is a facade to a system where few make the choices that matter and leave the illusion of choice to the many to keep them docile.
I’m aware that the wealthy have a disproportionate influence in our democracy. But we will still have a democracy. If the fascists win any of the next elections our democracy will be an illusion. The oligarchy of tech giants will be in complete control of our lives under the guidance of a christofascist state.
We make them rich and they make us suffer.
They can make it worse if we lose our democracy. While we can only make it better with our democracy.
Let me translate this batfuck stupidity into plain english:
“Yeah, we all know that Trump is a traitor. But if y’all think that I’m gonna be the one to open up that can of worms and then enter the witness protection program for the rest of my life, y’all are fucking nuts.”
That’s really what it boils down to. The government is finally afraid of it’s citizens but unfortunately it’s for all the wrong reasons. Proper fuckin show America.
Guess the militia just ain’t that well regulated
We literally can’t win with you people. Trying to actually be a regulated militia is impossible with half the country against the idea, yet simultaneously mocking that same group when they do try to organize and train.
I don’t live in your country but please, go off
There’s a big difference between a bunch of people doing military LARP in the woods together and ‘well regulated’.
Your better argument is that such militia should have some kind of regulatory body that they can point at to be defined as ‘well regulated’. We’ve already learned through every corporation every that a company regulating itself is a bad idea. So, you want to start up the American Militia Bureau?
This all pretends that the ideals that the second amendment was based on are still valid. A bunch of LARPingin the woods, even with regulation, can’t really achieve what the 2nd set out to do.
Hey America you guys are fucked
What exactly do you think happens after we guys get fucked?
China wins.
Haven’t been paying much attention to their import/export numbers? Their economy is in decline. Their population peaked long ago. They’re no longer a cheap manufacturing hub, and they have a problem with political instability. They did major power on speed run and lost bigly.
Then my second guess is Canada wins. Nobody suspects the quiet ones…
Soon we’ll all be sorry.
What makes you think their economy is in decline compared to other top economies?
deleted by creator
Pure copium
I can always tell when someone doesn’t understand something explained when they respond with “Cope” or “copium.”
Look at the actual data we’re getting about China. They don’t even publish their unemployment numbers for ages 24 and under because it’s over 22%. That’s not a country winning.
how are their unemployed actually doing?
and wheres that 22% coming from, what with them not publishing the numbers?
Check my other comment I just responded to. Basically like every government China doesn’t just track “unemployment.” They track based on many different factors and sectors and age is one of them. 16-24 is a specific bracket that is often benchmarked as signs of positive growth from an economy and is linked to general upward mobility (think back to 08 in the USA when the Great Recession meant incredibly high unemployment rates, but higher rates among young people). So when those numbers aren’t favorable it paints a bleak picture that something in the economy is wrong. So rather than them actually trying to create new jobs and do better they chose to simply get rid of the numbers. The reason they most likely have a high unemployment rate among 16-24 is because those are heavy “factory” or “industrial line” years for workers who get jobs producing things. When you’re economy is contracting though and companies are building new things elsewhere then you have higher youth unemployment as a result. For the numbers check the other comment. It goes into further detail about other areas.
I mean, I could just make numbers up too, but I don’t need to, I just need to laugh at anyone that thinks America is doing great because the numbers kept going up after a policy of deliberate inflation.
Also, just a general “lmao” at the idea that you “explained” anything. Regurgitated a snippet you heard someone else say, maybe.
You can’t really explain anything on something as broad as a country’s position of global power. Me saying China isn’t doing well isn’t based off some small snippet of information I heard somewhere or the illusion of what our media is doing. It’s based off raw numbers of their own government, or removal of said number when they aren’t good enough. I don’t have anything against the people of China nor their country really. I’m just objectively saying what the numbers and direction of everything is showing. When you have policies like 1 child that stay in place for generations you run risks of going to long and creating a new social norm of no new population. When you do things like zero covid for three years randomly shutting down whole regions and ports you risk creating an economy that falls due to businesses looking elsewhere to work and build things. There’s things that add up to paint a bad picture. I wish them all well and want them to be successful.
here’s youth unemployment from China. China has been growing imports and shrinking exports massively. Lastly here’s an article talking about people even on Chinas own social media saying their government did a quick 180 on the stance of the US when China suddenly wanted to “work together” as they keep posting low numbers Link.
On political instability: here’s two high ranking party members with positions that were at the top who suddenly disappeared or were fired. Like a foreign minister who disappeared and wasn’t heard from for some time. Or the general who also disappeared from public the eye and was replaced. Alone as singular events these mean nothing, but add up that high ranking officials have been disappearing or fired suddenly over the last several months at a rate higher than expected and you have political instability.
Anyways, all this to say “lmao” I guess.
Une guillotine, s’il te plaît, et peut-être une bouteille de courage.
Translation courtesy of Google Translate because lord knows I don’t speak French.
The whole country can’t decide whether autocracy is a good idea.
Yeah… we know…
I think it’s just possible that this might be the stupidest ruling I have ever seen. He’s an insurrectionist, but apparently he’s a special insurrectionist, and should be allowed to have another crack at the highest office in the country. What the expletive fuck?
deleted by creator
The rich part seems to be in debate. The ‘fat’, ‘old’, ‘white’ part is confirmed by his GoP membership.
I’m not sure it’s any better, but he’s arguing that the ban doesn’t apply to being president not that it doesn’t apply to presidents. And the wording makes this reasonable, but logically it makes no sense. Like I assume that if trump tried to run for senator now, this judge would remove him from the ballot.
She, actually. And no, her interpretation was that the office of president not being listed in the opening sentence of that clause means that the “framers” specifically wanted to exclude it. Here’s the sentence in question:
No 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.
The language says: “elector of President and Vice-President”, but it does not explicitly specify “President” or “Vice President”. Therefore, she ruled that though he is a traitor, he can’t be barred from running for office again.
It’s incredibly dumb.
The language also includes “any office.”
Pretty inclusive if you ask me.
Seems pretty inclusive to me, too. I’m right there with you. But the judge didn’t ask either of us, or apparently anybody who can read for their opinion, so we got this bullshit instead.
Edit: BTW - this isn’t just my flawed interpretation of the judge’s decision. It’s basically a summary of paragraph 313 of her ruling:
Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.
But why specifically call out senators but not the president?
It doesn’t logically make sense that they would bar you from being a senator, but not the POTUS…but the wording of it certainly makes the conclusion within reason.
If you’re asking me to get into her head and figure out why she made possibly the dumbest judgment I have ever seen, well… I’m afraid I’m not capable of doing that. If you’re asking me why the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify the president in the list of job titles… my guess is that they never thought that a president would be a traitor. It was written to target the traitors in the Confederacy, after all.
If you’re asking me to get into her head and figure out why she made possibly the dumbest judgment I have ever seen, well… I’m afraid I’m not capable of doing that.
I’m not asking you to do this. But this is a funny question to ask because courts don’t just rule and keep their reasoning in a black box, they write out a whole document as to why they ruled the way they did; you don’t need to get into her head as it’s all written out as to why she ruled that way.
f you’re asking me why the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify the president in the list of job titles… my guess is that they never thought that a president would be a traitor. It was written to target the traitors in the Confederacy, after all.
So then her ruling makes sense, because they fucked up the amendment when they passed it to not include the POTUS/VPOTUS and it should be amended. You’re basically saying that it’s a dumb ruling and that she should rule outside the law as it’s written because the people who made it didn’t think it through all the way. The latter being quite presumptuous. I’d be interested in reading about the passage of this amendment.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/“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.”
Yes, that was the second half of her stupid, stupid judgment.
In fairness to Trump, his oath did say “to the best of my ability…” Well… if he had no ability… :)
or hold any office
It’s right there in the first sentence, “no person shall be” vp, senator, etc… not “having been.”
And this is what she (thanks for the correction) ruled. And you’re right she is ruling that they explicitly excluded it, but only from positions one is barred from holding, not saying he can hold any position still because he was president when he did it.
As I said, based on her ruling, if he tried to run for senator, she would remove him from the ballot.
(Edited to add) from the article:
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
Sorry, but you’re misunderstanding her ruling. Her ruling has nothing to do with the office he’s running for, it was entirely to do with the office he held. I posted this further down in the thread, but here’s the relevant section from her ruling itself:
Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.
She is saying that because the president is not included in the list of offices, that it was specifically excluded by the people who wrote the 14th amendment. Therefore, he is not bound by the rules that would have applied if he were, say, a senator or representative. So if he were to run for any other office, senator, congressman, etc, it would be allowed because he never violated his oath. If he were a senator, he would have violated the oath with his actions on and around Jan. 6th, and so therefore he wouldn’t be allowed to pursue office.
In my defense, I hadn’t read the ruling, I was going off what the article said. However, having now quickly looked over the ruling, she rules both positions.
For Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to Trump this Court must find both that the Presidency is an “office . . . under the United States” and that Trump took an oath as “an officer of the United States” “to support the Constitution of the United States.”
And then she goes on to rule, as you note, that he did not take an oath to support the COTUS, but also before that
The Court holds that it is unpersuaded that the drafters intended to include the highest office in the Country in the catchall phrase “office . . . under the United States.”
So I guess we were both right, and both wrong. Good talk. I learned something today. Thank you.
Removed by mod
I suppose that depends on who you ask. If you ask the judge in CO, she’d say no. If you asked literally anybody else, other than that moron I spent way too long arguing with the other day, they’d say “duh”.
deleted by creator
From the 14th ammendment:
"No 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. "
What a terrible ruling. In what world is the president not a civil or military office? It’s the highest civil and the highest military office! And they obviously take the oath to uphold the constitution too! This is a travesty.
The other rulings had a somewhat point with primaries technically being a party thing that’s a private organization and not the real ballot. But this judge is just wiping their ass with the constitution.
I obviously agree that the Presidency should be included in the 14th Amendment, but
In what world is the president not a civil or military office?
Presumably the same world that led the drafters to mention Senators and Representatives separately as well.
Or! Not and, or. It’s saying you can’t be a representative or senator or hold any civil or military offices (members of the executive branch, ie the president). Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment? That’d be ridiculous. That’s why they wrote all civil offices, all military offices, anyone who swears to uphold the constitution. You’d have to bend over backwards logically here to say the presidency isn’t a civil or military office that swears to uphold the constitution. It obviously is. What else would a civil or military office be? So I guess we need a new amendment that lists each individual job title of the tens of thousands of jobs within the executive department to satisfy this judge and you?
Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment?
That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I would be asking is, “Why were Senators and Representatives mentioned explicitly?”, to which my answer would probably be that the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’. Otherwise, why bother? This is an Amendment to the Constitution ffs, there shouldn’t be a single superfluous word in it. My next question would then be, “If the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’, would they have considered the Presidency to be one?”, to which my answer would probably be ‘no’ despite very much wanting it to be ‘yes’.
My third question would be, “Did they just forget or something?”, and my answer would be, “Gee I sure hope so. Better assume they did.”, which is why I’m not a judge.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition. I can’t see how anyone would read this and think, wow, whoever wrote this wanted an insurrectionist to be able to hold no position in government except for the most powerful position in all of government, that one we intend to hold wide open for them. If the amendment said the presidency is excluded from this, then I think you and the judge would have a case. It’s clearly just making it’s wording as comprehensive as possible to imply that it’s excluding insurrectionists from every level and position in government across all branches and even weird things like the electoral college.
The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices,
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.
Wallace has concluded that “any office” does not include the office of the President of the United States. Fuck off, wallace
He’s a coward that wanted to pass the buck. Much like way Mueller was. Pass on all the evidence saying he did it, and then rely on someone else to say he did it.
No, you were the authority, and you failed in your duty to your country.
14th amendment: Engaging in Insurrection bars someone from political office. US Judges: Engaging in Insurrection does NOT bar someone from political office.
I can’t wait for Republicans to protest this EGREGIOUS PERVERSION of our Constitution!
Well, they claim that the liberals are making up all of the evidence in Trump’s indictments. So in their view he should still be eligible.
In a other article:
Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact “engage in insurrection” on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys’ arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech.
Coward. I’m disappointed in my state.
Same. and same
She knows her ruling is fucking stupid. All she is saying is “I’m gonna try not to get killed by some extremist while this gets appealed to higher courts.”
Are we finally getting to the point where we realize the courts will not save us and only a favorable election result will?
I mean, that or an aneurysm, but those are the only way.
imagine if trump fell dead tomorrow. the conspiracy theories would be off the hook.
He would probably even stay on the ballot and win.
I watched this trial, I saw the arguments and this really pisses me off. The defense was incredibly bad when talking about holding office. The Minnesota one I get, it was more about the RNC and DNC choosing their own people to represent them. This one though, the petitioners gave so many examples of how it’s an office and the defense was like, “nuh ah.” I thought I would be okay with whatever she decided but this seems like she thought she was in law school and having fun debating about it. I’m glad she called out the insurrection, but does it help?
I hate to say this, but the judge is right and pretty much everyone on this thread is wrong.
What she’s saying is that she believes that he engaged in insurrection, but that her belief is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. And she’s right.
It’s going to have to be an established fact that he engaged in insurrection, and in a court setting, that means that he’s going to have to be convicted.
Not just charged, and not just pretty obviously guilty - convicted.
Like it or not, just like anyone else, as far as a court is concerned, he’s innocent until proven guilty.
A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents
Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
Please reread the article. I’ve quoted the relevant sections. The ruling has nothing to do with Trump needing to be convicted. The judge explicitly states that she believes that the office of the president is not covered by the phrase “any office, civil or military, under the United States” and therefore is not covered by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This ruling benefits Trump to the detriment of us all. The ruling seems to be grounded in the idea that the president is above the law. This ruling is a symptom of the fascist movement that is trying to take over our country. We can not afford to misunderstand this ruling. We need to see it for what it is, another blow to the foundations of our democracy. edit: typo
Something fishy is going on here.
At the time I posted that response, the article included a whole section of her ruling in which she said that it must be a certain fact that he engaged in insurrection, and that it cannot yet be called a certain fact, and that she is not empowered to decide that it is - that that’s a matter for the appropriate courts to decide.
And all of that is now gone.
I’ll have to see if I can find it elsewhere, because it was there.
I would be interested to see whatever article or version of an article that you saw. I recommend googling whatever phrases from the article you can remember and also checking the Wayback Machine. Their web scrappers might have picked up an earlier version of the article.
I looked up the CNN article. This is what they had.
I put the snapshots in diff checker and they seem to be the same. I then put one of the snapshots against the current article based on text I got from Reading Mode and while they are different, they don’t seem to be different in the way you are describing.
Yeah - I already did a rudimentary version of that (just searching - not going through the Wayback Machine though, and thanks for doing that), and didn’t find anything
I’m positive it was there. My first reaction was actually that the judge must’ve come up with some bullshit excuse to not make the obvious ruling, likely because she didn’t have the guts to go through with it, either because she didnt want to be the focus of a legal system that would certainly be shook up by it, or because she didn’t want to be targeted by some violent fuckwit Trump supporter.
But then I read the article and switched entirely. I wish I could remember the precise wording, but in effect she said that it had to be an established fact that he engaged in insurrection, and that it was not yet an established fact, and not within the bounds of this case to make that ruling. So I wrote my response.
Then I got off the internet, gamed for a while, and went to bed.
And woke up this morning to… this. And that’s unfortunately the extent of my knowledge on the matter.
Was I confused? Maybe, but I tend not to think so, not (just) because my ego prefers that view, but because what I read was sufficient to make my own view do a 180.
But if that bit about established fact really was there, where did it go? And why? And how is it not just gone, but nowhere else I’ve been able to find?
Damned if I know…
“What she’s saying is that she believes that he engaged in insurrection, but that her belief is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. And she’s right.”
Where did she say this? From the court order:
“The Court further concludes that the events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of insurrection.”
That’s not the judge’s personal opinion, that’s the finding of the court. Further, the order explicitly says that Trump would not have to be convicted in order to be kept off the ballot:
“The Court does note that at no point in this proceeding has Trump (or any other party) argued that some type of appropriate criminal conviction is a necessary precondition to disqualification under Section Three. There is nothing in the text of Section Three suggesting that such is required, and the Court has found no case law or historical source suggesting that a conviction is a required element of disqualification.”
The idea that a criminal conviction is necessary is so much without legal basis that even Trump’s lawyers didn’t try to argue that. The only reason that the judge didn’t bar Trump from the ballot is that she doesn’t believe that Section 3 of the fourteenth amendment applies to the presidency. The order is fairly clear that she does feel that there is sufficient evidence that he engaged in insurrection in order to keep him off the ballot, but only if he were running for a different office.
At the time I posted that response, the article included a section in which the judge went on at fairly great length about the need for it to be a fact that he engaged in insurrection, and made the point that it was not yet a legal fact and it was not within her authority to declare it to be such.
And sometime between last night and this morning, that all vanished.
I have no idea what’s going on with that, but it was there. I didn’t just make it up - I wrote my response based on what I read, 14 hours ago.
That’s not what the ruling says. She ruled that he did engage in an insurrection as a matter of fact but that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to him as a matter of law because the president isn’t an officer of the United States.
No, she did rule that he engaged in insurrection, and would have removed him from the ballot except she didn’t think the wording of the 14th amendment applied specifically to presidents (just all other elected and appointed offices). Which is an asinine reading.
Are you fucking high, or simply didn’t read the actual text in the slightest?
I did read the text, and at the time I posted that response, it included an entire section in which the judge said that it had to be a certain fact that he engaged in insurrection and it was not yet an established fact and not within her authority to establish it as a fact - that that was up to the appropriate courts to decode.
And all of that has apparently since been removed from the article.
Which is… odd, to say the least.
It isn’t up to the judge to determine if he’s on the ballot. It’s literally against the 14th amendment. If she userps the constitution’s authority, sge should be removed,
THOSE are the actual rules. Stop being fucking pathetic LOSERS in the face of fascism. This is fucking ridiculous. You’re playing civil with insurrectionists. Wake. The. Fuck. Up. They are SPECIFICALLY not civil people.
Is she not a reasonable person?
…and there’s the nuance I was looking for.
Good on ya.
No, the actual ruling wasn’t nuanced at all. The commenter you replied to made up a different argument for the judge, not one she actually used. It’s much dumber. Read the article. Commenter above you apparently didn’t.
…and there’s the nuance I was looking for.
Can you expand on what you mean when you say nuance and how it relates to the above comment?
Sounds to me like the judge is a complicit traitor and just admitted it publicly.
Just scared for her life
