A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
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.
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.
I agree that it should be amended to specifically include the position of president and vice president. And any other offices they failed to enumerate.
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.
It’s not asking her to rule outside the law. It’s asking her to rule based on what the law says. Her ruling implies that the authors of the 14th amendment at one point said to themselves: “Should we write that we don’t intend this amendment to apply to the president? Nahhh. Some judge at some point in the future is bound to read through our cryptic bullshit and figure out that we mean literally every other public office but this one.”
But they explicitly call out senators and other important positions, why not specifically call out the POTUS? If it were just “officers of the state” with no specific positions called out, then I would 100% agree, but the fact that they call out some important positions but not the most important position makes it read like an intentional omission.
They addressed that point earlier, it was written after the civil war and they were calling out specific things with that in mind. They didn’t explicitly call out the president because in the historical context that would have been inconceivable, the president was never a traitor so they wouldn’t think to list the role explicitly. It seems nonsensical to claim that they would both want to exclude the president and not want to do so explicitly. If the president was meant to be excluded they could have said so.
They didn’t explicitly call out the president because in the historical context that would have been inconceivable, the president was never a traitor so they wouldn’t think to list the role explicitly.
This is a weak argument for 2 reasons.
First and foremost, our whole system is based on checks and balances, because they knew full well that any part of the government could become corrupt. The idea that they couldn’t fathom that a president could also be a threat to the republic doesn’t hold much water. It’s literally arguing that they made a “whoopsie” when crafting the amendment and no one from the 38 states and none of the supermajority of both houses of congress was smart enough to say “hey, maybe we should considering the POTUS too.” Hell, even during that time, Lincoln was called a traitor to the country when he was campaigning. I just can’t buy it that people at the time thought the POTUS was some noble person that would never do wrong.
Second, this actually confirms the ruling. You’re arguing that it was an oversight to not include the POTUS because they never thought it would happen, not that the POTUS is actually included. This is explicitly admitting that the POTUS is not part of it, thus making the ruling correct, and thus requiring us to go back and amend it to include the POTUS/VPOTUS.
If the president was meant to be excluded they could have said so.
And if the POTUS was meant to be included, they could have said so. This is why the ruling is well within reason and not the ridiculous rejection of logic that so many people are trying to paint it as.
So you’re saying that their method of explicitly stating that they don’t want “A” is to write that they want “B”, “C”, “D”, “and others” rather than just writing: “We don’t want A”? Sorry, but that’s really fucking stupid.
Edit: We’re both looking at the same thing. But where I see an oversight, you see an intentional omission. My question is… if they intended to omit something, wouldn’t it have been better to write that that position is specifically excluded? It would certainly be less confusing, wouldn’t it? If you were to write it right now, wouldn’t you write that the president is specifically excluded from the above if that was your desire? Seems to argue pretty highly for oversight, doesn’t it? Is it your contention that it was just the style at the time for people in the 1860s to be intentionally obtuse? Like Abe Simpson with the onion on his belt?
What I’m saying is that if you explicitly call out a bunch of important positions, but leave out the most important position, then it appears that the omission is intentional. Barring any explanation why it was not listed, but intended to be included, interpreting it as not part of the amendment is logically sound.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I agree that it should be amended to specifically include the position of president and vice president. And any other offices they failed to enumerate.
It’s not asking her to rule outside the law. It’s asking her to rule based on what the law says. Her ruling implies that the authors of the 14th amendment at one point said to themselves: “Should we write that we don’t intend this amendment to apply to the president? Nahhh. Some judge at some point in the future is bound to read through our cryptic bullshit and figure out that we mean literally every other public office but this one.”
But they explicitly call out senators and other important positions, why not specifically call out the POTUS? If it were just “officers of the state” with no specific positions called out, then I would 100% agree, but the fact that they call out some important positions but not the most important position makes it read like an intentional omission.
They addressed that point earlier, it was written after the civil war and they were calling out specific things with that in mind. They didn’t explicitly call out the president because in the historical context that would have been inconceivable, the president was never a traitor so they wouldn’t think to list the role explicitly. It seems nonsensical to claim that they would both want to exclude the president and not want to do so explicitly. If the president was meant to be excluded they could have said so.
This is a weak argument for 2 reasons.
First and foremost, our whole system is based on checks and balances, because they knew full well that any part of the government could become corrupt. The idea that they couldn’t fathom that a president could also be a threat to the republic doesn’t hold much water. It’s literally arguing that they made a “whoopsie” when crafting the amendment and no one from the 38 states and none of the supermajority of both houses of congress was smart enough to say “hey, maybe we should considering the POTUS too.” Hell, even during that time, Lincoln was called a traitor to the country when he was campaigning. I just can’t buy it that people at the time thought the POTUS was some noble person that would never do wrong.
Second, this actually confirms the ruling. You’re arguing that it was an oversight to not include the POTUS because they never thought it would happen, not that the POTUS is actually included. This is explicitly admitting that the POTUS is not part of it, thus making the ruling correct, and thus requiring us to go back and amend it to include the POTUS/VPOTUS.
And if the POTUS was meant to be included, they could have said so. This is why the ruling is well within reason and not the ridiculous rejection of logic that so many people are trying to paint it as.
So you’re saying that their method of explicitly stating that they don’t want “A” is to write that they want “B”, “C”, “D”, “and others” rather than just writing: “We don’t want A”? Sorry, but that’s really fucking stupid.
Edit: We’re both looking at the same thing. But where I see an oversight, you see an intentional omission. My question is… if they intended to omit something, wouldn’t it have been better to write that that position is specifically excluded? It would certainly be less confusing, wouldn’t it? If you were to write it right now, wouldn’t you write that the president is specifically excluded from the above if that was your desire? Seems to argue pretty highly for oversight, doesn’t it? Is it your contention that it was just the style at the time for people in the 1860s to be intentionally obtuse? Like Abe Simpson with the onion on his belt?
What I’m saying is that if you explicitly call out a bunch of important positions, but leave out the most important position, then it appears that the omission is intentional. Barring any explanation why it was not listed, but intended to be included, interpreting it as not part of the amendment is logically sound.