I am sorry that the drafters of the 14th Amendment used words that have meaning. There is a reason they chose that word "support."

Do you think they were not aware that the President took a different oath? Did they forget?

Im Gipper said:

---

I am sorry that the drafters of the 14th Amendment used words that have meaning. There is a reason they chose that word "support."

Do you think they were not aware that the President took a different oath? Did they forget?

---

Perhaps if they had put it in quotes to show that they meant that it applied only to oaths containing that exact phrase. That they didn't do that shows that they weren't worried about the exact words used in the oath.

NEW: Colorado’s Supreme Court gave little hint about whether it will remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, but the judges did seem to align on one thing: Jan. 6 qualifies as an insurrection.

w/ @ZachMontellaro @eorden https://t.co/lj1gvHoLpJ pic.twitter.com/1MKBdI5YV6

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 6, 2023

As I suspected, they won't disturb the findings of fact. Will they flip on the conclusions of law? Or will common sense prevail? Not hopeful it's the latter.

WOW.

Trump's lawyers in the 14th Amendment case in Colorado just argued that Confederate President Jefferson Davis would be able to run for president and that Democratic Party could "conceivably" nominate Obama for a third term. pic.twitter.com/vm0c5T7RvE

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) December 6, 2023

Insert Morgan Freeman gif.

Im Gipper said:

---

NEW: Colorado’s Supreme Court gave little hint about whether it will remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, but the judges did seem to align on one thing: Jan. 6 qualifies as an insurrection.

w/ @ZachMontellaro @eorden https://t.co/lj1gvHoLpJ pic.twitter.com/1MKBdI5YV6

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 6, 2023

As I suspected, they won't disturb the findings of fact. Will they flip on the conclusions of law? Or will common sense prevail? Not hopeful it's the latter.

WOW.

Trump's lawyers in the 14th Amendment case in Colorado just argued that Confederate President Jefferson Davis would be able to run for president and that Democratic Party could "conceivably" nominate Obama for a third term. pic.twitter.com/vm0c5T7RvE

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) December 6, 2023

Insert Morgan Freeman gif.

---

Well, he is correct as to the general election because the nominee is chosen by the party. The ballot slot is the party's slot not the individual candidate's such as in a primary ballot situation wherein the SOS can make a determination of who qualifies for placement on the ballot. There's a reason why Mickey Mouse has never been on a statewide primary ballot but has received write-in votes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pro tip: It is not a state matter, it is federal subject matter jurisdiction to interpret an amendment to the federal Constitution.

My understanding is that Trump has already filed for removal to federal court over that CREW lawsuit.

---

Pro tip: State courts aren't barred from deciding constitutional questions. One of these will end up at the United States Supreme Court but bringing them in state courts is proper given the states run their own elections.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But the NATURE of the disqualification is under the US Constitution (Amendment 14, Section 3).. I've not researched the matter, but my first thought is that this SHOULD give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

I don't blame the plaintiffs for FILING in state court (e.g. Colorado case), but I don't blame Trump for seeking removal, either.

---

I sure as hell do blame them. Filing in state court makes the appellate process longer and it is for dilatory purposes. This is a case of monkey see, monkey do for Dem Secs of State to interfere and make their own biased determinations to once again overwhelm Trump's legal team fighting this BS claim in multiple courts.

There used to be a term for that, "barratry," and it was sanctionable.

---

In Colorado, at least, the case is moving much quicker than it would in federal courts given the appeal went straight to the state's Supreme Court for expedited consideration under state laws written specifically to speed up election/ballot questions

Quote:

---

In Colorado, at least, the case is moving much quicker than it would in federal courts given the appeal went straight to the state's Supreme Court for expedited consideration

---

And it is a federal issue qualification under the federal Constitution, includes the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

You actually believe the SCOTUS will grant cert and act expeditously? I don't.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In Colorado, at least, the case is moving much quicker than it would in federal courts given the appeal went straight to the state's Supreme Court for expedited consideration

---

And it is a federal issue qualification under the federal Constitution, includes the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

You actually believe the SCOTUS will grant cert and act expeditously? I don't.

---

Whatever SCOTUS does, it's perfectly correct to originate these cases in state courts.

I certainly don't pretend to know or have a prediction for how quickly SCOTUS will do anything. Colorado will have reached a merits decision and Minnesota eventually will, too, at a minimum. I think there will be immense pressure on the Court to settle the issues and will eventually grant cert.

Quote:

---

You actually believe the SCOTUS will grant cert and act expeditously? I don't.

---

If the Colorado Supreme Court rules that Trump can't be on the ballot, you'd see SCOTUS act well before the March primary.

While I'm not trusting lib judges to do the right thing in Colorado, this case is just so far fetched I think they will save their bullets for another battle and confirm the trial judge on Trump not being ineligible. Even if they keep the goofy "insurrection" finding.

Im Gipper said:

---

I am sorry that the drafters of the 14th Amendment used words that have meaning. There is a reason they chose that word "support."

Do you think they were not aware that the President took a different oath? Did they forget?

---

I think the petitioner's brief to the Colorado Supreme Court did a solid job arguing they didn't intend for the "oath provision" to exclude the President's oath. Most compelling, I think, was that a federal court in 1870 said that provision shouldn't be taken so literally.

I also find it interesting Trump's brief could cite nothing from the Congressional Globe showing any intention to exclude the President's oath. And that Trump's expert agreed "defend" would seem to be inclusive of "support."

I think that the backlash from keeping Trump off the ballot would just give the presidency to Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. Maybe that is the plan, to get Haley into office.

I sincerely think that this would result in isolated cases of violence. (Not me, some wacko).

It would be funny if Ken Paxton charged Trump with insurrection, and a Texas court found him not guilty of insurrection like super, super fast.

Donald Trump - - the most experienced litigant of all time.