Discussion:
Insurrection clause
(too old to reply)
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-19 20:41:38 UTC
Permalink
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.

She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".

I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.

The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
suzeeq
2023-11-20 00:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Dimensional Traveler
2023-11-20 02:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
moviePig
2023-11-20 03:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Well, I *used* to think it quibbling to ask what "settled law" means...
suzeeq
2023-11-20 05:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Oh she quite agreed that he engaged in insurrection, just didn't think
that violated his Oath if office. That might be overturned on appeal as
other judges may not agree with her. Judges in other states might not
agree either.
Dimensional Traveler
2023-11-20 15:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Oh she quite agreed that he engaged in insurrection, just didn't think
that violated his Oath if office.
As I said, finding an excuse to ignore the plain, obvious meaning.
Post by suzeeq
That might be overturned on appeal as
other judges may not agree with her. Judges in other states might not
agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot with
an unspoken "if he is on the real election's ballot we'll see".
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-20 16:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President is named but not the office of the president
itself. She ignores "or hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election
for president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins
the state, his party's slate of electors is elected from that state,
not the presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Oh she quite agreed that he engaged in insurrection, just didn't think
that violated his Oath if office.
As I said, finding an excuse to ignore the plain, obvious meaning.
It's not obvious. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not
eliminate indirect election for president. It's semantics, but the
presidential candidate isn't a candidate for the general election but
for the presidential electors only. At the general election, he
represents his party's slate of electors for a given state. At the
primary, it's even more bizarre because it's part beauty contest
(although he wins delegates in most states for the expression of
presidential preference) and delegates pledged to him are elected. We
don't directly nominate the president either.

I don't see how the insurrection clause could be implemented against a
presidential candidate in the primary in state law. They can't prevent
the names of pledged delegates from appearing on the ballot. The guy
seeking election as delegate didn't commit insurrection. The Fourteenth
Amendment doesn't address delegates, just electors.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
That might be overturned on appeal as
other judges may not agree with her. Judges in other states might not
agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot with
an unspoken "if he is on the real election's ballot we'll see".
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-20 23:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President is named but not the office of the president
itself. She ignores "or hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election
for president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins
the state, his party's slate of electors is elected from that state,
not the presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Oh she quite agreed that he engaged in insurrection, just didn't think
that violated his Oath if office.
As I said, finding an excuse to ignore the plain, obvious meaning.
It's not obvious. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not
eliminate indirect election for president. It's semantics, but the
presidential candidate isn't a candidate for the general election but
for the presidential electors only. At the general election, he
represents his party's slate of electors for a given state. At the
primary, it's even more bizarre because it's part beauty contest
(although he wins delegates in most states for the expression of
presidential preference) and delegates pledged to him are elected. We
don't directly nominate the president either.
I don't see how the insurrection clause could be implemented against a
presidential candidate in the primary in state law. They can't prevent
the names of pledged delegates from appearing on the ballot. The guy
seeking election as delegate didn't commit insurrection. The Fourteenth
Amendment doesn't address delegates, just electors.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
That might be overturned on appeal as
other judges may not agree with her. Judges in other states might not
agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot with
an unspoken "if he is on the real election's ballot we'll see".
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
It just occurred to be that the only ballot a federal court could remove
Trump from is the ballot seen by the electors after the November election.
danny burstein
2023-11-20 23:26:48 UTC
Permalink
In <ujgos8$gfhu$***@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
It just occurred to be that the only ballot a federal court could remove
Trump from is the ballot seen by the electors after the November election.
Hmmm... I don't know about the rest of the country,
but in NYS, until roughly 1970, the voting MACHINE (yes,
the big and heavy units that gave you a satifying KERCHUNK!
when you flipped the final lever) did NOT list the
Presidential candidate but only the names of the electors.

Depending on what the actual law[s] stated when this
was changed, that _might_ have an impact on the
Federal oversight.

Paging Constituional Lawyers...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
A Friend
2023-11-20 23:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
[snip]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
It just occurred to be that the only ballot a federal court could remove
Trump from is the ballot seen by the electors after the November election.
Hmmm... I don't know about the rest of the country,
but in NYS, until roughly 1970, the voting MACHINE (yes,
the big and heavy units that gave you a satifying KERCHUNK!
when you flipped the final lever) did NOT list the
Presidential candidate but only the names of the electors.
"You may take this card with you into the voting booth."

The process was created to be as confusing as possible, and this was
very much on purpose. The point was to leave as much power as possible
in the hands of the non-insurgent political clubs (the "regulars") by
discouraging voter participation. I no longer vote in uncontested
primaries, as it's a waste of time.
Post by danny burstein
Depending on what the actual law[s] stated when this
was changed, that _might_ have an impact on the
Federal oversight.
Paging Constituional Lawyers...
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-21 01:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by danny burstein
[snip]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
It just occurred to be that the only ballot a federal court could remove
Trump from is the ballot seen by the electors after the November election.
Hmmm... I don't know about the rest of the country,
but in NYS, until roughly 1970, the voting MACHINE (yes,
the big and heavy units that gave you a satifying KERCHUNK!
when you flipped the final lever) did NOT list the
Presidential candidate but only the names of the electors.
"You may take this card with you into the voting booth."
The process was created to be as confusing as possible, and this was
very much on purpose. The point was to leave as much power as possible
in the hands of the non-insurgent political clubs (the "regulars") by
discouraging voter participation. I no longer vote in uncontested
primaries, as it's a waste of time.
Goodness. I have always skipped uncontested races.
Post by A Friend
Post by danny burstein
Depending on what the actual law[s] stated when this
was changed, that _might_ have an impact on the
Federal oversight.
Paging Constituional Lawyers...
The Horny Goat
2023-11-21 23:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by danny burstein
Hmmm... I don't know about the rest of the country,
but in NYS, until roughly 1970, the voting MACHINE (yes,
the big and heavy units that gave you a satifying KERCHUNK!
when you flipped the final lever) did NOT list the
Presidential candidate but only the names of the electors.
"You may take this card with you into the voting booth."
Hmmm. The card we get is a small postcard size with one's on one side,
the address of the polling station (usually a nearby school or church
hall though during COVID the schools were not used) and the names and
affiliations of the candidates in no particular order with their party
affiliations. (We're in Canada so that list is shorter as federal,
provincial, municipal all vote separately)

During COVID we had to stand 6' apart in the line but it wasn't an
onerous task.

The only time it ever took more than 10 minutes to vote (+ up to 1/2
hour in line) was the time they had enumerated me twice (under my
first name and middle name - which is the name I use everyday) so I
sought out the chief returning office for that station and showed them
my birth certificate (showing both names) and telling them which name
I wanted to be on the list under - which they've honored.

After my wife's passing I asked who besides myself was listed at my
address (after I first told them who I >expected< to be there namely
both my adult daughter and I and all was AOK - one assumes the
department of vital statistics shares death information with the
election commission)

Dimensional Traveler
2023-11-21 04:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President is named but not the office of the president
itself. She ignores "or hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election
for president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins
the state, his party's slate of electors is elected from that state,
not the presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
Its quibbling trying to find excuses to ignore the plain, obvious
meaning and intent.
Oh she quite agreed that he engaged in insurrection, just didn't think
that violated his Oath if office.
As I said, finding an excuse to ignore the plain, obvious meaning.
It's not obvious. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not
eliminate indirect election for president. It's semantics, but the
presidential candidate isn't a candidate for the general election but
for the presidential electors only. At the general election, he
represents his party's slate of electors for a given state. At the
primary, it's even more bizarre because it's part beauty contest
(although he wins delegates in most states for the expression of
presidential preference) and delegates pledged to him are elected. We
don't directly nominate the president either.
I don't see how the insurrection clause could be implemented against a
presidential candidate in the primary in state law. They can't prevent
the names of pledged delegates from appearing on the ballot. The guy
seeking election as delegate didn't commit insurrection. The Fourteenth
Amendment doesn't address delegates, just electors.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
That might be overturned on appeal as
other judges may not agree with her. Judges in other states might not
agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot with
an unspoken "if he is on the real election's ballot we'll see".
Another possibility is that there's no legal way to do so.
It just occurred to be that the only ballot a federal court could remove
Trump from is the ballot seen by the electors after the November election.
Oh wouldn't that just....! I'm not sure I can even imagine the
fireworks THAT would start.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
BTR1701
2023-11-20 20:10:57 UTC
Permalink
That might be overturned on appeal as other judges may not agree with
her. Judges in other states might not agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot
That's because political parties are private organizations that aren't
subject to constitutional restrictions. The parties set their own rules
about who can and can't be on their ballots, not the government.
trotsky
2023-11-21 08:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
That might be overturned on appeal as other judges may not agree with
her. Judges in other states might not agree either.
Other state's judges are doing the same thing. Whether because they
want Trump to be President-for-life or fear of violent MAGA retribution
is unknown to me. One said he can't be kept off the primary ballot
That's because political parties are private organizations that aren't
subject to constitutional restrictions. The parties set their own rules
about who can and can't be on their ballots, not the government.
I hold these truths to be self evident unless you're traveling between
dimensions.
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-20 04:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
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.

No, I think it's the technicality of the candidate for president not
literally being a candidate till the Electors meet, which is why he can
be on the ballot.
suzeeq
2023-11-20 05:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
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.
No, I think it's the technicality of the candidate for president not
literally being a candidate till the Electors meet, which is why he can
be on the ballot.
We'll see how judges in other states rule when the issue comes up there.
Adam H. Kerman
2023-11-20 15:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
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.
No, I think it's the technicality of the candidate for president not
literally being a candidate till the Electors meet, which is why he can
be on the ballot.
We'll see how judges in other states rule when the issue comes up there.
We already know. She's the third federal trial judge who has not kicked
Trump off the ballot. Trial court judges aren't going to touch this for
obvious reasons. They are going to force it up to the Supreme Court.
FPP
2023-11-21 10:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
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.
No, I think it's the technicality of the candidate for president not
literally being a candidate till the Electors meet, which is why he can
be on the ballot.
We'll see how judges in other states rule when the issue comes up there.
Ultimately, none of that matters. Eventually, especially if Trump is
judged ineligible, this will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme
Court.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
Loading Image...

Gracie, age 6.
Loading Image...
FPP
2023-11-21 10:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6, but she didn't rule that the insurrection clause of the 14th
Amendment applies.
She thinks it's significant that elector of President and
Vice-President
is named but not the office of the president itself. She ignores "or
hold any office".
I don't get it. I guess it's the weirdness of our indirect election for
president. The presidential candidate is nominated. If he wins the state,
his party's slate of electors is elected from that state, not the
presidential candidate himself.
The issue of disqualification doesn't come up till the electors vote
following the General Election?
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055
I think she was going by the wording in the Presidential Oath, which
doesn't call for the president to 'support' the constitution. Even
though 'defend and protect' is really the same thing.
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.
No, I think it's the technicality of the candidate for president not
literally being a candidate till the Electors meet, which is why he can
be on the ballot.
Well, the oath does specify "to the best of my Ability" - so Trump has
an out there.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
Ubiquitous
2023-11-21 15:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A federal judge ruled that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection on
January 6
Obviously, she didn't stick to the facts when she made her decision.

Now that the dpouble top secret footage has been released, it's a proven
fact.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Loading...