Does Colorado SC Decision Apply to Nov. Election Ballot?

[Rick]

This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is
considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around the
State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary
ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is that if the
US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would at least be a way
to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins the caucus.

But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding
that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling
also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the lawsuit filed was
specifically for the primary, but in the event the US Supreme Court upholds
the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to
apply it to the general election as well? And is there any reason the
Court would uphold blocking him from the primary but not the general?

Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado
decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's really not
much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to caucus.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

"Rick" <ri...@nospam.com> wrote in news:um041u$pees$1...@dont-email.me:

The legal issue wasn't about the primary per se, but about whether Trump
is eligible to serve as President again. If he can't serve, then it's a
waste of time and paper to put him on either the primary ballot or the
Presidential one next November. If the decision is upheld, that is what
it will be about.

Also if it's upheld, that could mean Trump is off the ballot in every
state. I don't know what SCOTUS is going to do about it, but they'd
better do whatever it is in a way that is unanimous (or nearly so).
Otherwise they'll look even more like political hacks, and that could
lead to other kinds of problems.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:44:22 -0800 (PST),

"Rick" <ri...@nospam.com> wrote:

>This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is
>considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around the
>State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary
>ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is that if the
>US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would at least be a way
>to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins the caucus.
>
>But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding
>that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling
>also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the lawsuit filed was
>specifically for the primary, but in the event the US Supreme Court upholds
>the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to
>apply it to the general election as well?

AFAIK Colorado was not the plaintiff in this case, but yes, the same
plaintiffs would surely sue again, this time with a very clear precedent
to support them. The plaintiffs in this week's case were 6 Republicans.
Not a Democrat among them.

I heard the Colorado Sec. of State on the tv-radio and she's plainly
very much in favor of keeping him off, but of course, she says she'll do
what the courts decide. Wasn't it she, her office, which defended the
case, and lost?

I've also heard stories that if the ussc takes the case but doesn't rule
before the printing deadline, a semi-clever way to help trump without
taking a position, he'll get on the primary ballot, but she said iiuc
that he would not. Her position makes more sense to me.

I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no
legal effect. Encouragement for other lawsuits maybe but Colorado's law
is more specific than other states'. Don't remember how but I would
think ??????? that means it specifies the remedy, removal from the
ballot.

> And is there any reason the
>Court would uphold blocking him from the primary but not the general?

Not that I can think of but see sig.

>Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado
>decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's really not
>much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to caucus.

Here are a couple links to keep you busy:
Advance sheet headnote for the Colorado decsion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

Interestingly, they manage to cite Neil Gorsuch, who was a judge in
Colorado earlier, and his words give support to banning trump. It will
be interesting to watch his vote.

1 instance of Gorsuch but 9 instance of Hassan, which is the case he was
involved in.


I only looked for the plaintiff, not the whole case, but this will give
you an idea of the iissues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hassan_(lawyer) -- I"m not sure if
this link will work without some attention, since in my reader (lawyer)
is not underlined like the rest of it. ????




--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[Roy]

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment
would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy

<monta...@outlook.com> wrote:

>
>Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
>guilty.

States rights. Colorado has the right to its own opinion.

Not only that. It wasn't a real trial. The "jury" voted almost entirely
on political affiliation. (There were 5 or 10 Republicans with honor and
the rest voted to acquit becuase Republican voters wanted them to.)
There ws no voir dir to find unbiased "jurors", and they were about as
biased as one could ever find.

>
>Question:
>
>The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment
>would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

No, impeachment trials do not count when deciding on double jeopardy.
Because... What jeopardy is there during an impeachment? It is being
put out of office (and I gather from what I read 3 years ago, they can
also require that you not hold the office in the future.)

But what does the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Anmendment say? "nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb" Impeachments don't put anyone in jeopardy of
life or limb. And keeping someone off the ballot doesn't put him in
jeopardy of life or limb either.

Isn't trump in court arguing this right now, based just as you say, on
his impeachment, or was it last week and it's been ruled on? There are
so many court cases I can't keep track. If he didn't lose on this, he
will.

>
>How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

Not being allowed on the ballot is not a punishment. it's a matter of
not meeting the qualifications required to be on the ballot. If he were
20 years old or if he were not a natural born citizen, and they wouldn't
put him on the ballow, would you consider that to be punishment?

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:15:30 -0800 (PST), micky

<mis...@fmguy.com> wrote:

>
>I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
>will have a big effect on other states,

And Stuart said the same thing, or stronger.

>but I don't think so. I think no
>legal effect. Encouragement for other lawsuits maybe but Colorado's law
>is more specific than other states'. Don't remember how but I would
>think ??????? that means it specifies the remedy, removal from the
>ballot.

So the reason I think it wouldn't affect other states is that the USSC
would not be finding that trump committed insurrection. They would find
that Colorado was within its right to decide that he was. Since it's
the states that run the elections, each one can run it differently.

There have been elections in the past when one candidate (or pair, P and
VP) got on the ballot in most states but not in every state. They
didn't get their petitions in in time, or didn't get enough signatures
(3rd parties or maybe even one of the 2 big parties). So there is no
iron clad rule that a candidate on, or off, one's state's ballot has be
on, or off, all the others.

But the important point is that Colorado would be deciding for itself,
based a lot of work they put in, witnesses, (10's of?) thousands of
pages of documentation to look at, time spend, that other states did not
do. Why should other states be bound by a decision in Colorado?

[Rick]

"Roy" wrote in message news:um0m96$vipv$1...@dont-email.me...

Because impeachment is not a criminal action - it is a political action.
He was not found not guilty in a court of law of any crime. Also, note the
Fifth Amendment reference to Double Jeopardy actually states: "nor shall

any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of

life or limb". Since impeachment is not a criminal trial, the President was
not in jeopardy of "life or limb". His only jeopardy was losing his job.

--

[Roy]

The word "trial" or "criminal" is not mentioned. If someone is being
put in jail that is being deprived of "life". It has also been applied
where the offense is a fine (example traffic). So loss of job could be
construed as a monetary penalty.

[Rick]

"Roy" wrote in message news:um1m45$14eh8$1...@dont-email.me...

But in the case of Congress, nothing in the Constitution or in the rules of
either chamber prohibits a president from being impeached twice on the same
charges. It has never happened, but nothing would prohibit it. That's
because impeachment is a political and not a criminal proceeding.

I get that the wording of the Fifth Amendment is vague and doesn't specify
"trial" or "criminal", but I think it has been long interpreted to apply to
such. Otherwise, it could be extended to any situation where a person is
in jeopardy of loss of job, such as an internal investigation by a private
company to determine if a person should be fired for a particular action.
Let's assume a company investigates an employee for some potential violation
of rules (putting the employee in obvious jeopardy of losing their job) and
decides the person is innocent and can keep their job. The next day there
is a change in management and the new team comes in and re-investigates the
employee on the exact same charges and decides to fire the employee.
Assuming employment at will and no contracts, etc., and assuming no obvious
racial or gender discrimination, etc., nothing would prohibit the person
from being fired.

I can't cite specific examples, but I'm sure the courts have held that the
Fifth Amendment only applies to actual court proceedings where the jeopardy
is imprisonment or a fine, and not a political proceeding, which is what
impeachment is.



--

[Rick]

"Roy" wrote in message news:um1m45$14eh8$1...@dont-email.me...

Here is a pretty definitive statement on this issue from the Dept. of
Justice:

https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download




--

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:44:22 -0800 (PST), Rick wrote:
> If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding
> that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling
> also apply to the November ballot?

The real issue is not whether he's on the ballot, but whether he's
eligible. If he's not eligible, _then_) it makes sense to remove him
from the ballot so that people don't waste their votes by voting for
him. (Of course they could still write him in, but they might as well
write in Daffy Duck.)

My understanding is that the Colorado Supreme Court was focused on
the primary only, but I've only skimmed the opinion so I could be
wrong.

But again, the real issue is whether the amendment means what it
says. If it does, then he's ineligible and no matter how many votes
he polls his electors won't be able to make a valid ballot to send to
Washington.

I really don't understand these people saying "oh, let the voters
decide." The voters _did_ decide, 160 years ago. That amendment was
passed by two thirds of each house of Congress and by three quarters
of all the state legislators. It wasn't something created by the
courts.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:15:30 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
> I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
> will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no
> legal effect.

I think you're mistaken.

As long as the case stays in the Colorado court system, any ruling
applies only to Colorado. (Even so, state courts traditionally pay
attention to rulings in similar cases in other states, particularly
rulings by a state's highest court, even though they are not legally
bound to follow them.)

But when the Supreme Court rules, that's it. Unless it's something
that by its very nature applies only to one particular case -- and
the Supreme Court tends not to accept that sort of case -- the ruling
applies nationwide, and all state and Federal courts are bound by it.

If Trump had more intelligence than a radish, he would _not_ appeal
the Colorado ruling to the Federal courts, to prevent a nationwide
ruling against him. But of course he's constitutionally incapable of
thinking that he might lose. (Normally an appeal would go to a
circuit court of appeals, and the decision would be binding only in
that circuit, but since a state is a party the appeal would go direct
to the Supreme Court. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court
has discretion to decline to take the appeal, in which case the
ruling would stand in Colorado but not be a legally binding precedent
elsewhere.)

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
> Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
> guilty.

Technically no, but we'll let that pass.

> Question:
>
> The federal government tried him and did not convict.

The government did not try him. An impeachment followed by trial is
not strictly speaking a criminal proceeding, and in any case "the
government" is the executive branch. The Department of Justice was
not involved in the proceedings of Congress, under the doctrine of
separation of powers.

> The 5th amendment
> would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

It would, if the proceeding before Congress has been a criminal
proceeding, but it wasn't.
<https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation02.html>
explains the concept of double jeopardy, and the key sentence is
"... it is now settled that the clause protects with regard to every
indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined
crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute."

An impeachment is not an indictment, and "high crimes and
misdemeanors", which is the only statement in the Constitution of
what an officer can be impeached for, is not defined anywhere. (In
the Clinton impeachment, as I recall, a high-ranking member of the
House of Representatives said something like "a high crime and
misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives
and two thirds of the Senate think it is.") The Founders deliberately
left it vague because it's easy to see how a government official can
do something that is seriously to the detriment of the United States,
without it being a specifically defined crime. (I'm looking at you,
Clarence Thomas.)

In short, "double jeopardy" refers to criminal proceedings in the
courts, which impeachment is not. And even in standard criminal
trials, if a given act is both a state crime and a federal crime, if
you're tried in one venue and acquitted, you can still be tried in
the other. In the 1950s and 1960s, as I recall, Southerners who
murdered civil rights leaders were routinely acquitted in state
courts, but when then tried again on the Federal charge and were
found guilty.

> How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

He wasn't found not guilty in any criminal sense, and he's not being
"punished under the 14th Amendment". Is a 30-year-old who wants to be
President being punished because the folks who make up the ballots
exclude her? Are Barack Obama and George W. Bush being punished
because they can't run again? Of course not? Article II says you have
to be 35 to be President, and the 22nd Amendment says you can't be
President if you've already been elected President twice. In the same
way, the 14th Amendment says you can't be president if you took an
oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection. Of
course "insurrection" is not as black-and-white as "35 years old",
but both the trial court and the Supreme Court of Colorado agreed
that Trump did engage in insurrection.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Roy <monta...@outlook.com> wrote in news:um0m96$vipv$1...@dont-email.me:

He wasn't actually found not guilty. Impeachment was not a criminal
prosecution. They just decided not to expel him as President. People
can be prosecuted more than once on the same behavior if it's different
entities that are doing the prosecution. Congress prosecuting Trump for
insurrection is a different "sovereign" than the US government.

In the 1960s in the South there were racists who murdered blacks because
of their race, and were acquitted by all white juries. The federal
government was allowed to prosecute them again, for the same actions, for
violation of the victims' constitutional rights.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:03:13 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
> No, impeachment trials do not count when deciding on double jeopardy.
> Because... What jeopardy is there during an impeachment? It is being
> put out of office (and I gather from what I read 3 years ago, they can
> also require that you not hold the office in the future.)

Not just that office, _any_ office. Article I, section 3:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

> But what does the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Anmendment say? "nor
> shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
> jeopardy of life or limb" Impeachments don't put anyone in jeopardy of
> life or limb. And keeping someone off the ballot doesn't put him in
> jeopardy of life or limb either.

True, but courts have ruled that double jeopardy doesn't just apply
to life and limb.

"It is now settled that the clause protects with regard to every

indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined
crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute."

<https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation02.html>

[Sam]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy <monta...@outlook.com>
wrote:

>How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

He is not being punished. He is being disqualified from running as
president. The 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction to
exclude a person from holding office.

After the civil war no one was convicted of insurrection.

[John Levine]

According to micky <mis...@fmguy.com>:

>>The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment
>>would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

The impeachment clause says:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment,
Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

That second clause seems clear enough to me, and I see no reason to
believe that the 5th intended to change it.


--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[Barry Gold]

The impeachment process is completely separate from the court process.

The HR impeached Trump (twice) but both times the Senate refused to
convict -- that requires a 2/3 majority (67 Senators voting Yea).

The 5th amendment states:
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; "

The courts have held that applies to jail/prison time as well. It
doesn't say anything about being barred from holding office.

The New York Times (of all organizations) published a piece explaining
why using the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot is a bad idea.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 08:53:24 -0800 (PST), Stan

Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:15:30 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
>> I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
>> will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no
>> legal effect.
>
>I think you're mistaken.
>
>As long as the case stays in the Colorado court system, any ruling
>applies only to Colorado. (Even so, state courts traditionally pay
>attention to rulings in similar cases in other states, particularly
>rulings by a state's highest court, even though they are not legally
>bound to follow them.)
>
>But when the Supreme Court rules, that's it. Unless it's something
>that by its very nature applies only to one particular case -- and
>the Supreme Court tends not to accept that sort of case -- the ruling
>applies nationwide, and all state and Federal courts are bound by it.

That's if they rule that he's eligible, or not. But they wont' want to
hat trump committed insurrection, and they might be smart enough to not
rule that he didn't.

But they can rule that Colorado was within its right to decide that he
was. Many of them came from the Federalist Society, or hold federalist
views. The federalist view here would be that each state decides who
can be on its ballow and it doesn't have to be the same for every state.

Since it's the states that run the elections, each one can run it
differently.
>

>If Trump had more intelligence than a radish, he would _not_ appeal
>the Colorado ruling to the Federal courts, to prevent a nationwide
>ruling against him. But of course he's constitutionally incapable of
>thinking that he might lose.

True.

> (Normally an appeal would go to a
>circuit court of appeals, and the decision would be binding only in
>that circuit, but since a state is a party the appeal would go direct
>to the Supreme Court. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court
>has discretion to decline to take the appeal, in which case the
>ruling would stand in Colorado but not be a legally binding precedent

This part I don't disagree with, and he has no chance of winning
Colorado anyhow, iirc. Or Maine, or New Hampshire. You know, now
that we have global warming, instead of paying thousands to fix my
central air, maybe I shoudl move to Maine or New Hampshire.


>elsewhere.)

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 08:54:33 -0800 (PST),

I'm still not happy with the dual sovereign situation. The civil rights
movement cases might be another case of Hard cases make bad law, even
though it was justified.

For a long time there aiui there were few cases that were rimes under b
both state and federal law. Probably none at the start, but for example,
starting when banks were insured by a federal agency, I guess bank fraud
becaome a federal crime and not just a state crime.

Murder was not a federal crime, and it still isn't except on federal
property and maybe later, killing a federal official off federal
property. But the utter failure of the state system to deal properly
with the murder of civil rights workers called for extreme action. So
there still is no general federal law against murder and they were
charged with violating the civil rights of the person they murdered.
What an understatement.

[RichD]

On December 20, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
>> The Colorado republican party is
>> considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around
>> the State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the
>> primary ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations.

>> But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the
>> finding that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't
>> that ruling also apply to the November ballot?
>

> The legal issue wasn't about the primary per se, but about whether Trump
> is eligible to serve as President again. If he can't serve, then it's a
> waste of time and paper to put him on either the primary ballot or the
> Presidential one next November. If the decision is upheld, that is what
> it will be about.

The Colorado judge's decision is an abuse of authority, a power grab.
The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.

The Repubs are a private organization.  They can nominate whoever
they please.  If they nominate someone who can't assume office, too
bad, they threw away their votes.  It's effectively the same as not
voting, or perhaps "making a statement".  No judge can abrogate
their right to vote.

If that person (Trump) wins the state presidential election, hence
their electoral votes, we have a fun fun fun constitutional crisis -  
what does Emperor Biden do on Jan. 6, 2025?

--
Rich

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 17:43:28 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> The Colorado judge's decision is an abuse of authority, a power grab.

Right. It's _such_ a power grab to assume that the Constitution means
what it says. The trial judge considered the evidence and ruled that
Trump had engaged in insurrection. The supreme court of the state
agreed with that ruling.

> The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.

Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
Day. In the same way, someone who has taken an oath to defend the
Constitution, as Trump did, then engaged in an insurrection, as Trump
did, can't legally run because they are ineligible to take office.

Some idiots -- err, "misguided persons" -- say, "Let the people
decide." They _did_ decide, 150 years ago. The 14th Amendment was
overwhelmingly approved, as any amendment must be: two-thirds of each
house of congress and approval by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the states.

What those cries of "let the people decide really mean" is that the
Republicans want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution
they will follow. But that's not how things work.

If someone ineligible is allowed to run, and they win, what next?
They can't take office, so who does? Also, everyone who voted for the
ineligible candidate has now wasted their votes.

(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.

[Barry Gold]

On 1/7/2024 1:27 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> (*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
> who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
> qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
> President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
> you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
> person having their votes wasted.

No. They knew (or should have known, given the court ruling) that the
person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it
either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a
vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.

[RichD]

On January 7, Barry Gold wrote:
>> (*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
>> who takes office:
>> "... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President
>> elect shall act as President until a  President shall have qualified ..."
>> (20th Amendment, section 3)

hahaha
That settles it, right there!
It's a straight power grab, er I mean act of compassion, by
the Colorado Democrat party hack, to prevent the poor benighted
sheeple from voting in error.

>> But you still have the problem of everyone who
>> voted for the ineligible  person having their votes wasted.
>

> No. They knew that the person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it

> either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a
> vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
> promoted to President-Elect.

In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from
Biden/Trump.  He looks to be a lock.  However... per his birth certificate,
he turns 35 on July 15, 2025. A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING
of the 14th amendment, DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to assume
office on January 21.

--
Rich

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:27:18 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
>> President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
>> Day.
>

> Only today I am reading of a Turkish born US citizen who wants to sue
> the US for discriminating against him in refusing to let him run for
> POTUS.
>
> https://www.rawstory.com/2-presidential-candidates-tossed-off-sc-ballot
> s- sue-and-one-wants-trump-off-too/

By definition the Constitution can't be unconstitutional.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

On 1/8/2024 9:31 PM, RichD wrote:
> In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from
> Biden/Trump.  He looks to be a lock.  However... per his birth certificate,
> he turns 35 on July 15, 2025. A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING
> of the 14th amendment, DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to assume
> office on January 21.

Don't blame me. Blame the people who wrote the Constitution.

See also "lifeboat case" and "trolley problem". Given any system of
ethics and/or rules for governing people, one can postulate a situation
where it will produce an obviously undesirable result.

[Rick]

"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:unjupe$1i1a0$1...@dont-email.me...

I'm not sure that would actually be undesireable. After all, the framers
had a legitimate reason for making the minimum age 35, and they provided a
mechanism called the Constitutional Amendment where that age limit can be
changed if enough people want to change it. If indeed, some mythical
"Second Coming" person comes along whom enough people think should be
elected outside the rules, they can collectively urge their Congresspeople,
Senators and State Legislatures to draft and pass an amendment to the
Constitution lowering the age.

--

[RichD]

On January 7,  Stan Brown wrote:
>> The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.
>
> Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
> President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
> Day.

Incorrect. READ THE TEXT.

> Some idiots -- err, "misguided persons" -- say, "Let the people decide."
> They _did_ decide, 150 years ago.

--
Rich

[RichD]

On January 9, Barry Gold wrote:
>> In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from
>> Biden/Trump.  He looks to be a lock.  However... per his birth certificate,
>> he turns 35 on July 15, 2025.
>> A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING of the 14th amendment,
>> DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to assume
>> office on January 21.
>

> Blame the people who wrote the Constitution.

<woooosh>
You miss the point.

I'll spell it out.  The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
unqualified candidate might win.  Which means the voters might vote
him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on the
determined day.  It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office indefinitely.

In the toy example above,  the Messiah is barred from the oath on
January 21, hence the VP steps in.  He qualifies on July 15.  Is it
reasonable to deny voters their choice?

That Colorado hack is a power grabber, rewriting the Constitution
to fit his own agenda. The Supremes have to slap him down.

--
Rich

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:08:12 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>
> On January 7,  Stan Brown wrote:
> >> The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.

Actually, You said that, not me.

> > Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
> > President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
> > Day.
>
> Incorrect. READ THE TEXT.

I have done, multiple times. What's your point?

> > Some idiots -- err, "misguided persons" -- say, "Let the people decide."
> > They _did_ decide, 150 years ago.


--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> I'll spell it out.  The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
> unqualified candidate might win.  Which means the voters might vote
> him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
> the determined day.  It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office
> indefinitely.

It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win. It does
say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say that he
can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a reasonable
extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it would be a waste
of time, effort and money.

And yes that person IS barred from office indefinitely UNLESS two-thirds
of both houses of Congress remove that disability.

> In the toy example above,  the Messiah is barred from the oath on
> January 21, hence the VP steps in.  He qualifies on July 15.  Is it
> reasonable to deny voters their choice?

That's what a court will probably decide.

> That Colorado hack is a power grabber, rewriting the Constitution
> to fit his own agenda. The Supremes have to slap him down.

We shall see. A number of well respected conservative scholars, even
from the Heritage Foundation, have determined that Trump shouldn't be
able to run. Let's see what the Heritage members of the Supreme Court
do.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[RichD]

On January 12, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
>> The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
>> unqualified candidate might win. Which means the voters might vote
>> him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
>> the determined day.
>> It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office
> > indefinitely.
>
> It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win.

"... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"

The President elect... that's the guy who got the most electoral college
votes. Normally, we call him "the winner"

> It does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say that he
> can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a reasonable
> extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it would be a waste
> of time, effort and money.
> And yes that person IS barred from office indefinitely UNLESS two-thirds
> of both houses of Congress remove that disability.

Nicely self contradicted!

The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the
Sheeple time and money.

>> In the toy example above, the Messiah is barred from the oath on
>> January 21, hence the VP steps in. He qualifies on July 15. Is it
>> reasonable to deny voters their choice?
>
> That's what a court will probably decide.

The question isn't, what will a judge arbitrarily decide? The question is,
if he turns 35 on July 15, hence qualified at that point, is it reasonable
to deny the voters their choice?

--
Rich

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:36:35 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
> barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
> to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the
> Sheeple time and money.

Good grief.

Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability? I would rate the chances slightly
less than those of the sub going supernova.

If the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment applies,
then he's not going to be President, or even
dogcatcher, ever again.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote

> Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

>>> The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
>>> unqualified candidate might win. Which means the voters might vote
>>> him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
>>> the determined day.
>>> It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office
>> > indefinitely.
>>
>> It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win.
>
> "... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"
> The President elect... that's the guy who got the most electoral
> college votes. Normally, we call him "the winner"
>
>> It does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say
>> that he can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a
>> reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it
>> would be a waste of time, effort and money.
>> And yes that person IS barred from office indefinitely UNLESS
>> two-thirds of both houses of Congress remove that disability.
>
> Nicely self contradicted!
>
> The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
> barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable
> extrapolation" to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds
> wish to save the Sheeple time and money.

Yes, that's correct. But they can't lift that disability until it's
determined that it IS a disability. A court has determined that Trump is
not qualified, and that's on appeal. After the Supreme Court weighs in,
he will either be allowed to run or not. And if he's not THAT is when
Congress can decide that he can be qualified again. But to let him run
and win and only THEN decide if he's qualified and only THEN let Congress
determine that he can serve after all? That's a waste of time, waste of
resources, and would delay determining who takes the office, perhaps for
months.

>>> In the toy example above, the Messiah is barred from the oath on
>>> January 21, hence the VP steps in. He qualifies on July 15. Is it
>>> reasonable to deny voters their choice?
>>
>> That's what a court will probably decide.
>
> The question isn't, what will a judge arbitrarily decide? The question
> is, if he turns 35 on July 15, hence qualified at that point, is it
> reasonable to deny the voters their choice?

It's not about what is reasonable or not. It's about what the law is.
If someone breaks into your house and is arrested, can he avoid going to
jail because he comes up with some reason that his breaking into your
house is "reasonable"?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote
> Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
>> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
>>> [quoted text muted]

>>
>> It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win. It
>> does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say
>> that he can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a
>> reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it
>> would be a waste of time, effort and money.
>

> Are there laws (apart from physics) that prevent people building - or
> trying to build - perpetual motion machines ? Or does the law just step
> in when you try and sell such a beast with lies ?

It only becomes illegal when someone actually tries to defraud someone
else. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

> If you need laws to prevent people wasting their time and money, your
> courts will be very busy.

You're mixing apples and bananas.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[RichD]

On January 13, Stan Brown wrote:
>> The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
>> barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
>> to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the
>> Sheeple time and money.
>
> Good grief.
> Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
> would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
> houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
> Amendment disability?

egad
A judge has the authority to deny the voters their right to vote, using
"how likely is it" as his constitutional reasoning?

Now I've heard it all -

--
Rich

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 7 Jan 2024 10:58:34 -0800 (PST),
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 17:43:28 -0800, RichD wrote:
>
>> The Repubs are a private organization.  They can nominate whoever they
>> please.  If they nominate someone who can't assume office, too bad, they
>> threw away their votes.

I believe the Colorado secretaries of state have kept several people off
t he ballot over the years. Was each case also wrong?

If it's a power grab, it would have been the Colorado legistature when
they passed the law that gave her the duty to do this. Has anyone ever
challenged the law? Is anyone challenging the law itself now, and not
just its application to trump (I don't know)?

>A potential (weasel ?) way out for SCOTUS would be to say the 14th
>amendment only applies when someone tries to take office.

Better to fight this out now than to wait until November 2024.

>Leaves the GOP in an uncertain position about nominating Trump.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:21:50 -0800 (PST), Barry

What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:06:21 -0800 (PST),

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

>

>It's not about what is reasonable or not. It's about what the law is.
>If someone breaks into your house and is arrested, can he avoid going to
>jail because he comes up with some reason that his breaking into your
>house is "reasonable"?

Yeah. If he heard a screaming child in your house, if he saw him at the
window and no one was coming to help him, it's reasonable to break in.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 8 Jan 2024 19:55:31 -0800 (PST),

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:27:18 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:
>

>> Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for President?
>> Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration Day.
>

>Only today I am reading of a Turkish born US citizen who wants to sue the
>US for discriminating against him in refusing to let him run for POTUS.
>
>https://www.rawstory.com/2-presidential-candidates-tossed-off-sc-ballots-
>sue-and-one-wants-trump-off-too/

FWIW, "But to do that, he’s challenging a clause in the U.S.
Constitution that limits the presidency to citizens born in the United
States. " either isn't accurate or is as yet undetermined.

He has to be a natural born citizen, and what that means is beyond my
ken, but the constituation says nothing about hwere he must be born.

IIRC John McCain was born to 2 American parents, but in Panama. He was a
citizen from the moment he escaped his mother's womb, and iirc it had
not gone to court but no one famous seriously doubted he was eligible.

There was another example too.

But this doesn't help the Turkish guy, and I think he has no case at
all.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:15:30 -0800 (PST), micky
<mis...@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:44:22 -0800 (PST),
>"Rick" <ri...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is

>>considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around the
>>State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary

>>ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is that if the
>>US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would at least be a way
>>to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins the caucus.

>>
>>But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding
>>that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling

>>also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the lawsuit filed was
>>specifically for the primary, but in the event the US Supreme Court upholds
>>the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to
>>apply it to the general election as well?
>
>AFAIK Colorado was not the plaintiff in this case, but yes, the same
>plaintiffs would surely sue again, this time with a very clear precedent
>to support them. The plaintiffs in this week's case were 6 Republicans.
>Not a Democrat among them.
>
>I heard the Colorado Sec. of State on the tv-radio and she's plainly
>very much in favor of keeping him off, but of course, she says she'll do
>what the courts decide. Wasn't it she, her office, which defended the
>case, and lost?
>
>I've also heard stories that if the ussc takes the case but doesn't rule
>before the printing deadline, a semi-clever way to help trump without
>taking a position, he'll get on the primary ballot, but she said iiuc
>that he would not. Her position makes more sense to me.

>
>I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
>will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no

>legal effect. Encouragement for other lawsuits maybe but Colorado's law
>is more specific than other states'. Don't remember how but I would
>think ??????? that means it specifies the remedy, removal from the
>ballot.

That might be a difference too, but, amending my own post, one big
difference is in Colorado candidates have to attest in advance that they
are eligible to hold the position.

>
>> And is there any reason the
>>Court would uphold blocking him from the primary but not the general?
>
>Not that I can think of but see sig.
>
>>Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado
>>decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's really not
>>much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to caucus.
>
>Here are a couple links to keep you busy:
>Advance sheet headnote for the Colorado decsion.
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4
>
>Interestingly, they manage to cite Neil Gorsuch, who was a judge in
>Colorado earlier, and his words give support to banning trump. It will
>be interesting to watch his vote.
>
>1 instance of Gorsuch but 9 instance of Hassan, which is the case he was
>involved in.
>
>
>I only looked for the plaintiff, not the whole case, but this will give
>you an idea of the iissues.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hassan_(lawyer) -- I"m not sure if
>this link will work without some attention, since in my reader (lawyer)
>is not underlined like the rest of it. ????

[Rick]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:f1fcd028-cd9b-42f1...@googlegroups.com...

No one is denying anyone's right to vote. You can vote for anyone you want
via write-in candidate, including someone under 35, someone not a
natural-born citizen, someone who is dead or someone who is fictional.
Mickey Mouse always gets several write-in votes for President and other
offices.

What is being adjudicated is the right of a state official to make a
determination that a person will not be explicitly named on a ballot. As
far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution or indeed any law that
guarantees that a person can appear on any ballot they wish to appear on.
But they can still run for office, and you are 100% free to write in their
name if you meet the qualifications of being a voter.

--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

No, you've got it backwards. The Constitution says that someone who
supports insurrection is unqualified for public office. If a court finds
someone is unqualified, that is when Congress can act. A judge can't
just determine that Congress might act and, as a result, ignore the law.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roy]

I am ending this thread. It has certainly gotten way off and repetitive.

If you want to discuss further, change the subject line.

[Rick]

"micky" wrote in message news:c347qi9feal2gbnpj...@4ax.com...

The Speaker of the House is next in line.

--

[Roy]

>>
>> What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
>> inaugurations days?
>>
>
> The Speaker of the House is next in line.
>
> --

I think it goes to the electoral college if they haven't already met.