Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#21

Post by dmix »

cocacola1 wrote: post #19
Miner49er wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm aware, those are obviously antidemocratic as well. This is just further evidence that America is not a democracy, is what I'm basically saying.

Makes sense, as it’s a constitutional republic.

Bit of a silly counter argument. This is like saying free speech is strictly define by what the US law says, rather than it first and foremost being a widely held cultural value that became enshrined in US law as a reflection of that culture.

Expecting the US to be democratic is a value people hold and it's legitimate to expect it from their government. Even if they don't understand the functions of lower political bodies. [Note: to be clear I'm not making a point re: this ruling, just wanted to point that out]

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#22

Post by nicce »

rvz wrote: post #6
oblib wrote: post #2

I know politics is on the list of things not to post, but I think this qualifies for the exceptions to that.

It doesn't. This is entirely political, unrelated to tech and can be found on mainstream news.

> unrelated to tech

If you look at the rules, this site is not about tech. It is just popular topic.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#23

Post by Thuggery »

verdverm wrote: post #8
Miner49er wrote: post #5

I'm no Trump supporter, but I find this decision very undemocratic. Seven judges have the power to prevent someone from being voted for by the people?

It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here. By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the ac…

> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified.

Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections of the citizenry have not been allowed to vote: landless, blacks, women. Most don't think of those times as ideals to emulate.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#24

Post by r2_pilot »

Thuggery wrote: post #23
verdverm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here. By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the ac…

> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections…

Unprecedented times don't constrain us to the historical events. And we have a Constitution which we follow when unprecedented times do arise. If we don't want to follow the Constitution, fine, but there is a process defined in it for doing that as well, as unlikely as it seems in modern times. Clearly, while there is some room for discussion about the law as written, it seems like reasonable people believe this is one of those unprecedented times and are applying the law.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#25

Post by verdverm »

Thuggery wrote: post #23
verdverm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here. By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the ac…

> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections…

The Amendment (and argument) at the core of this is the 14th amendment, as was passed at the end of the civil war. Section 3, "the sedition clause" was largely enacted to prevent the leaders of the south and the rebellion from holding office ever again. This is part of the argument the lawyers supporting the ban draw on. That when they wrote the law, the discussions about it, and how they used the words in 1868, most certainly sought to include the office of the president from those positions that a person, if found guilt of breaking their oath to uphold the constitution, in the list of offices and similar roles that said person would never again be allowed to hold. Jefferson Davis, as the president of the Confederacy, was denied the right to ever hold an office again. At the time, there would have been broad support among a subset of states to elect Davis to President were he allowed to do so. So, yes, there is a similar example were many people deprived of voting for their popular choice for President.

I'm watching the actual proceedings, It's pretty interesting so far. I keep getting distracted and looking things up for more context, so I've only seen one side's arguments so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#26

Post by stop50 »

alwillis wrote: post #13
Miner49er wrote: post #5

I'm no Trump supporter, but I find this decision very undemocratic. Seven judges have the power to prevent someone from being voted for by the people?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, where the very people who committed treason against the Union ran for office. Hence the need to clarify that those people are ineligible. Same thing happened in Germany after WWII, where Nazis tried to run for office and the law was changed to forbid them from holding political office. Virtually all democracies have provision for disqu…

These type of protections existed before WWII. The Nazis were forbidden for a time, but that was reverted because nobody cared.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#27

Post by verdverm »

verdverm wrote: post #25
Thuggery wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections…

The Amendment (and argument) at the core of this is the 14th amendment, as was passed at the end of the civil war. Section 3, "the sedition clause" was largely enacted to prevent the leaders of the south and the rebellion from holding office ever again. This is part of the argument the lawyers supporting the ban draw on. That when they wrote the law, the discussions about it, and how they used the words in 1868, most…

There are largely two questions being explored

1. Is the President included or excluded from 14.3?

2. Does the state have the jurisdiction and/or right to determine if Trump is disqualified for certain actions while in office?

---

I think the answer to Q1 is yes, the President is most certainly covered in the language that bars oath breakers from holding office again. SCOTUS, as part of the judicial branch, is similar in that it is not called out explicitly, and umbrella'd under the term "office" like the executive branch. Those positions explicitly called out are not typically referred to as holding offices (senators/reps, electors of Pres/VP)

Q2, I don't know

---

After reading the Judges' opinions it seems (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probatio...)

1. There is consensus among both sides that 14.3 does in fact include the President (good, thank you)

2. Question 2 can boil down to due process. Dissenters point out, Trump has not been convicted of insurrection yet, and due process ought to apply when using insurrection to disqualify given the complexity of the question and the gravity of the issue. The majority opinion confirms the lower courts admission of the evidence and their decision that Trump did engage in insurrection.

I find it surprising that the lower court found that Trump engaged in insurrection but denied the ban on the premise that 14.3 doesn't cover the president.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#29

Post by two_handfuls »

JohnnyHerz wrote: post #20

Calling Jan 6th an insurrection is a joke. I Don't Like Trump - didn't vote for him. AND even though I am politically conservative for the most part, I don't care if Trump is on the ballot or not. He is an agent of Chaos. But if you are paying attention at all, you realize that Jan 6th was nothing more than a idiotic attempt at a protest. Insurrection? gimme a break smh ...what a laughable characterization. The liber…

Just because it was a poorly executed insurrection doesn’t make it any less of one.

This was not a protest. It was an act of violence, complete with a death threat, and its goal was to forcibly prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#30

Post by infotainment »

two_handfuls wrote: post #29
JohnnyHerz wrote: post #20

Calling Jan 6th an insurrection is a joke. I Don't Like Trump - didn't vote for him. AND even though I am politically conservative for the most part, I don't care if Trump is on the ballot or not. He is an agent of Chaos. But if you are paying attention at all, you realize that Jan 6th was nothing more than a idiotic attempt at a protest. Insurrection? gimme a break smh ...what a laughable characterization. The liber…

Just because it was a poorly executed insurrection doesn’t make it any less of one. This was not a protest. It was an act of violence, complete with a death threat, and its goal was to forcibly prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Exactly -- people stormed a government facility with the express aim of killing a particular official (Pence) who wasn't compliant with their demands. The fact that it was only attempted and didn't succeed doesn't make it meaningless.

Reminds me of that classic Simpsons quote:

"Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?”

Post reply on HN