Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office • Hacker News Board

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#31

Post by junofan » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #27

verdverm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simila…

I believe the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power of enforcement, not the Colorado Supreme Court. I don’t think the framers intended for people to pick and choose parts of the Constitution to go after people they don’t like.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#32

Post by verdverm » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 4:06 AM UTC

junofan wrote: post #31

verdverm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simila…

I believe the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power of enforcement, not the Colorado Supreme Court. I don’t think the framers intended for people to pick and choose parts of the Constitution to go after people they don’t like.

not exactly, the court found that

1. The constitution grants broad authority to states on how to run their elections. This include voter qualifications, how the process is performed, and if candidates qualify. This is the same right granted to states that allowed for the rapid change to mass mail-in ballots during the pandemic and requiring ids for voting. Both parties rely on this state level authority for arguing for and against eligible voter agendas.

2. When you look at the language in the 14th, you find very similar language in several other amendments. They found that by and large, 14.3 is self-executing despite 14.5. To rule the opposite would have undone a ton of precedent and created chaos in the larger legal system. That being said, Congress can vote, with a 2/3 majority, to over turn a disqualification. They cannot however adjugate how a state determines qualifications, minus a few federal rules like age and being a citizen.

On the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection, the lower court found there was ample evidence in Trump's public statements (tweets & speeches) to say he engaged in insurrection. The CO SC confirmed this finding. Team Trump argued there was no due process, thus it is unfair to reach this conclusion, they do not dispute the facts, just the inference. The petitioning side argued that this is a judicial review of an elected official in doing their job, thus a jury trial and all that is not required.

I think one way to make an analogy here is to consider OJ Simpson, who was found not-guilty in a criminal case (trump's criminal case is ongoing) while he was found civilly liable and lost all his money (trump is disqualified)

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#33

Post by verdverm » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 4:11 AM UTC

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.

I find wading into constitutional law pretty interesting, and we ought to be informed citizens if we want our democracy to thrive

If we can talk about the case (it's a big one with big implications for the US), on merit and about the arguments being made, so that we might better understand how our country works, that seems like a valid topic to discuss within the HN community.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#34

Post by verdverm » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 4:14 AM UTC

justinzollars wrote: post #17

rvz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Electing Democrats had a huge effect on Figma employees. US bowing to EU regulators? No pressure or response from the US?

bowing, or deferring, perhaps the US saved a bunch of money on legal fees

everyone pretty much thought it wasn't going to be allowed anyway based on the initial rulings. Adobe and Figma spent a year trying to find concessions to satisfy regulators and didn't, thus they gave up

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#35

Post by verdverm » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 4:17 AM UTC

r2_pilot wrote: post #7

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?

Well, perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing the ability to be a candidate. Or, as the kids say these days, fuck around and find out.

> perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws

Ironically, after watching proceedings and reading opinions from several Trump cases, I think Trump is having a hard time finding good lawyers because the good ones are distancing themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing their ability to practice law. i.e. They don't want to fuck around and find out

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#36

Post by oblib » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 7:08 AM UTC

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.

I reviewed the guidelines here again before posting this and it meets them. This is really a huge, and rare, and thus historic event for the U.S. and State governance.

If I recall correctly there are several other States that have been pondering keeping Trump off their ballots as well. All those States have had laws that cover this for a very long time, but as far as I know none have ever exercised them to keep a Presidential candidate off their ballots.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#37

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 12:23 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#38

Post by JohnnyHerz » Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 12:23 AM UTC

infotainment wrote: post #30

two_handfuls wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

Drinking the cool-aid.

add 2 more sheep to the herd

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#39

Post by gwd » Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 11:48 AM UTC

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…

> Insurrection? gimme a break smh ...what a laughable characterization.

Did you read either the Colorado district court or supreme court's analysis of what defines an insurrection, and whether the events on January 6th qualify? Which part do you disagree with?

> The political lawfare being waged against Trump is eventually going to get turned back around and used against liberals.

Would you rather the technique Trump used on January 6 be turned against Conservatives? Suppose Trump were to the electoral vote in 2024, and Biden sent a semi-organized mob to storm congress to threaten violence against any congressman voting to certify his election, would that be OK with you?

I agree that "lawfare" of this kind poses risks; look at the current situation in Guatemala. But there are risks on both sides.

Re: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from holding office

#40

Post by JohnnyHerz » Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

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.

Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it!