In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Is there precedent? I’m not aware of anyone else who’s been banned from elections for insurrection, but this also isn’t my area. I kind of assumed it would follow the ‘innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing, but I also don’t know how much of a hard and fast rule that is for this type of crime.
I am genuinely curious. I kind of assumed he would never actually be charged and the amendment could never be invoked as a result.
Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?
I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion.
The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto
The 14th specifies no requirement for conviction. And historical precedent* has been set such that it does not require conviction.
*precedent
Damn auto correct 😁
Autocorrect is the bane of the world. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it’s a lethal weapon.
Is there precedent? I’m not aware of anyone else who’s been banned from elections for insurrection, but this also isn’t my area. I kind of assumed it would follow the ‘innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing, but I also don’t know how much of a hard and fast rule that is for this type of crime.
I am genuinely curious. I kind of assumed he would never actually be charged and the amendment could never be invoked as a result.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Chart-of-Past-14.3-Disqualifications-rev.-07.10.23.pdf
Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?
I do not accept your attempt to move the goal posts. Your claim was about whether conviction was necessary. It is not.
It’s not moving the goalpost.
I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion. The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto