America 1 Loc: South Miami

federally indicted mattoid (a regular here) Joined: Jul 30, 2018 Posts: 8077

Your accusation
You don't know the language of the 14th Amendment, do you.
That is your post.
Providing proof is your responsibility.

And, it was a question, not a statement.
There is no ? mark.
Learning is a goal for you.

federally indicted mattoid

If you don't understand why he was removed from the ballot by the Colorado Supreme Court based on the language of the amendment, I cannot explain it to you.

It's simple, plain language.

But if you want to complain about staying stupid, you've come to the right place.

American Vet

I agree. You certainly have cornered the market on stupid.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Matoid is leftist incapable of understanding, the intent of the 14th amendment.....just history, free slaves. But the the Supreme Court twisted the 14th amendment to make same sex marriage.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

It is the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment.
Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 | Constitution Annotated

Congress.gov
https://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-14 › se...
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office ... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

Defining disqualification
Section 3 then says people can be disqualified from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Legal authorities from the American Revolution to the post-Civil War Reconstruction understood an insurrection to have occurred when two or more people resisted a federal law by force or violence for a public, or civic, purpose.
Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Insurrection, Burr’s Rebellion, John Brown’s Raid, and other events were insurrections, even when the goal was not overturning the government.
What these events had in common was that people were trying to prevent the enforcement of laws that were consequences of persuasion, coalition building, and voting. Or they were trying to create new laws by force, violence, and intimidation.
These words in the amendment declare that those who turn to bullets when ballots fail to provide their desired result cannot be trusted as democratic officials.
When applied specifically to the events on Jan. 6, 2021, the amendment declares that those who turn to violence when voting goes against them cannot hold office in a democratic nation.

It has seven justices, each of whom was appointed by a Democratic governor. The seven-person Colorado Supreme Court, which found in a historic ruling Tuesday that Donald Trump is ineligible to be on the state's primary ballot, is composed entirely of judges appointed by Democrats.

Trump has not been charged or convicted of insurrection.
Judges in several states, including Minnesota, Michigan, and New Hampshire have dismissed lawsuits similar to the one brought in Colorado.
Trump has not been formally charged with insurrection.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

A point to make about the Minnesota decision..

It only applies to the Primary. The court announced that the primary was a private event, not open to all. So the law could not prevent the name from a private session.

But they also made the remark that the filing could be repeated for the general election and the court would then reconsider the ruling..

federally indicted mattoid

You figured it out, even though you don't know it yet!

microphor Loc: Home is TN

You must have been looking in the mirror when you said that.

Hydro

It is quite obvious from your post you either have read it and do not understand it or you are just blustering and haven’t read it - there is no way Trump can be removed using that ammendment as you will soon find out once the US SC chastised the same loonies in Colorado’s SC that voted to make a bakers life misserable attempting to force the baker to provide a cake for a homosexual couple that went against his religious beliefs - guess what bet you didn’t read that rejection either

Cornflakes Loc: Texas

Ask your buddy the Mattoid if he’s aware that section 3 of the 14th Amendment was lifted by congress in 1872 a later repealed..see for yourself/ this ballot banning crap is likely going backfire all over Colorado’s ignorance of the US constitution 🤠🔜

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

that seems very unlikely Corn, your post seems very shaky and I would think the court in Colorado would be very knowledgeable of the constitution, amendments and any repeal that applied.

American Vet

Their knowledge means very little because, like you, they are America haters; consumed and controlled by that hatred.

CLPOS

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Some may question whether the historical purpose of section 3 applies to the events on January 6 and the President’s alleged actions. How much should be read into the fact the article of impeachment cited and quoted from section 3 in reference to President Trump’s actions?

Impeachment and disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment require distinct procedures. An impeached president may be convicted only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. A president may be disqualified under Section 3 only by legislation, which must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the then-sitting president. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is evidence that Republicans in 1866 thought “engaging in insurrection and rebellion” against the United States was an offense that should disqualify a person from office, but that is the only relevance of Section 3 for the impeachment process.
The inclusion of Section 3 in the impeachment indictment and the subsequent vote in the Senate indicate that a majority of representatives and senators believe President Trump is subject to disqualification under Section 3, but such disqualification requires a legislative proceeding separate from impeachment.

Putting aside Mr. Trump’s behavior, Reconstruction Republicans would have had no problem applying Section 3 to some other participants in the mob that invaded Congress on January 6. According to press reports, some members of the mob were former officers in the military forces of the United States.
If, like Robert E. Lee, those former officers took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, Congress by law may declare them ineligible for future state and federal office.

Cornflakes Loc: Texas

Go and read it for yourself Perm, The 1872 congress made a blanket clause on section 3 of the 14th amendment (called it the disabilities act and it was removed by congress 20 plus years later) this was all about reconstruction after the civil war and never mentioned it as it applied to any US officials other than the 36th and 37th congress, military and naval officers 🤠🔜

Cornflakes Loc: Texas

By the way why don’t you scroll up in this thread and read the related replies.