Judge Luttig says section 3 is “self-executing“. No conviction required. My opinion won’t matter, but I can be thankful that some Secretaries of State are willing to test this point, which is itself a part of due process.

In related news, a really interesting point is… if, in a court of law, Trump claims he won 2020, then he disqualifies himself for 2024, because a president cannot seek a third term. If he claims he did not win 2020, then he admits to trying to overturn a fair election.

I enthusiastically celebrate any lawful action toward protecting our democracy from wannabe dictators, however small or unlikely to change the eventual outcome. I was not a Biden enthusiast, but there is nothing about him that makes me worry that he would ever try to stay in office after his elected term. There are constitutional constraints on who can be president ( in addition to the voters’ will ) for a reason.

Our nation is clearly facing a populist challenge to democracy. We should all be celebrating every ounce of resistance large or small. The Colorado and Maine actions were 100% lawful, whether they stand or fall in subsequent legal proceedings. They are rightfully celebrated by all who wish to remain citizens of a democratic republic.

@skado That doesn't seem lawful to me to make such a move as they did minus any actual guilty convictions. Knowing how dastardly Trump can be, I'm sure he'd use the excuse that he was "mistaken" when it came to the 2020 Election results, and in the process he could all too easily get around the overturning the Election part and also serving a third term as you mentioned above.

As I'm typing out this reply, I just heard that Trump's name shall stay on the Colorado ballots unless the Supreme Court rules against him or throws the case out, and personally I wouldn't hold out for either of those outcomes. If the Supreme Court ends up ruling in Trump's favor, that would probably be an indicator that the ruling was considered unconstitutional in the first place.

I don't mind them "testing" points like that either, just as long as it's done in a legal manner. I also don't mind them taking action(s) to preserve democracy, but at least some of the times when some individuals raise concerns over threats to our democracy, I think they are personal opinions/perceptions and must question just how much danger our democracy is truly in regarding being near or totally eliminated? Yes, Trump did challenge the 2020 Election results, but did he remain in office a day longer than he should have? No, he didn't, despite his big talk otherwise, and democracy still took its course. Keep in mind Trump is nothing more than an over-glorified bully, and says things that he knows would upset his opposition, so he does more of the same in retaliation. Knowing this, I suspect what he is saying now (for example, I'll only be a dictator on my first day back in office) is meant to strictly upset any of those who would vote against him in an effort to instill fear and dread in them... and sadly his tactics appear to be working in whipping people up into a frenzy.

Our democracy has already survived four years under a Trump Presidency, and would survive another four years should he be elected again, and I don't for one moment believe that any one given politician would have the power to single-handedly totally bring down our democracy. Same is true with those claiming that we wouldn't survive another four years under Joe Biden, while things might not be pleasant we would indeed get through four more years of a Biden Admin should it come to that, and to say anything otherwise is nothing more than fearmongering tactics. I equate such paranoia to that of conspiracy theories, what could be, but most likely would not play out in the manner that alot of people believe it would.

You said above- "We should all be celebrating every ounce of resistance large or small." Fair enough, and I take it it's acceptable then to celebrate that Trump's name is back on Colorado ballots for now, and that also it would be acceptable to celebrate should the Supreme Court rule in his favor? Because every ounce of "resistance" should be celebrated right? And if the SC rules like that it would probably be because the judges realized such a ruling was unconstitutional. Likewise, I would also celebrate if Trump ever gets a guilty conviction(s) in Court, and then a move is made to keep his name off of all ballots due to those convictions, because that would sound fair to me at that point and that's how our democracy should work. If the rulings in Colorado and Maine fall, that would indicate they were not legal in the first place, otherwise they would be upheld. Should be interesting to see what the SC's next move will be.

As I mentioned earlier, there are more democratic ways of dealing with such situations, and wanting to remove a candidate's name from the ballot in the name of protecting democracy sounds like a peculiar argument, and as Reason had put it authoritarian at worst. Just keep in mind, any tactics like that used by one side of the political spectrum could certainly be copied by the other side, and I suspect in the months ahead we will see retaliation from Republicans over such a ruling... and it won't be pleasant for any of us average Americans just trying to live our lives. Over the years I've been witness to acts of authoritarianism being met with more acts of the same all for the sake of revenge and spite.

If Biden had committed the same crime I would be singing the same tune. It’s not about the person, it’s about the law. His dangerous rhetoric is the point. It’s not just dangerous, it’s criminal.

@skado Not defending Trump, because he is indefensible, however considering we have political free speech it is almost impossible for such speech to be criminal.

@Alienbeing
Incitement is not protected speech.
[britannica.com]

@skado The ruling was based on Trump's speech that the Colorado Supremes decided amounted to inciting insurrection. The point is Trump's speech, while obnoxious is still political speech and as such protected.

The Jan 6th actions were clearly a riot, but not an insurrection. The britannica article is quite general.

Last, I don't understand what point you are trying to make when you say "Incitement is not protected speech". That would depend on what was trying to be incited, and while some call Jan 6th an insurrection I don't see how that description applies.

@Alienbeing
Speech that is part of criminal behavior is not protected, like conspiring to commit a crime. Whether it was an insurrection is another thing for the courts to decide. My opinion won’t matter.

@skado Since Trump has yet to be convicted of any criminal matter, excluding him was baseless. The Constitution also guarantees one's day in court.

@Alienbeing
My opinion is of no importance but these legal scholars explain very thoroughly that section three is “self-executing” without any conviction, and that it does not constitute “punishment”.

@skado I have a law degree for a highly regarded law school and I don't agree with the "scholars" you cited

I'll remind you of something you must know.... many lawyers who are highly regarded have 180 degree opposite opinions of many legal matters, As immediate proof, just look at our Supreme Court. Irrespective of one's political leanings all must agree that all sitting members of the Supreme court are legal scholars, and some pf them are virtual exact opposites on how they interpret law.

I'll stick with my 12/23 reply .

@Alienbeing
That’s right. That’s why we have courts and judges, to settle those disagreements. Our opinions won’t matter. The Colorado ruling doesn’t settle the matter, but it is a small step in the right direction at a time when right directions seem hard to come by.

@skado What is a "right" decision? I suggest the same Court will issue decisions you agree with, and some you don't agree with.

@Alienbeing

Of course. There are people who would prefer an authoritarian dictatorship. But I’m not among them.

True, but may inspire other states to follow suit. In any case, what's right is right.

I don’t think the law is “out to get” anybody. It’s out to uphold the rule of law. Whatever the courts decide is what should be done. I’m voting to keep democracy and the rule of law.. That’s all. A person can be the most popular guy in the world, but if he does the crime, he does the time. The court of law, not the court of popular opinion, is what determines the outcome. Same applies to Biden or anybody else.

@skado When I said out to get, that meant a combination of both the rule of law and also that personal grudges from some individuals would also factor into those motivations. Knowing how much certain individuals hate that guy (deservedly), I suspect at least some of the motivation behind seeing him get put behind bars is fueled by personal grudges, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise. Revenge is a key ingredient in our politics nowadays. Also, if one violates the rule of law, at that point think it would be reasonable for those with a sense of justice to be "out to get" the culprit.

That aside, I agree with you on the rest, just saying that in the end don't be surprised if that decision somehow gets overturned, because politicians have a way of getting around their violations against the law, and the politicians are usually the ones with enough funding to fight in Court (and win).

@SpikeTalon

It will be interesting to see how it goes. If he isn't held accountable it will open the floodgates to wannabe imitators, who are already coming out of the woodwork in droves. That's when democracy ends.

@skado That it will be Mister Skado, and guess we'll see one way or the other soon enough. I'm skeptical that he will be held accountable, but that's one time I wouldn't mind being wrong though.

As for democracy, at times can't help but wonder if that was already done away with (well, to an extent anyways) long ago, and now things are only getting worse? Kennedy was the last truly well-rounded President we had, the ones since his time are questionable at best, and total lying deceivers at worst. Peculiar times we live in...

@skado Trump stiks, but It is hard to hold one accountable for a crime that the person has not yet even be charged with, no less convicted.

@Alienbeing
Section 3 of the 14th doesn’t mention charge or conviction, only engagement or aid and comfort. He clearly gave aid and comfort at minimum.

@skado I agree, but if that is so why do so many Democrats very vocally disagree with prior Supreme Court decisions?

Republicans also frequently disagree.

I guess the Court is only correct if reader agrees with their decision.

@skado Whether the Article in question mentions conviction or prior charges is irrelevant. The Constitution guarantees one cannot be held guilty without a conviction.

@Alienbeing
There is no requirement that people agree with the law, only that they obey it or face the consequences. The court is correct by virtue of being the court. There are lawful ways of changing the laws if enough people agree the law should be changed. Otherwise it’s read’em and weep.

@Alienbeing
One thing to keep in mind in this case is that Colorado is not trying to jail him or fine him, just remove his name from the ballot. That’s not punishment - just restriction. There are other restrictions on who can run for president. The courts will decide how the law applies to this specific case.

@skado Obviously the Court will decide.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision, as you said involves removal from theor State ballot. That action causes harm, and as such is punitive.

@Alienbeing

Is it punitive to not let 34 year olds run?

@skado Punitive? no. Don't you mean discriminatory?

@Alienbeing
Correct. Setting qualifications that all candidates must meet is not punitive. It discriminates between those who are qualified to hold the office and those who are not. Any candidate who behaved as Trump did would place himself in the latter group.

@skado I don't think I understand the purpose of your last reply.

@Alienbeing
Just saying it’s not unfair discrimination, just like setting an age requirement for getting a driver’s license. It applies equally to all who fit the category.

@skado You mentioned above- "Section 3 of the 14th doesn’t mention charge or conviction, only engagement or aid and comfort. He clearly gave aid and comfort at minimum."

All five sections that comprise the Fourteenth Amendment must be taken into equal consideration, and not just one section. The first section clearly states that no one shall be deprived of due process. Trump must first be found guilty in a court of law in order for any serious actions to be taken against him.

@SpikeTalon
Legal scholars differ on that. I guess we’ll get whatever the Supremes give us.

@skado I suppose so, and all of that should be most interesting. I'm going to go with the SC's ruling in the end. Legal scholars may differ on that, but not all of them can be correct though, someone has to be wrong, and I think the recent ruling in Colorado was not the most logical approach to the situation. As you said above, we'll see soon enough...