Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Judge Finds That Donald Trump "Engaged in an Insurrection" Against the United States.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace rules that Trump's name can remain on the ballot on a technicality, that is only because he is not "an officer of the United States" and thus cannot be disqualified from office due to the 14th Amendment.

Wallace wrote that Trump "acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence," concluding "that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection."

The judge also determined that the amendment’s provision technically applied to those who swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. The oath Trump took when he was sworn in after he was elected in 2016 was to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

Plantiffs should immediately appeal this decision, because there is plenty of evidence to indicate that Congress felt that the president is indeed an officer of the United States when it drafted the language for the Amendment, let alone the mincing of words about supporting or preserving the Constitution. Members of the 39th Congress, which proposed the Amendment, repeatedly referred to the president as an officer of the United States.

It's simply absurd to believe that they would disqualify former Confederate Jefferson Davis or Gen. Robert E. Lee from serving as Postmaster General but allow them to sit in the Oval Office as president.

The questions plantiffs should put before the Colorado Supreme Court are (1) is the president an "officer of the United States" and (2) does the oath the president takes to "preserve, protect and defend" mean that he therefore must "support" the Constitution.

If the Colorado Supreme Court agrees in the affirmative to those questions and sends the case back to the district court, then by Judge Wallace's own finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection against the United States, she MUST rule him as disqualified to serve as president.

Trump would, of course, appeal such a ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

Here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Amendment XIV
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Constitution repeatedly refers to the "office of president of the United States."

In fact, the Constitution sets forth the initial requirements to qualify for the "Office of President."

Article II
Section 1
Clause 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Article II
Section 1
Clause 8

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Truth is you can't have anybody addressing the public the way Trump did that night.
I understand why he did it, as a means of making those present feel like they had a purpose and as an attempt to diffuse the situation.

But the fact remains if that mob had been twice that size; had they breached the chamber where members were meeting, had anyone been injured, no matter how accidentally, the whole thing could have had a very very different ending !

Now Trump had no Ill intent I'm sure.
He's not that smart. Piracy in business is more his thing. But quite why the Republicans continue this charade of not calling him out and telling him 'he's not the candidate they're looking for at this time' and so putting this whole mess to bed is probably a sign they're actually considering it !

And it's THAT which should terrify people.
justanothername · 51-55, M
@Picklebobble2 You give him
Far more credit than he deserves.

If i encourage a bunch of my friends to rape a woman but I don’t actually rape her myself, does that make me a bad person?
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@justanothername Maybe so. But given the rhetoric from his Presidency it's clear that once you become President few people have the power or maybe even the right to say the word NO to you.
That's something else that needs addressing.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Picklebobble2

Which is why I refer to Trump as "Il Duce." Because Mussolini felt the same way as Trump, that no one had the right to say the word "no" to him.
justanothername · 51-55, M
So what would it take to invalidate yourself from being a presidential candidate?
justanothername · 51-55, M
@beckyromero Sounds like you qualify for being the next President.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@beckyromero 2024! @beckyromero 2024!
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@LordShadowfire

Believe me. I would so LOVE to debate Donald Trump.

Even if it wasn't a presidential debate.

Just to put Il Duce in his place.

And, yes, I would have NO PROBLEM at all referring to him as "Il Duce" right to his orange face!

Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@beckyromero The "judges" who have been hearing these cases have shit for brains. However, on a technicality, the orange traitor has not been convicted of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion. Once he is convicted then he should be barred within a minute of the guilty verdict.

From the river to the sea.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
This decision will get overturned on appeal. The judge is just grandstanding.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@HoraceGreenley

She's trying to have it both ways, declare Trump an insurrectionist but letting his name be on the ballot because he didn't swear an oath to "support" the Constitution, only to "preserve, protect and defend" it.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@beckyromero
You're right. The judge can't rule to keep Trump off the ballot so she came up with this ridiculous opinion.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@HoraceGreenley

The legal argument in FAVOR of keeping Trump off the ballot is that the clause in the 14th Amendment is "self-enforcing" and that state officials who do NOT keep Trump off the ballot are violating the 14th Amendment.

These judges in the state cases are making these decisions are hoping that (1) Trump doesn't get nominated, or (2) he loses the general election, thereby making the lawsuits mute.

They have as much backbone as a jellyfish does.

They should have let the cases go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a simple ruling: did Trump engage in an insurrection against the United States.

Declaring that the president is not an officer of the United States is utter nonsense. To say otherwise is to say that the 39th Congress did not intend the 14th Amendment to apply to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee or a whole host of other rebels.
Sounds like there's a need to amend the constitution.
@beckyromero I'm sure that's true.
Would it be possible to correct that wording now?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hartfire

There is no need to correct the wording. The Courts just need to interpret the wording as the 39th Congress surely intended.

Although Section 5 of the Amendment does state:

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@hartfire
Sounds like there's a need to amend the constitution.

Can it ever be written so that even the dumbest dummy can clearly understand it?

 
Post Comment