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."
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
justanothername · 51-55, M
So what would it take to invalidate yourself from being a presidential candidate?
HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M
@justanothername
Accept bribes from foreign countries
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@justanothername A bullet to the face.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@justanothername I hate to say it. Yet Grant is the example again. He was the general that actually participated in the treason.

That secret service agent didn't do the country any favors by preventing Trump from participating.

That would have been clear cut.
Spotpot · 46-50, M
@HoraceGreenley 'Whataboutism this isnt about Biden. Trumpist.,
justanothername · 51-55, M
@Spotpot I was asking a genuine question in response to the OP.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@justanothername if you knew her, she doesn't often reply. I've known her for years now.
justanothername · 51-55, M
@DeWayfarer my second response was in reply to spotspots dumb ass comment.
I’ll ask it again for those hard of hearing..
What crime would a presidential candidate have to commit in order to invalidate or void their bid for being president?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@justanothername I gave you the answer. He would have to "participate".

"Actions" speak louder than words. It's not illegal to lie unfortunately. Only under court oath.

If lying was a crime, he never would have gotten into office. Every other word he says is a lie in public.

See Becky's reply about the oath he gave below.
justanothername · 51-55, M
@DeWayfarer Ah gotcha. Sorry I missed that part of your response.
So you can instigate or encourage an insurrection against your own government and still run for presidency?

That’s a sad state of affairs.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@justanothername that's the tack they are trying to do.

And that is likely to be the way the supreme court will take it. There's two ways to interpret the constitution.
HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M
@Spotpot
I'm answering your question.
HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M
@DeWayfarer
No there's only 1 interpretation.

The judge knows that she can't keep Trump off the ballot. If she ruled that way the decision would be overturned on appeal.

So she concocted an absurd opinion in an effort to paint Trump in a bad light. There's nothing else to it an her decision will only be remembered for allowing Trump on the ballot.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@DeWayfarer
I hate to say it. Yet Grant is the example again. He was the general that actually participated in the treason.

Someone needs to go back to school. 😉

You are probably thinking of Robert E. Lee. HE is the general who committed treason against the United States. GRANT was the Union general who was instrumental in quashing the rebels.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@justanothername
So what would it take to invalidate yourself from being a presidential candidate?

You don't think I qualify to be President of the United States?

I am a natural born citizen of the United States. I am 38-years old. I have not been twice before elected to the office of president of the United States. Nor have I served as president for more than 6 1/2 years. Nor I have participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, nor have I given aid or comfort to enemies of the United States and, as such, did not violate an oath I've taken to support the Constitution of the United States.

To put it blunty, I FULLY qualify to be President of the United States.

Donald Trump no longer will once the judicial branch of the United States comes to its senses.
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, FVIP
@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!