8
Colorado judge rejects attempt to bar Trump from 2024 ballot under 'insurrection' clause
(coloradonewsline.com)
Judge should be fired
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
Colorado Politics
204 readers
1 users here now
A place for news and discussion about politics in the Centennial State.
-
Posts must be explicitly related to Coloradan politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics and that state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience.
-
Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site's, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
-
Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed.
-
Posts must have appropriate source flair selected from the provided list. If the source could have two flairs, select the one you think better represents the post's content. Eg, an announcement from the Governor's office released through the Denver Post should be tagged ''Official' rather than 'News'.
-
Be civil.
-
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
-
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
-
No hate speech, slurs, or abusive language. This will result in a ban.
2024 Colorado Election Calendar
2023 Colorado Election Results
Register to vote or update your registration online, or verify your registration
Find and contact your state legislators
Find or contact your congressional legislators
The Gazette (Colorado Springs)
The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction)
Pueblo
Greeley
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How is he not an officer? The President is "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. That's literally the top "officer".
The new article links to an academic article which describes the full legal theory, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095
The short version, from the news article, is this:
“It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
The academic article goes on in some detail hypothesizing why this might have been the case. Basically at the time it was written, every former President had been some other kind of Officer first, and even today Drumpf is the sole exception, so the omission of the P and VP might have been a sort of compromise to make it easier to get that amendment passed.
The academic article does a good job of proposing that it's not a simple oversight - remember that a former US President had joined the Confederacy at that time, so this sort of thing was exactly at the top of their minds.
As much as I would personally disagree with this, I have to admit that the legal arguments made seem very sound to my layman's understanding of things. Really unfortunate, though I do see a silver lining here - most other challenges have dealt with how hard it is to define an insurrection and if Drumpf really participated or not. At least the judge here did indeed agree with the fact that Drumpf was part of an insurrection.
Perhaps States can pass laws that, in addition to requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to be eligible to stand in that State, also require that candidates a) never took part in an insurrection or b) apologized for it. As Drumpf would never apologize, he'd thus not be eligible to stand.