The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Samuel Moyn (Yale Law): "The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously"
A N.Y. Times opinion piece today, following up on a Compact piece ("The Liberal Plot Against Democracy") Wednesday. An excerpt from the Times:
Like many of my fellow liberals, I would love to live in a country where Americans had never elected Mr. Trump — let alone sided with him by the millions in his claims that he won an election he lost, and that he did nothing wrong afterward. But nobody lives in that America. For all the power the institution has arrogated, the Supreme Court cannot bring that fantasy into being. To bar Mr. Trump from the ballot now would be the wrong way to show him to the exits of the political system, after all these years of strife.
And from Compact:
The [Colorado Supreme Court] ruling sets up a dangerous new version of an all-too-familiar scenario: It transforms what ought to be a national referendum on the future of the country into a national spectacle of how judges will interpret a provision from its past. Doing so might for a moment save liberals—and, if the US Supreme Court goes along, conservatives, too—from their nonnegotiable responsibility to win power by winning elections. But it would do so by putting the very democracy such forces purport to want to save at greater risk and only postpones the need to rule by legitimate means, rather than through legal hijinks.
As with the Adam Unikowsky article, I pass this along because it strikes me as interesting and thoughtful, though there are facets of the analysis with which I may well disagree.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Prof. Volokh has nothing to say about the un-American activity of John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, but finds this interesting.
Samuel Moyn is the kind of "liberal" who writes for Compact and has been apologizing for Donald Trump and his fans for years. That makes him the Volokh Conspiracy's kind of liberal.
On a brighter note, the United States stopped renting its United Nations veto to Israel today, at least temporarily.
Carry on, clingers.
And the Biden administration has just given the Jewish vote to the Republicans. Jews haven't voted Republican since Eisenhower, if then, and now they have.
It's only 392 days until the grownups are back
Jews live in blue places. Five states and D.C. have at least 3% Jews. One of them is Florida, where the Jewish vote could change the outcome. In the rest flipping half the Jews will not change the outcome.
New York: 9% Jewish
D.C.: 8%
Maryland: 4%
Massachusetts: 4%
Connecticut: 3%
Florida: 3%
I was going to say that Florida is hardly close enough for the Jewish vote to make a difference. But, hey, worth looking at the polls first, right?
Yeah, I think I'm safe saying that.
Only poll I've seen that was even close was from "Victory Insights", and frankly, after I looked at it? I think DeSantis bought himself a push poll.
Not likely. Republicans' inherent bigotry and superstition will push them to go back to hating Jews soon enough. Conservatives can no more resist being bigots than Prof. Volokh can resist launching vile racial slurs.
You mean the UN that still has not condemned the October 7 massacres? Or the Chinese genocide of the Uighurs?
But that kind of hypocrisy is right up your alley.
So... we shouldn't follow the Constitution?
Any argument that runs, "regardless of the constitutional analysis, Democrats and Republicans should win or lose, fair and square, through free and fair elections," is just an argument that we should ignore the law when it makes us nervous to follow where it leads.
There might be a lot of legal snags in the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion, and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will find the loose thread that causes it to all unravel. And because I also believe that elections should be competitive and not won through "legal hijinks," I have no problem with that outcome, provided that the Court's analysis is correct (and not simply ends-motivated). But it's not serious - or "interesting" - to respond to the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion with some variation on the enlightened centrist take that we should just have Trump and Biden compete for votes and allow the election to decide the merits.
There is very, very good reason to be concerned about re-electing a president who has already shown his disregard for the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power. Whether the Constitution protects us against that result is an open, legal question. But if it does, it would be insane to argue that we ignore that constitutional mandate in order to open the door to this man potentially winning again.
If you truly believed the most heavily armed demographic in the country tried to over throw the government without weapons by occupying the most useless building in the country...well, I have a bridge to sell you.
There were weapons. They had them stowed in Virginia, ready to break them out when/if needed.
Anyway, we know what Trump attempted to do. Whether it qualified as an "insurrection" is a legal question. Certainly, he should not hold the office of the president again.
What did Trump attempt to do exactly? Tweet from his couch?
I enjoyed the Trump-speak analysis where when politicians say "fight" they mean it metaphorically, but Trump somehow meant it literally. But when Trump says "peacefully"...that's also Trump-speak that he doesn't really mean.
I am not rehearsing the record for every dittohead spoiling for a fight. Everything that Trump did is a matter of public record now.
Trump and his associates intentionally lathered a violent mob, then sent that mob to the Capitol (lying about intentions to diminish security preparations) for the purpose of interfering with the Constitutional transfer of power.
Did you bigoted hayseeds miss the convictions for seditious conspiracy? And that was before the recent revelations. Additional criminal charges related to the insurrection (everyone involved in planning and lying about the assembly and march) and election subversion (Ronna McDaniel's turn in the barrel of litigation and bankruptcy, it appears, along with others) have been teed up.
It is not what you think. It is not what you believe. It is what you prove in a court of law.
Seeing as nothing has been proven in a court of law; before a jury, who are the finders of fact, I ask: What's your point.
For the record, compare 2019's economic indicators with 2023.
Do compare the first 3 years of the Trump administration and the first 3 years of the Biden administration. Compare the data from the same government sources (OMB, BLS, ect.) look at the numbers without the partisan blinders.
It has exactly, literally, now been established in a court of law that heard mountains of evidence that Trump fomented insurrection. Wishing doesn’t make that go away.
What court conducted the criminal trial where Donald Trump received due process, a jury and was able to have his attorneys cross examine witnesses?
It wasn't a criminal trial.
Why would you think it was a criminal trial? Don't keep up with the news, much?
So what you are saying is that there was no trial that brought forth evidence that insurrection actually occurred and determined that Donald Trump not only instigated the insurrection but participated in it. Because such a determination seems to require a criminal trial with due process. Was there even a civil trial that brought forth evidence that insurrection actually occurred and that Donald Trump not only instigated it but participated in it? A trial with witnesses that testified that what occurred met the legal definition of insurrection who were cross examined by Trump's attorneys and witnesses who were actually there when it occurred and can testify that Trump was involved? And were those witnesses cross examined by Trump's attorneys? Because all I have seen was a state district court that argued if Trump was covered under section 3 of the 14th Amendment but didn't really have a trial where if what occurred in January 6, 2020 met the definition of insurrection and if Trump was somehow responsible. Oh the judge did say that Trump was guilty but without a real trial where the issue was contested that means diddly squat and is merely an opinion that should hold no legal weight. And of course that doesn't even consider that the judge had no authority to make such a determination since the supposed insurrection occurred 1600 miles away and far outside the judge's jurisdiction.
First hold a trial showing legally an insurrection occurred and that Trump was guilty of instigating and participated in it. Until then the removal of his right to run for office should remain.
Have you heard of the enter key?
Because this is a wall of text.
How about addressing the substance of what I wrote?
.
How about writing legibly, so that people don't have to rummage through a pile of mud to find substance?
But the short version is: yes, there was a trial that brought forth evidence and heard from witnesses and made that determination. It was not a criminal trial, because no such proceeding is required under Colorado law or the 14th amendment.
Did you miss the seditious conspiracy convictions, you bigoted, half-educated, un-American, delusional right-wing rube?
You calling anyone else a bigot is the definition of chutzpah.
Oh and none of those convictions involved Trump making them irrelevant.
CountymontyC, as I have written on prior threads, Donald Trump had notice of the charges against him, the relief sought by the petitioners, and detailed specification of the underlying factual and legal basis for the petition. His lawyers litigated multiple pretrial motions in the trial court and in the Supreme Court of Colorado. AFAIK, Trump did not seek to conduct any pretrial discovery, and he made no offer of proof to the trial court as to how discovery would have assisted his defense on the merits. (The petitioners sought to take a pretrial evidentiary deposition of Trump, but the trial court denied their application to do so.) The trial court scheduled five full days for taking proof, with the time for presentation equally divided between the petitioners and the respondent/intervenors (and Trump did not take all of the time he was allotted). The Rules of Civil Procedure applied at trial. Trump had the subpoena power of the trial court to compel the attendance of witnesses on his behalf. Trump’s lawyers cross-examined witnesses called on behalf of the petitioners. Trump had the opportunity to testify at trial; he elected not to do so. While the applicable statutes specified that the petitioners had the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence, the trial court determined that the proof met the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence, had that standard been applicable. All parties had the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court issued a comprehensive and detailed final order.
The Supreme Court of Colorado exercised discretionary review, The parties submitted comprehensive briefing. The per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court is comprehensive and is tied closely to the evidentiary record developed before the trial court. Trump has the opportunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to petition the United States Supreme Court for review by certiorari.
Trump has the opportunity to petition Congress for a two thirds vote in each House to remove the disability.
What additional process do you claim that Trump is due? Please be specific.
How about a trial conducted by a court that has actual authority to conduct a trial to determine if an insurrection occurred and if Trump was involved? The Colorado court is over 1600 miles away and has no jurisdiction in the matter. Especially since it's a state court and not a federal court.
It would also have to be a trial where the focus was on whether an insurrection occurred and if Trump was involved. The Colorado court was focused on other issues.
You're using big words like "jurisdiction" you don't understand. The Colorado court would of course not have jurisdiction over a prosecution of Trump for insurrection, but that has nothing to do with the issue.
Whether it has anything to do with the question of whether he is, for any legal purpose, an 'insurrectionist', is precisely the issue.
On the one hand you've got people who think you need to CONVICT somebody of insurrection, in a criminal trial, before you get to treat them as guilty of insurrection.
On the other hand you've got people who think you just need some sort of 'hearing' or 'finding' or other de minimis process, in order to do it.
The latter position is transparently driven by the desperate, even pathological, need to get Trump By Any Means Necessary.
Here's my prediction: If it starts to look like he's winning legally, the assassination attempts will start.
On the one hand you’ve got people who think you need to CONVICT somebody of insurrection, in a criminal trial, before you get to treat them as guilty of insurrection.
On the other hand you’ve got people who think you just need some sort of ‘hearing’ or ‘finding’ or other de minimis process, in order to do it.
De minimis is also not the right word here. You're using legalish jargon to exclude the middle. State Supreme Court review is not de minimis process. It's just not the evidentiary threshold *you* prefer. But your preference is based on vibes.
Your arguments over the years on this blog have taught me quite a bit about a certain kind of originalist.
Here’s my prediction: If it starts to look like he’s winning legally, the assassination attempts will start.
Yeah, this is what'll do it. Not anything previously, this is the thing that'll get the shadowy Dem MK-Ultra troops Activated.
"State Supreme Court review is not de minimis process."
It shouldn't be. It was in this case. They took that Jan 6th committee report, and blew off every reason for rejecting it. Their ruling was basically dictated by a committee Pelosi hand picked on the basis of who hated Trump most.
I predict that they'll try to kill Trump if they think they're not going to beat him in court, because they've spent better than 6 years claiming that he was super-Hitler, that electing him was the end of Democracy in America. At every point where an attack failed, they opted to escalate instead of admitting they were wrong.
If nothing else works, how can you not try to kill super-Hitler?
.
False. For example, let's suppose I am in Denver and I say, "Donald Trump is an insurrectionist," and Donald Trump sues me for defamation there. Or maybe he sues me in Florida, since that's where he lives. In order for that case to be adjudicated, the Colorado or Florida court would have to determine whether Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. And it would indeed have the jurisdiction to make that decision.
Sigh. Once again: nobody is treating him as guilty of insurrection. Nobody is putting him in jail for ten years for insurrection, or fining him for insurrection. That's what "treating him as guilty of insurrection" consists of. The consequence of him committing insurrection is occurring — just as it would in the hypothetical defamation cases I described above. Nobody who knows anything at all about law — and that of course excludes you — thinks that a criminal trial for insurrection is required in order for that defamation suit to be adjudicated. Nobody thinks that me winning the suit on the grounds that my statement is true would constitute treating Trump as "guilty" of insurrection.
'and blew off every reason for rejecting it.'
Because, and I don't lnow how you keep missing this, your 'reasons,' like your 'evidence,' never survives contact with the real world.
Do you have a point?
"There were weapons. They had them stowed in Virginia, ready to break them out when/if needed."
I've got weapons, stowed in a safe in my closet, ready to break out when/if needed. That's hardly evidence I intend to shoot up the municipal offices, if I protest there.
If they'd intended to overthrow the government, they wouldn't have 'stowed' them, they'd have BROUGHT them.
This is so damn stupid, treating every bit of evidence that they didn't intend insurrection as just demonstrating that they were really, really bad at it. It demonstrates that you regard the claim of insurrection as simply unfalsifiable.
They didn't think they would need; they thought Trump had their back. And he just about did.
Part of the outrage about Jan 06 resulting in criminal prosecutions is the shock of consequence to people who thought they were too righteous for the law to apply.
It was the shock of them being treated differently from years of Antifa and BLM rioters, who often to got handled with kid gloves despite doing worse.
Wow, like all those rubber bullets and tear gas and nightsticks and shields were just a friendly way of welcoming BLM to the cities.
.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum may not be the most prudent approach to take.
If Donald Trump were on fire I would hand him a can of gasoline. But even if I think it's legally justified to ban Trump (I do), a a republican (small r!) government depends on the widespread acceptance of its legitimacy, not merely the ability of elites to make technical arguments about its legal foundation.
"... a republican (small r!) government depends on the widespread acceptance of its legitimacy, not merely the ability of elites to make technical arguments about its legal foundation."
Very much this.
(would chip in on the gas, as well)
But failing to enforce Constitutional safeguards also costs the republic its legitimacy. The choice is whether to prefer the rule of law or grant special status to elites like Donald Trump.
This is the case only if there is an objective and clear Rule of Law. As law I as human institution, that is rarely true.
Factually, seems a slam dunk. But there is a ton of wiggle room legally especially when you are the final arbiter.
I think I understand your point. But Moyn seems to be saying *never use it unless there’s a legal slam dunk, which is to say, never. I don’t think we should treat these things as optional because they are hard or inconvenient because the wrongdoer is popular. We should treat them as constitutional provisions to be given meaning and precedent. (Which 14/3 has.)
I am not saying that A14S3 should never be applied to disqualify a presidential candidate. I would feel differently about the whole issue if there were established procedures already in place before now that clearly laid out who would decide and what standard would be applied. I think that coming up with ad hoc procedures on a post hoc basis is not a good idea, though. (Again, I am not saying there's anything legally wrong with what Colorado did; I am talking about legitimacy. (Well, perceived legitimacy, which is pretty much the same thing as legitimacy.))
You are absolutely correct. Nobody doubted who were the insurrectionists after the Civil War, even their supporters.
Wrenching and twisting to disqualify an opponent in a scenario nothing like that is just the 37th initiative to git 'im. It smacks of weasel behavior in form (lawyers for politically motivated trying to thread a needle) and in pattern (for 7 years now, one initiative fails, move on to the next, then the next, then the next.)
He needs to lose the next election because we don't need tanks rolling through Europe. But we also don't need this weasely effort to remove a choice outside voting.
'Wrenching and twisting'
There was, of course, no wrenching or twisting.
'He needs to lose the next election'
He needs another chance to take over the government and install himself as Leader.
.
But that's not true. In fact, Lost Causism started up immediately, and their supporters denied that it even was an insurrection.
Alito and Josh would beg to differ.
I don't disagree that there's a separate philosophical argument to be made about legal conclusions that a significant portion of the public are likely to reject as "illegitimate." That's not a legal argument, though. (I'm also not sure why it's so deadly important to invoke it now, when we've already seen a couple of decades of the Court disregarding this very concern - but set that aside.)
Historically, the Court has used prudential and constitutional standing and the political question doctrine, among other things, to avoid legal conclusions that pose existential risk to the legal system. But that is in the nature of what's needed here - a legal argument.
.
For the same reason that J6 is different — and much more significant — than BLM protests or CHAZ or the like: because it goes to the very heart of democratic governance.
From a practical perspective, a Supreme Court decision favoring Trump would (1) let voters decide the election and (2) be another step toward enlargement of the Supreme Court by America's better people. Seems acceptable.
As I said, the Supreme Court has issued several opinions over the past couple of decades that go to "the very heart of democratic governance." The Court has told us that the only remedy for partisan gerrymandering is to be found through the political process itself; that we cannot really regulate money in politics except when it comes to bribes for specific official actions; that our constitutional rights can be ripped away at any time after a change in the Court's membership; that procedural safeguards duly enacted by Congress pursuant to express constitutional authorization, to protect against racist disfranchisement, may nonetheless be tossed summarily by the Court if it deems Congress's work insufficiently deferential to the interests of states; and so on.
Our democracy is being ripped away, piece by piece, and now that a man who tried to finish the job might be barred from being on the ballot - now is when you invoke philosophical concerns?
Again, point to the legal doctrine that compels the result you think should govern here.
Don't despair. Just think about how glorious it will be when gun nuts, religious kooks, anti-abortion absolutists, Israel's right-wing belligerents, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and other assorted right-wing culture war casualties experience the consequences of being on the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas, and the losing side of the great, settled-but-not-quite-over American culture war.
These bigoted, superstitious, half-educated, disgusting hayseeds will be groveling before the culture war's winners, begging for undeserved mercy that is likely to be in scant supply.
Nieporent, you argue as if a politically placid result were available as a reward for holding Trump harmless despite the Constitution. That is not the situation. Either way, a politically placid year ahead is not a likely prospect.
Also, if the Court does legal jiggery-pokery to let Trump campaign, it makes a high-risk bet on a future it can in no way predict. Long before Election Day it could be disclosed that absolutely dispositive evidence exists to convict Trump of insurrection, which will happen unless he gets elected and quashes the cases against him. If things goes that way, will the Court have made a wise decision to leave Trump's future to the electorate, or a crazy decision, to ignore the Constitution to take a cowardly way out for itself? How about if the MAGA mob—an American minority—decides it has to take action lest something stops Trump before the finish line? How about if Trump falls short on Election Day, and once again tries to seize power?
Thanks SCOTUS for being so wise? No matter what ensues?
SL,
SCOTUS has not decided anything so far, except not to interfere that is moving smoothly and deliberately through the appeals process. That seems very prudent given that any decision will be widely critized by at least 40% of the electorate.
"Long before Election Day it could be disclosed that absolutely dispositive evidence exists to convict Trump of insurrection, which will happen unless he gets elected and quashes the cases against him."
Isn't the usual order of events evidence first, then consequences. Or more accurately, Investigation, evidence, indictment, trial, conviction, consequences.
Acc. to you, it's an "open legal question." If that is the case, the Court should err on the side of not interfering in the democratic process. Call it the republican (with a small "r") rule of lenity.
"The Court should invent a reason to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court."
I think "it's close on the merits and therefore the judiciary shouldn't decide" is a reasonable legal argument.
That seems to me the best argument I've yet heard for not applying section 3 to candidate Trump.
My take on this is very simple: Do people really want judges shot?
It's one thing to lose an election but when it is STOLEN from you by fascists in black robes, what other recourse do you have?
And that, I think, is the point the author was making -- what good does it to win the election if you destroy the country in the process....
I think there's a better argument. If this stands then Red states will strike all Dems who supported the 2020 summer insurrection from the ballot. Including those who supported the CHAZ Insurrection. And since Biden contributed material support for this he can be struck from the 2024 ballot as well.
You fucktards don't seem to get that "if we don't get our way, we will shoot judges and ignore the law" is not really a constitutional argument.
“If we don’t get our way, we’ll foment an insurrection and shoot you!” Is probably insurrectionists’ best argument for why those who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution should abandon it. It’s really their ONLY argument.
I take it you supported the lovely attempt to get Kavanaugh to change his vote in Dobbs?
Or do you think Supreme Court Justices should only be quavering in fear of goons when they’re your goons?
Judging by the news the past couple days, people really do want judges shot. The FBI is talking to those people.
.
These are your fans, your target audience, and your defenders, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason this is the last holiday season on a legitimate faculty for one of you, with others to follow.
And, let me get this straight, you *condemn* Hamas?
The state of Colorado has the power to appoint its electors in any way it wants. That power includes the power to exclude electors supporting individuals that state law deems insurrectionists.
Professor Moyn’s desire to “save democracy” is utterly beside the point. We no more have a democratic system for choosing Presidents than we have for choosing members of the Supreme Court. In our country, in our constitutional ststem, Presidents are selected by a college of electors appointed by each. And how those electors get appointed is controlled entirely by the state
State legislatures can pick the electors themselves if they want. They can absolutely impose additional qualifications, including incorporating anti-insurrectionist provisions into their election code. All the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses impose is that whatever residual say in the matter a state legislature chooses to delegate to its citizenry has to be apportioned among the citizenry equally. It doesn’t have to give the citizenry any say. It can give the citizenry a partial say, permitting them to choose only among candidates who meet qualifications or criteria it imposes. As long as every citizen gets an equal share of whatever part of the decision the citizenry as a whole is alloted, and as long as the criteria are applied fairly and with appropriate hearings to address disputes, Due Process and Equal Protection are satisfied.
Professor Moyn is personally attached to the particular way picking Presidents has evolved over the years. But nothing prevents some of the states, or all of them, from cholsing to go a different way. Professor Moyn’s preference for “our system” has no more constitutional relevance than his preference for “our party” or “our leader.” States get to pick a different system for selecting presidents if they want, just as they can choose a different party or a different leader from the one Professor Moyn likes and is used to
I think that you miss a key point of Professor Moyn's OP, namely that whatever SCOTUS decides, the vote should be unanimous.
I think that Mr. Roberts will try mightily to have any decision be 6-3.
I meant to say Roberts will try mightily to AVOID any 6-3 decision
Well you have it half right, while he may not want a 6-3 decision, I think he would prefer it to a 5-4 decision. I think he proved that in Dobbs, that even if a decision goes a little further than he liked he'd prefer 6-3 than a bare majority that might not settle the question as decisively.
Acc. to you, all red states can Constitutionally decide to revert to the original method of picking electors, i.e., by the State legislature, and do away with presidential elections. [Which, BTW, would be a more peaceful way of achieving their ends than shooting]
That would be Constitutionally permissible. But it would be insane, and the howling you would hear would be deafening.
That's the problem -- not everything that is Constitutionally permissible is wise or good policy. Some such things are downright insane.
I look forward to the articles from Prof Moyn saying we should ignore the 2d Amendment because current gun jurisprudence is, by the numbers, also insane.
But he won’t do that. Not will anyone. Because as much as I think the 2A is unwise as interpreted, there’s a specific, legal, pre-agreed way to deal with that. Amend the Constitution. Ditto here. Ignoring an Amendment because it’s inconvenient isn’t what we do in America.
Whether it’s “insane” or “howling mad” or not is solely for state legislatures to decide. It’s none of the Supreme Court’s business.
Right. But that's for the people, not SCOTUS to decide.
And they have options. They can dictate law themselves. California requires an open presidential primary in its constitution.
And then there's the fact that those legislators' careers would be over.
.
Yes something does: the same thing I mentioned above: legitimacy.
In 2016 I was in favor of the Electoral College picking someone other than Trump. (i.e., via "faithless electors" not voting for him, whether they voted for Hillary or some other GOP figure). It was clever, novel, and technically legal, and of course it would lead to the result I wanted: the exclusion of an unqualified sociopath from office.
But a few years of perspective led me to realize that — no, this would have been a terrible idea. The EC has never functioned this way. Never. Not in the entire history of the country. A few times the EC has picked a non-winner as winner — but only mechanically so, not by having rogue electors doing whatever they wanted. (Of course, there have been a few faithless electors over the centuries, but none that affected the outcome.) This would widely be seen as election theft by people who nobody consciously elected. (Of course, electors technically are elected, but nobody knowingly chose those people for that purpose, and in most states nobody even knew who they were nominally choosing, as electors' names don't appear on the ballot.)
A few more years of perspective, and you'll realize that this decision by Colorado's court needs to be slapped down hard.
By what authority? They'd have to rule that Trump has a federal right to appear on that ballot.
As long as the rule changes do not happen outside of the time frame prescribed by law. Or law changes made outside of the legislative bodies (2020/2022). Or election law being ignored by election officials (2020/2022). Like none of that has ever happened in the history of forever.
Not to put too fine a point:
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
Please note the 21st word in the above paragraph. This is a cut and pace from NARA (editing of the 2nd to the last word to correct spelling in the original document).
Also note that almost all the legal challenges filed where dismissed due to 'lack of standing' or 'lack of ripeness' or 'mootness'. Plainly speaking, none of the cases heard on the merits.
I have been seeing reports of people being tried and convicted over the last few years of election/ballot fraud which calls to mind the claim from the DNC that election or ballot fraud NEVER happens.
Things that make you say, Hummm.
.
You are wrong.
They can absolutely impose additional qualifications, including incorporating anti-insurrectionist provisions into their election code. I asked in another thread, but you did not respond. Can a state interpret "natural-born citizen" to require that a candidate's parents be citizens at the time of the candidate's birth? Can they bar someone conceived by IVF?
They can’t impose qualifications that directly violate the Equal Protection Clause. So they can’t (for example) say candidates have to be white, or Christian.
Your two hypotheticals might arguably be similar. But they can say candidates have to have (let’s say) a law degree, or have been a state resident for 20 years, or not have been convicted of a felony.
Any qualification that they could impose to hire somebody for a job, they could impose as a qualification for President.
The state of Colorado has the power to appoint its electors in any way it wants. That power includes the power to exclude electors supporting individuals that state law deems insurrectionists.
I thought about this some more. You seem to be saying that state law can define the qualifications for president any way they want. That would mean that state law could define insurrection to include anyone who ever got a speeding ticket. I don't think the powers states have extends to determining what the qualifications for president are.
For that matter, could I state determine by law that anyone over 80 is not qualified, and hence electors may not vote for such a person? That would certainly put a crimp in Mr. Biden's re-election.
So I am dubious about the notion that Colorado law defines what an insurrection is under the 14th amendment.
State legislatures can select the electors themselves if they want. Since they can pledge them, they can pick the person the electors selected are pledged to. My point is that the expansive grant of power to state legislatures means they not only have the power to do the whole job, they also have the power to do part of it. They can make some of the decision themselves, narrow the set of permissable choices, and then let voters pick from what’s left.
For your hypothetical, no-one above 80, I think that would be permissible. The Supreme Court has upheld mandatory retirement ages for state judges. Since it’s constitutional to say someone over 80 can’t be a judge, then I think it follows that it’s constitutional to say someone over 80 can’t be President.
The two are not analogous. State court judgeships are creatures of state law. If a state has a mandatory retirement age for judges, that's a matter of state law. The only question is whether it violates federal anti-age-discrimination law. As you say, SCOTUS held it doesn't.
The presidency is creatures of the US Constitution. The qualifications for president are in the US Constitution: native-born, and 35 or over. Someone who engaged in "Insurrection" is disqualified by the 14th Amendment, assuming you reject the argument that the president is not covered. These are federal Constitutional provisions. The notion that a state can add to the qualification, by disqualifying anyone over 80, or reinterpreting "Insurrection" to include getting a speeding ticket, is absurd, because it alters the qualifications for president, a federal office, in the federal Constitution.
Under our constitution, the manner in which Presidential electors get appointed is also entirely a creature of state law.
That lets a state legislature employ whatever criteria it wants in determining what kinds of Presidential electors are eligible to be appointed.
In a win for Trump, the Supreme Court declines to fast-track presidential immunity arguments, likely delaying the March election subversion trial.
John Roberts likely prefers that the Court of Appeals renders a unanimous opinion against Mr Trump after which Scotus can quietly deny cert or a stay of the decision.
The denial of cert here will not necessarily upend the March 4 trial date. The Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument for January 9, and it is likely to rule promptly thereafter. That court may direct issuance of its mandate immediately.
Judge Chutkan in granting a partial stay of proceedings pending appeal opined, "If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will—consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties—consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.186.0_5.pdf
Trump could seek a stay from SCOTUS, which would require five votes.
You are the eternal optimist that somewhere some court will find Trump guilty of something prior to the election.
Many involved in the legal system retain the forlorn hope that justice will be done.
There is an overwhelming interest in Donald Trump's guilt, or the absence thereof being determined promptly. Delegates to the Republican National Convention in July 2024 deserve to know whether they are nominating a convicted felon who will (likely) be imprisoned pending appeal of whether they should nominate another candidate. Likewise, in the event that Trump is nominated, the electorate voting in November of 2024 deserve to know whether they are voting for a convicted felon or a former criminal defendant who has stood trial and been acquitted.
As an eminent authority on presedential criminality named Richard Nixon observed in November of 1973, "People have got to know whether their president is a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cEdoiBbAQE
I agree with you ng. The pace that the Appeals Court is moving certainly argued against SCOTUS interfering.
And I find it very unlikely that Trump gets 5 votes for a stay. Roberts will see denying a stay as protecting the legitimacy of SCOTUS.
Deciding to not decide hardly protects the "legitimacy" of the court.
I believe the DC Circuit has already acted quite quickly, requiring briefs and reply briefs in early January. We could still have a circuit decision and a cert grant by SCOTUS well before March.
Let’s say the Colorado decision is overturned.
If Trump is on the ballot again, what happens if he loses to Biden again? We’ve already seen that he doesn’t accept any election result where he loses. Neither do his supporters. What can we expect to see on our TV screens on January 6, 2025?
That may depend on who wins the majority in Congress and whether Biden's win is the result of another "fortified" election.
Nothing in particular
Not having been punished for the first time, why would they not try again the second time?
Try what again, exactly? The entire overwrought "interfere with the peaceful transfer of power" meme gets even sillier in a situation where the incumbent wins and there's no transfer of power to interfere with.
You didn't notice how they broke into the chambers of Congress with the obvious intent of coercing (violently) a change in the electoral vote? I don't think they will be any gentler with Kamala Harris than they were with Pence.
No, didn't notice anything nearly so histrionic. But in any event, don't panic -- you know good and well that this time they'll put up the 8-foot fences and concertina wire around the perimeter beforehand and issue protest permits for somewhere in rural Connecticut.
And again, you're dodging the simple fact that if the incumbent is declared to win, there's no transfer of power to interfere with.
You’re ignoring what we all saw. What makes a person so? A question for others. You’re blocked. Do not reply.
Wow, apparently the bender intensified as the night wore on.
If you routinely take such aggressive steps to curate your echo chamber, I suppose in that sense "what we all saw" might be true.
Just do us all a favor and try not to let yourself go over the edge as you continue to lather up your paranoia.
Kind of a dick, aintcha.
Is there anything more 1984ish than demanding you don't believe the evidence of your own eyes. Nobody boke into the Chambers of Congress. That dude with all the plastic zip-ties in his belt doesn't exist. Those pictures of cops being beaten with flagpoles aren't real. Nobody was demandng Pence not ratify the election.
If you're going to uncritically swallow every out of context image you're spoon fed by the media, don't forget the migrant whippings!
But no need to go down that rabbit hole: as you just may have noted, our dearly departed friend asked me not to agree that some people rioted on January 6 (of course they did), but to agree that they did so with "the obvious intent of coercing (violently) a change in the electoral vote" (nah, that's the Geto Boys bit).
His punishment will have been being humiliated by being trounced by old slow Joe
His punishment is going to include felony convictions, likely including a term of incarceration or ankle-braceleted house arrest; the dismantling of his inherited business organization; imprisonment of his associates and perhaps family members; a pile of civil judgments; loss of at least some of the privileges customarily provided to a former president; waking up every morning to find that ridiculous thing still atop his head; withering tax audits; and the verdict of history: worst president of the United States.
You have to ask?
And more Trump News:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12894827/Supreme-Court-REJECTS-request-fast-track-Trumps-immunity-case-Win-ex-president-justices-rebuff-Jack-Smiths-bid-expedite-increase-chances-trial-delayed.html
"We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States" -- JOE BIDEN 2020
...and it worked.
So perfect, not even Rudy Giuliani could find any evidence of it!
You're such marks.
Noun’s argument proves too much. It leaves no room to enforce Section 3 because he wants national consensus about what constitutes insurrection first. That, practically by definition, will not happen with a living (surviving) insurrectionist.
His procedural quibble about the bench trial is a red herring because the Colorado court or legislature could change that procedure as desired.
Moyn's argument leaves plenty of room to enforce that section: It can easily be enforced against candidates for Congress and nominees to appointed offices. Neither of those turns the dispute into a spectacle of judges imposing their wills upon the voters, or of state officials meddling in a national election.
How not? It’s only “imposing their wills on the voters” when we’re talking about the Presidency?
And autocorrect changed “Moyn” to “noun.” Oy.
State officials "meddle" in "national elections" all the time. Every time. Particularly since there are no national elections, they are at the highest level state elections. Every single election for President or Congressmen has state officials making decisions about who is a valid candidate, and who will appear on the ballot.
When was the last time that a state official or judge determined that the leading candidate from one of the major parties was ineligible to be on the ballot -- or even have write-in votes counted -- in a primary?
Ballot litigation is not uncommon in lower races. Disputes on domicile, signatures, etc.
Yes, like these cases, where nobody was removed?
https://apnews.com/article/virginia-election-residency-requirement-ghazala-jashmi-f04b49383f8b283f92de75f553f7fc30
https://www.wpr.org/documents-suggest-assembly-lawmaker-lives-outside-district-violation-state-law
The Confiscation act of 1862 set out severe penalties for treason, and further stated that,
"And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
Section 3
And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States."
It was largely the same Congress that originated the 14th amendment just a few years later.
And yet, we're to believe that the same people who had, just a few years earlier, made insurrection a federal felony that carried the penalty of disqualification from office, when they got around to writing Section 3 were using the very same terms in some vague or figurative sense, rather than referring to the very crime they'd enacted a few years earlier.
Screw that, it's just motivated reasoning, sophistry. Convict Trump of insurrection, and you can disqualify him from office. But don't even TRY to impose the criminal penalty for insurrection without trying and convicting him for that crime.
No matter how much you try and ignore it, the 14th Amendment does not specify "convicted of."
The words of the ratified Amendment are what matter, not your delusions or theories.
It isn't a question of imposing the criminal penalty for insurrection on Trump. The question is about imposing the bar on holding office as described in section 3 against Trump. That same distinction is the reason the 1862 Confiscation Act isn't a reasonable way to determine the meaning of 14A section 3.
.
They aren't trying to impose the criminal penalty for insurrection. They are trying to impose the constitutional, administrative/civil consequence for insurrection.
Imaginary insurrection.
And as all left-thinking fascists know, the standard for removing a constitutional right from millions of voters is much lower than the standard for a criminal conviction.
"Millions of voters" do not have a Constitutional right to vote for President in the first place, let alone vote for one who does not meet the qualifications.
There is no "constitutional right" at issue here.
And did you know that a potential candidate can be kept off the ballot just for not being 35 years old? Or for having served two terms already? Or not having been born in the U.S.? All without a civil trial, let alone a criminal conviction!
Those conditions all have simple factual predicates and canonical records. The corresponding record for this condition would be a criminal conviction for the predicate offense.
Once again: that's not the way due process works. One can't argue, "We don't need due process if the issue is obvious."
(Someone can commit homicide live on national television, such that 100% of the public knows he's guilty, and he's still entitled under due process to a full criminal trial with all the rules and proofs.)
Either the candidate is entitled to be on the ballot absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his failure to meet the qualifications, or he isn't. If he is so entitled, then you need to hold a trial on those other issues, no matter how "simple" the factual predicates and records are. (And as birthers show, natural born citizen status is not necessarily as clear cut as you make it out to be.) If you don't need to hold a criminal-type trial on those qualifications, then you don't need to hold one on the insurrection issue either. That doesn't mean that some process isn't due — but not the criminal-level one.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Yes, that's why I usually don't respond to him or Gaslight0. They don't have much in the way of argument except straw men and snark.
You forgot red herrings.
Let's be clear: we all know that you don't respond because you aren't factually or intellectually equipped to do so.
The reason that a criminal type trial is needed for "insurrection" is that "insurrection" IS a crime. Unlike being 34, or born in Venezuela.
Thus my comment about a canonical record that underlies the ministerial act of determining eligibility, which the troll ignored in favor of some random rant about due process for murder.
Magic words. It's been explained to you before that a crime with the right name isn't what the law is ever going to require.
I do hope you're prepared for the Supreme court to blow your mind by doing exactly that.
.
Assault is a crime. But if I sue someone for assaulting me, the fact that assault is a crime in no way affects the burden or standard of proof required in order for me to prevail in my suit. No "criminal type trial" is needed.
And if there was a dispute on any of those issues they would be resolved in a trial in a court.
For example if a state declared a candidate too young or foreign born and removed them from the ballot it would eventually end up in court with the candidate challenging the decision.
Tell me if in 2008 several states planned to remove Obama from the ballot for being foreign born would you have demanded that an actual trial be conducted where the state had to prove he was ineligible first?
.
You mean, exactly what happened in Colorado?
There was no trial, especially by any court with proper jurisdiction, that established that there was an insurrection. There was a trial that was supposedly about if a state official could keep an insurrectionist off the ballot but that court had practically zero authority to declare Trump an insurrectionist and pretty much just declared him one. Nor did it follow procedure that even if it had the authority that would have followed due process.
I get it, you want Trump disqualified from elective office so you will approve of anything that accomplishes that even if you would denounce it if that same procedure were used against your side. Be forewarned that if this is allowed to stand it will be used against your side and chaos will ensue.
'the standard for removing a constitutional right from millions of voters'
is a bunch of completely fake evidence, a willing mob and some fake electors.
Given the current context, that doesn't make it better.
Disqualification of a candidate for political office like this should be done under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Not for the candidate's sake. For the country's sake.
"Disqualification of a candidate for political office like this should be done under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard"
That general thought is what makes removal of a major party candidate troublesome, even is the letter of the law allows.
Given the number of consequentialists who post about other topics, we've discovered a new generation of textualists and orginalists concerning this one question
Article 3 is self-evidently different from the criminal statute, because it allows Congress the remove the "disability" of being disqualified from holding office by a 2/3 vote.
Indeed, the 1872 Congress which actually did remove that disability from hundreds of Confederate officers in the Amnesty Act did so for Confederate officers the vast majority of whom had never been convicted of insurrection. Was the 1872 Congress confused about the need for a criminal conviction for insurrection?
Stop confusing the issue with historical facts.
For obvious insurrection of the Civil War, no.
For highly motivated modern political partisans in their 37th effort to kick him out, maybe "confusion" isn't the word I'd use.
One initiative fails, move on to the next, then the next. There is nothing obvious other than a concerted effort not actually "obvious" at all.
Utterly devoid of principle. Thanks for playing.
No, they were mindful of the procedures Congress prescribed in 1870 to implement 14.3 and the indictments related thereto. See, for example, https://www.tba.org/?pg=Articles&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=14786 (and note the date of writing).
Mindful, but super quiet about it.
The issue at hand is simply whether a criminal conviction for insurrection is or is not a prerequisite for the application of Article 3.
The historical evidence, including that interesting article--thank you--appears quite clear on this point: it is not.
Reading the Colorado SC decision, there are several legal findings I disagree with, but the most clearly legally wrong is this one:
"President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment."
I doubt there would be two votes in SCOTUS upholding that finding that Trump's speech was not protected by the first amendment.
And of course it also contradicts the clear facts, according to NPR's recital of the timeline, the first demonstrators had already breached the police lines outside of the Capitol before Trump's speech was over. So it is clear that is was impossible that "President Trump’s speech incit[ed] the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol".
Causality is overrated. Ante hoc ergo proper hoc.
Not to mention the 'bombs' placed the day before as a distraction, and the fact that the feds prosecuted people for having planned the break in in advance.
You're just not bothering to read things anymore. The Colorado opinion discusses what involvement means, as does the DC indictment.
Like a year ago you'd have at least read these. Now you're just arguing against the same strawman over and over again.
You're just not bothering to reason about things anymore. You're actively rejecting reasoning about them.
The attack on the Capitol didn't advance Trump's plans in any way, it terminated them, made his challenge to the election outcome radioactive. Nor could it have worked out any other way.
A big crowd protesting outside is political pressure, of the sort Trump intended, to stiffen the spines of his allies and put a political scare into those Republicans who might think about not backing him. That could have helped him. But even Democrats couldn't have painted THAT as "insurrection".
Breaking into the Capitol, and physically threatening members of Congress? That ended any hope he'd prevail. It obviously could have had no other effect! Even if the people breaking in had captured a quorum of Congress and forced them to declare Trump President, it wouldn't have worked! Nobody outside the Capitol would have treated it as legit, and they'd have repudiated it the moment the threat was lifted.
We're not the sort of country where that sort of thing is possible.
So, no, it clearly was not an insurrection on Trump's part. He neither planned nor gained any advantage from it. You need motivated reasoning by the metric ton to arrive at the conclusion that the break in was Trump's doing. And if it's not Trump's doing, it's not HIS insurrection, even if you could charge the people who actually did it with that.
.
This is delusionallalallandcrazy. The attack on the Capitol was the only way to advance Trump's plans. Pence betrayed him by refusing to deny certification of the election, so the only way for Trump to accomplish that was to violently stop said certification. Which he almost did.
Precisely. The J6 riot was the "battering ram" the conspirators required to disrupt the Congressional proceedings and create an opening for the "State-vote" alternative to certifying the Electoral College votes.
Its failure to accomplish its purpose should not be confused with its purpose.
As to Brett's point that Trump had "no idea" the peaceful protest would turn violent, well let's just say that his actions and statements on the day in question call that into serious question (especially the metal detectors thing), but even if we assume his intentions did not involve fomenting "violence", he probably intended the protests to be "effective".
And what would they have to accomplish to be considered effective? They would have to result in the stoppage of the certification process (check) and its abandonment (fail) in favor of the state-vote alternative, which was almost certain to result in his declaration as winner of the 2020 election.
Trump, therefore, partially succeeded, but ultimately failed, to accomplish his goals.
Should the illegal acts of the rioters (and others) be attributed to Trump, thus converting his "free speech" and "pursuit of legal remedies" into acts in furtherance of the conspiracy? It's a good question.
Don't forget that one of the first things Trump did once the certification was stopped by the attack was to call up various senators and cajole them not to resume the vote so that Trump would have more time to get state legislatures to submit new electors to congress.
We know this, because the person Trump tasked with doing this (Rudy) was so incompetent that he dialed the wrong senators and left messages to that effect.
'it terminated them,'
Motivated reasoning? You're working backwards from the outcome.