So essentially the judge did what people have been doing since Trump waddled down the escalator in 2015: Lay out the tools for someone ELSE to stand up to him. Getting a little frustrated with this dynamic.
The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.
Further it's takes some pretty giant mental leaps to argue "support" is not synonymous with "preserve, protect and defend".
Remember this was written to disqualify ANY insurrectionist at any level, state included, that previously engaged in insurrection. The specific words of their oath might have had a different flavor, but they had to contain some air of supporting the US constitution.
It should pain any reasonable thinking person that the president, the highest office of the land, does not take an oath to support the Constitution.
I would argue the presidents oath goes further. The VP oath only includes support and defend. The president includes preserve, protect and defend. That tells me the president has a higher burden on their shoulders than to merely "support". They are custodians of our experiment, in place to ensure the Constitution isn't trampled by Wiley neerdowells or two but wanna be kings.
If any officer bears this higher burden of support, it's the President.
The case can certainly be used against people running for office below presidency, if they were part of Jan 6 insurrection. Doesn't that include current Speaker?
I felt like this was a punt as mentioned in the article. She laid out all these facts, then almost seemed to say, "This will be overturned on appeal." It would be awfully funny if the Federal Society, oops, I mean SCOTUS, said to each other in their smoky yacht, "I dunno about the rest of you, but I happen to think this here yacht is much more likely to stay in our hands if we ditch this guy. It'll take some of the light off us, don't ya think?"
One quibble - the "Framers" are technically the people who wrote the original Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment was written by the US Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction. They obviously did not anticipate a President who would himself foment an insurrection, but I can't imagine that they would have excluded such a person from the application of Section 3.
Judge Wallace just didn't want to take the final step and rule the bastard off Colorado's presidential ballot. Granted, holding him as an insurrectionist is a big first step, but the remainder of her decision to me reads as kicking the can up to the appellate court and let them take the heat. And from there to SCOTUS, easy-peasy...stay tuned, this case has legs.
This makes me think of how all the J6 trial questions have been well dealt with as Jay has mentioned previously, thus ensuring a better foundation for Trump's own J6 trial next year to be found to rest on previously determined facts. Other than the questionable hesitancy on the part of the Judge to rule the matter as a conviction it seems to me that the "factual wall" she has helped to establish will prove to be of more importance than her initial cautionary approach.
This is like a Netflix series. The viewers are all aghast that the interpretation of the term "officer" doesn't include the President. Are you kidding me? Even the writers can't make this stuff up. There are a few more episodes until we get to Scotus at which time Clarence doesn't recuse even though, well, Ginny...but we'll be ok 'cause of the new code of conduct.
Wow. Just wow. The more caution the courts are using in handling this dangerous crazy man, the crazier the entire justice system seems to be. I fully understand that the laws must be upheld and most especially in dealing with as mentioned before, this crazy man but surely we can settle on the words of the English language.
As a Coloradan, I like how Judge Wallace resolved this case. Because the outcome favored Trump, he can't appeal, and therefore can't ask another court to overturn the judge's factual findings. They are not binding on any other court, but they could influence other court decisions. Of course, if the plaintiffs appeal, that will open the door to Trump challenging the factual findings. I hope they have the good sense not to do so. Jay is right that it is difficult for an appellate court to overturn a trial court's factual findings. Difficult, but not impossible. And in an appeal setting, the ultimate decider will be the U.S. Supreme Court, which finds ways to produce right-wing results, precedents be damned.
Insanity at it's finest. Our laws seem to work against the common good for this country.....and this constant processing of interpretation on what the Framers of the Constitution "meant" is becoming tiresome. Another episode of "Kick The Can Down The Road".
SCOTUS doesn't want this case on their docket, I'm sure. Tough, it is headed there. Not sure how they will rule, but they will have a pretty tortured reason if they say the President isn't an "officer" for this section of the Constitution. I wouldn't put it past them, but it will drive opinion of the court even lower as it will be seen, rightly, as a purely political move.
I am sorry, I don't see how it matters that another person reiterated the facts that were there before for months now. Everyone knows what he did. It doesn't matter to either side. What matters is that he doesn't get elected and that he doesn't keep wailing at the top of his lungs that he is above law. This decision is going to send EXACTLY that message to Trump and his rabid supporters - see, see, a judge said that he CAN get elected and he IS above the law.
The judge had a change to do the right thing and keep the bastard off the ballot. US President is a Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces - which makes him literally a military officer, if the judge so needed to stick to the exact wording. Sorry, this is very bad, I don't see anything positive about this.
I am shaking my head. This Amendment came approximately 8 decades after the original framers’ language and were somehow expected to still speak exactly like them?
How A Win In Colorado Actually Spells Trouble For Trump
So essentially the judge did what people have been doing since Trump waddled down the escalator in 2015: Lay out the tools for someone ELSE to stand up to him. Getting a little frustrated with this dynamic.
The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.
Further it's takes some pretty giant mental leaps to argue "support" is not synonymous with "preserve, protect and defend".
Remember this was written to disqualify ANY insurrectionist at any level, state included, that previously engaged in insurrection. The specific words of their oath might have had a different flavor, but they had to contain some air of supporting the US constitution.
It should pain any reasonable thinking person that the president, the highest office of the land, does not take an oath to support the Constitution.
I would argue the presidents oath goes further. The VP oath only includes support and defend. The president includes preserve, protect and defend. That tells me the president has a higher burden on their shoulders than to merely "support". They are custodians of our experiment, in place to ensure the Constitution isn't trampled by Wiley neerdowells or two but wanna be kings.
If any officer bears this higher burden of support, it's the President.
The case can certainly be used against people running for office below presidency, if they were part of Jan 6 insurrection. Doesn't that include current Speaker?
I felt like this was a punt as mentioned in the article. She laid out all these facts, then almost seemed to say, "This will be overturned on appeal." It would be awfully funny if the Federal Society, oops, I mean SCOTUS, said to each other in their smoky yacht, "I dunno about the rest of you, but I happen to think this here yacht is much more likely to stay in our hands if we ditch this guy. It'll take some of the light off us, don't ya think?"
...hold any office Civil or Military! He’s the Commander in Chief!
One quibble - the "Framers" are technically the people who wrote the original Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment was written by the US Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction. They obviously did not anticipate a President who would himself foment an insurrection, but I can't imagine that they would have excluded such a person from the application of Section 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Joint_Committee_on_Reconstruction
Judge Wallace just didn't want to take the final step and rule the bastard off Colorado's presidential ballot. Granted, holding him as an insurrectionist is a big first step, but the remainder of her decision to me reads as kicking the can up to the appellate court and let them take the heat. And from there to SCOTUS, easy-peasy...stay tuned, this case has legs.
This makes me think of how all the J6 trial questions have been well dealt with as Jay has mentioned previously, thus ensuring a better foundation for Trump's own J6 trial next year to be found to rest on previously determined facts. Other than the questionable hesitancy on the part of the Judge to rule the matter as a conviction it seems to me that the "factual wall" she has helped to establish will prove to be of more importance than her initial cautionary approach.
This is like a Netflix series. The viewers are all aghast that the interpretation of the term "officer" doesn't include the President. Are you kidding me? Even the writers can't make this stuff up. There are a few more episodes until we get to Scotus at which time Clarence doesn't recuse even though, well, Ginny...but we'll be ok 'cause of the new code of conduct.
Wow. Just wow. The more caution the courts are using in handling this dangerous crazy man, the crazier the entire justice system seems to be. I fully understand that the laws must be upheld and most especially in dealing with as mentioned before, this crazy man but surely we can settle on the words of the English language.
As a Coloradan, I like how Judge Wallace resolved this case. Because the outcome favored Trump, he can't appeal, and therefore can't ask another court to overturn the judge's factual findings. They are not binding on any other court, but they could influence other court decisions. Of course, if the plaintiffs appeal, that will open the door to Trump challenging the factual findings. I hope they have the good sense not to do so. Jay is right that it is difficult for an appellate court to overturn a trial court's factual findings. Difficult, but not impossible. And in an appeal setting, the ultimate decider will be the U.S. Supreme Court, which finds ways to produce right-wing results, precedents be damned.
Insanity at it's finest. Our laws seem to work against the common good for this country.....and this constant processing of interpretation on what the Framers of the Constitution "meant" is becoming tiresome. Another episode of "Kick The Can Down The Road".
SCOTUS doesn't want this case on their docket, I'm sure. Tough, it is headed there. Not sure how they will rule, but they will have a pretty tortured reason if they say the President isn't an "officer" for this section of the Constitution. I wouldn't put it past them, but it will drive opinion of the court even lower as it will be seen, rightly, as a purely political move.
Assuming that the judge's factual findings are affirmed on appeal, what if any effect will this have on Jack Smith's case in DC?
I am sorry, I don't see how it matters that another person reiterated the facts that were there before for months now. Everyone knows what he did. It doesn't matter to either side. What matters is that he doesn't get elected and that he doesn't keep wailing at the top of his lungs that he is above law. This decision is going to send EXACTLY that message to Trump and his rabid supporters - see, see, a judge said that he CAN get elected and he IS above the law.
The judge had a change to do the right thing and keep the bastard off the ballot. US President is a Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces - which makes him literally a military officer, if the judge so needed to stick to the exact wording. Sorry, this is very bad, I don't see anything positive about this.
I am shaking my head. This Amendment came approximately 8 decades after the original framers’ language and were somehow expected to still speak exactly like them?