To those posting the multiple threads about "why doesn't the 14th Amendment automatically kick in"

[brooklynite]

Here’s the problem.

I’ve listened to multiple discussions about applying the 14th Amendment to Trump’s eligibility, and they also start with “we know he committed insurrection, but…”. The problem is, WE DON’T KNOW.

it’s legally true that Trump doesn’t have to be convicted for the 14th Amendment to apply, but absent a conviction, we don’t have a fact pattern that establishes that he did. You don’t KNOW he did, you believe he did. And if we asked everyone here to explain how he did, we’d likely get a hundred different answer.

It is an established fact that Trump is 35 years old and a natural born citizen. It is not an established fact that he engaged in or supported insurrection. We have one ruling by one Judge in one State which is likely to differ from rulings in other States. This is why it’s essential to have a Federal verdict from a Federal case applicable nationwide.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Check Your Title

The 24th amendment?

[peppertree]

2. Sad - but true

It's not official until it's ruled on - and as much as he hates seeing it for others, His Orangeness does have a right to appeal as well.

Because, among other things, this isn't Argentina - where candidates can be excluded because "there's no proof - but no doubt" (actual wording in a right-wing ruling).

At the end of the day, Biden will have to defeat Needy Amin the old fashioned way: at the polls.

And in the Selectoral College. Can't forget that.

[dpibel]

3. One judge?

Not counting, I guess, four CO Supreme Court Justices.

They did, after all, affirm the trial court, which is apparently the only judge you know about in this case.

[brooklynite]

8. Yes, one Judge

Courts of Appeals are not triers of fact; they are reviewers of process.

[dpibel]

10. Clear error. Abuse of discretion.

Appellate courts can, and do, review findings of fact under those standards.

If you had read the opinion, you'd know that the CO Supremes did that.

You really should read that opinion. It's long, I know. But it could help you out.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. SCOTUS like all other courts make case law by interpreting facts

and applying them to statutes. Usually that's the legal code but in this case includes the Constitution.

SCOTUS has never had to interpret insurrectionist behavior and facts before. There will be no prior conviction in a court of law before SCOTUS rules.

I keep saying it's like pornography, they won't know it until they see it (their famous definition several decades ago.)

We knew the enemies after the Civil War because they fought against the U.S.A. Many if not most were prevented from holding office, both before and after 14A was passed. SCOTUS didn't remove them. Other parts of government did - courts, civil authorities, army of occupation administrators.

It's a different time now. No way to know how SCOTUS will weigh in. Clearly from 14A Sec 3, conviction is not mentioned. SCOTUS doesn't need one if that's how they decide to rule. But probably only 7 votes are up for grabs. You know Thomas and Alito and how they will vote. And they could decide they do need a conviction. They will tell us, as usual.

[tinrobot]

5. But we do have convictions for insurrection on J6.

The Proud Boys are just a few.

So, it is established in federal court that this was an insurrection. The next step is to determine if Trump gave "aid and comfort" to these convicted insurrectionists. That's a bit more subjective. There's plenty of wiggle room for the Supreme court to rule any way they want.

[brooklynite]

9. Nope

They were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy.

[J_William_Ryan]

6. "It is not an established fact that he engaged in or supported insurrection."

Actually it is – established and documented by Trump’s words and deeds.

Trump is not in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property – which is why due process doesn’t apply. Neither a 28-year-old nor a naturalized citizen is entitled to due process to establish both are disqualified to be president.

Being disqualified to be president isn’t a punishment; because due process doesn’t apply, so too is there no adjudication procedure required to establish the fact of Trump’s treason fomenting an insurrection.

Last, because the states are responsible for conducting and determining eligibility for Federal elections, they’re at liberty to disqualify candidates who have engaged in insurrection pursuant to Section 3.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Especially with the recent evidence coming that Jack Smith has made known.

[brooklynite]

11. And everyone agrees with you?

[Polybius]

15. Did he say that he was dissolving the Union?

Forming his own country Trumponia? Because that's what many define as "engaged in or supported insurrection."

[Silent Type]

12. Yeah, won't complain if trump is taken off ballot, but think there has to be a conviction.

trump deserves whatever he gets.

[niyad]

17. 14A does NOT require a conviction.

[Silent Type]

18. That's more-or-less implied in my opinion. Who would you have make determination he, or the next guy,

is an insurrectionist. Believe me, if trump were removed from ballots, I’d dance. But just don’t expect it nor am convinced it’s right, even if it keeps the MFer off ballot.

[Hekate]

13. Thanks for trying

They ain’t gonna listen

[ecstatic]

14. The Colorado courts established the fact pattern.

trump engaged in insurrection. He is disqualified.

[Polybius]

16. It's not up to them imo

Only the Supreme Court or a federal conviction for insurrection can establish that.