Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Jimmy Higgins]

ruling based on Webster's dictionary

I think the reference provided was from FindLaw. It’s a legal dictionary.

Laws often define themselves.

But I’m sure Teh Donald agrees with you that there’s no such thing as an insurrection. Thomas and Alito too.

It was an insurrection, but me saying that doesn't give it weight of constitutional law.

 

[Elixir]

It was an insurrection, but me saying that doesn't give it weight of constitutional law.

OK, so who has to say it for it to be true? Donald Trump?
Courts have already said it, so what else do you need?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was an insurrection, but me saying that doesn't give it weight of constitutional law.

OK, so who has to say it for it to be true?

Exactly! That is the question.

Courts have already said it, so what else do you need?

A court or governing agency that matters. What that needs to be is undetermined.

 

[Elixir]

A court or governing agency that matters. What that needs to be is undetermined.

We will see if that's true, and I'm betting it's not. The non-question of whether Trump is an insurrectionist HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

Trump is an insurrectionist (feel free to explain why that court "doesn't matter")​

The remaining question of removal from the ballot is now headed to SCOTUS, and it would be a total departure from their defined role to overturn a fact finding from a lower court - especially given that the matter at issue (whether States can bar insurrectionists from ballots) isn't concerned with that fact.

 

[bilby]

OK, so who has to say it for it to be true? Donald Trump?

Well, I am not a lawyer, but one thing jumps out at me from @Worldtraveller's post about previous invocations of the Insurrection Act:

Let's look at when the insurrection act has been invoked previously. Note: I picked the most applicable ones.

from here:

[T]oday’s Insurrection Act can be traced all the way to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. In the 230 years since then, the Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises.
. . . .
1873-May-22 The results of the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana were contested between white supremacist Democrats and pro-Reconstruction Republicans, which threw the state's politics into turmoil and led to widespread violence, especially in rural areas. The violence reached its apogee on April 13, 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, when a heavily armed white mob massacred between 60 and 150 black militiamen after they surrendered (sources differ as to the number of victims). A month after the Colfax massacre, President Grant issued a proclamation under the Insurrection Act, calling on the belligerents in Louisiana to disperse. However, no additional federal troops were deployed other than those already stationed in Louisiana as part of Reconstruction.
. . . .
1874-May-15 The Brooks-Baxter War. The 1872 Arkansas gubernatorial election was disputed between two Republican candidates, Elisha Baxter and Joseph Brooks. In 1874, Brooks, who had narrowly lost the election, attempted to overthrow Baxter's government. Both parties gathered their own militia forces and engaged in an extended stand-off, punctuated by occasional incidents of violence. All the while, federal troops stationed in the area as part of Reconstruction interposed themselves between the two forces in order to forestall the outbreak of full war. In May, after the state assembly was finally able to meet and declare Baxter the winner, President Grant ratified their decision and invoked the Insurrection Act, ordering the supporters of Brooks to disperse, who did so without the need for additional federal troops.
. . . .
1874-Sep-15 Continued disputes over the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana culminated in a violent white supremacist coup d'état in New Orleans - then the state capital - in 1874. President Grant invoked the Insurrection Act and deployed troops, who drove the insurrectionists out of the city and reinstated the ousted governor. However, the insurgents established their own competing government, which effectively controlled much of Louisiana outside of New Orleans for the next three years. This situation persisted until the federal troops protecting New Orleans were withdrawn as part of the Compromise of 1877, and white supremacist "Redeemers" fully took control of the state.
. . . .
1876-Oct-17 In advance of the 1876 South Carolina gubernatorial election, thousands of white supremacists in South Carolina who opposed Reconstruction organized into heavily armed paramilitary groups known as "rifle clubs." Worried that these groups would interfere with the election and were too large to be controlled with the state militia, the governor appealed to President Grant for military aid. Grant issued a proclamation under the Insurrection Act ordering the clubs to disperse, and sent additional federal troops to South Carolina to reinforce those already stationed there. These troops kept the peace after the election, remaining until all federal forces were withdrawn from the former Confederacy as part of the Compromise of 1877.

I mean, I'm sure it's only coincidence that so many of the invocations of this rather over the top, and occasionally (IMO) abused, power has been used to quell white people acting violently when they didn't get their way. Based on what we saw Jan 6, I think it can easily be called an insurrection. I guess the only 'question' is how directly involve the orange shitgibbon was. It seems pretty obvious to everyone without a dog in the proverbial fight, but then again, everyone in the US has a dog in that fight whether they know it or now.

On each occasion, the Act was invoked by the President of the United States at the time that the insurrection occurred.

So the answer to your question:

OK, so who has to say it for it to be true? Donald Trump?

May be "Yes".

Certainly if Worldtraveller's selected cases are typical in this regard, it would be easy for the Supreme Court to argue that this is the requirement, based on precedent.

The counterargument that a President could proclaim an insurrection in regards to events prior to his inaugauration (allowing Biden to declare Jan 6 an insurrection), is legally shaky on the point of retroactive law; And also morally dubious in that it would allow an incoming president to use the Insurrection Act in revenge against the opposition party.

A better counterargument could be made if the Insurrection Act has been invoked by a state or federal court at some point in the past; But I suspect this may never have occurred (and don't have the time or energy to research it thoroughly).

This line of argument also suggests a reason why the 14th doesn't include the President in its brief list of specific "officers" disqualified by insurrection - if it requires the President to proclaim that an Insurrection is occurring during his term in office, then to do so would imply a President disqualifying himself - which may be lawful, but is hardly a scenario that the law need consider.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Keep in mind the “or” in the following sentence (emphasis mine):

“ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Trump need not have engaged in an insurrection to be disqualified if he gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. As he took no action to defend the Capitol and later he even sent a message to the attackers that he loves them it is evidently apparent that he at minimum gave aid and comfort to them. And there’s good evidence elsewhere that he “engaged” as well.

 

[ideologyhunter]

EXACTLY.
Remember, he not only loves them, the ones in the clink are hostages that he has pledged to free.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump Demands Election Crimes Case Be Dropped In New Filing — Because Nobody Told Him Overturning Election Was Crime

Former President Donald Trump demanded the election crimes case against him be dismissed on the grounds that he didn’t have advance notice he would be committing a crime by trying to overturn the election.

Trump faces criminal trials in Washington DC, Georgia, New York, and Florida on a total of 91 felony counts — all of which are currently on the schedule prior to the general election.

In the Georgia election crimes case, Trump was indicted on 13 counts related to election crimes in a sweeping RICO case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against 19 co-defendants.

In a new filing to the Fulton County Superior Court to presiding Judge Scott McAfee, Trump’s attorney argued Trump “lacked fair notice” that his conduct could be considered criminal:

Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of Presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 Presidential Election could be criminalized. President Trump, like all citizens, is entitled to have fair warning as to where the line is drawn which separates permissible activity from that which is allegedly criminal. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997) (“‘No man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.”).
“Due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope…” Id. at 266 (internal citations omitted).
“[A] statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond question.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971).

The filing goes on to offer refutations of each of the counts in the indictment.

Is this an admission he did it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump Demands Election Crimes Case Be Dropped In New Filing — Because Nobody Told Him Overturning Election Was Crime

Former President Donald Trump demanded the election crimes case against him be dismissed on the grounds that he didn’t have advance notice he would be committing a crime by trying to overturn the election.

Trump faces criminal trials in Washington DC, Georgia, New York, and Florida on a total of 91 felony counts — all of which are currently on the schedule prior to the general election.

In the Georgia election crimes case, Trump was indicted on 13 counts related to election crimes in a sweeping RICO case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against 19 co-defendants.

In a new filing to the Fulton County Superior Court to presiding Judge Scott McAfee, Trump’s attorney argued Trump “lacked fair notice” that his conduct could be considered criminal:

Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of Presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 Presidential Election could be criminalized. President Trump, like all citizens, is entitled to have fair warning as to where the line is drawn which separates permissible activity from that which is allegedly criminal. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997) (“‘No man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.”).
“Due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope…” Id. at 266 (internal citations omitted).
“[A] statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond question.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971).

The filing goes on to offer refutations of each of the counts in the indictment.

Is this an admission he did it?

Wouldn’t it have to be for the logic of the argument?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Keep in mind the “or” in the following sentence (emphasis mine):

“ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Trump need not have engaged in an insurrection to be disqualified if he gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. As he took no action to defend the Capitol and later he even sent a message to the attackers that he loves them it is evidently apparent that he at minimum gave aid and comfort to them. And there’s good evidence elsewhere that he “engaged” as well.

This is why you are hearing all the talk about Jan 6 being a peaceful political protest and not an act of insurrection. He acted in confidence with the rioters and has even said they will be pardoned. But if the event is allowed to be called an insurrection it makes him guilty and an accomplice.

 

[bilby]

In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),^[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),^[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

They teach this one on, like, day one at law school.

"The fire exits are here, here, and here; This is your locker; Here's the timetable for your classes this semester; and Ignorantia juris non excusat. Welcome to law school!"

 

[ZiprHead]

It surprises the hell out of me that he can get lawyers that will actually put forth these stupid arguments.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It surprises the hell out of me that he can get lawyers that will actually put forth these stupid arguments.

More lawyers need to be punished for legal frivolities. Disbarment at the very least.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's my issue with the case. We have no clear definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection and we need to define what meets it.

You really should research before you make blanket statements like the above.

FindLaw Legal Dictionary
The FindLaw Legal Dictionary -- free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries.
term:

Insurrection​

insurrection n
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]

You miss my point.

The issue is what constitutes "insurrection". We have MAGAs claiming things like not closing the border are insurrection--he's willfully allowing enemies in against efforts of the locals to stop it. If everyone were being sensible we wouldn't need a definition but the reality is that any law with loopholes will in time cause issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump Demands Election Crimes Case Be Dropped In New Filing — Because Nobody Told Him Overturning Election Was Crime

Is this an admission he did it?

Sounds like it. And I can think of no case where not knowing the law is a defense. (There are a few crimes that could only be committed by knowing some other law.)

We need much more severe sanctions for lawyers that bring such nonsense to the courts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump Demands Election Crimes Case Be Dropped In New Filing — Because Nobody Told Him Overturning Election Was Crime

Is this an admission he did it?

Sounds like it. And I can think of no case where not knowing the law is a defense. (There are a few crimes that could only be committed by knowing some other law.)

Competency would be one thing. One key in justice is the criminal must intend to do something they know is illegal. To suggest flat out stealing an election isn't illegal is grounds for being stuck a home for the mentally incompetent. Trump's problem (of the many) with this defense would be the January 6th Commission effectively proved that Trump had to know he didn't lose the election. So that sucks the air out of the strong arming... but I didn't know it was illegal defense.

We need much more severe sanctions for lawyers that bring such nonsense to the courts.

Welcome to the two tiered justice system. Poor guy suspected of crime has to plea out because he can't afford to be in jail because he can't afford bail... guy who has access to money can pay lawyers to argue to the cows come home the most ridiculous arguments possible to kill the clock. Trump broke the law, bigly, we all know it. He tried to conspire to steal the election, he then instigated a riot to try and steal the election. And the Jan 6th Commission proved Trump was informed that he lost. So everything he did, had nothing to do with justice and saving an election.

And he has yet to pay a price for any of his actions.

 

[robnisch]

Counties remind Nevadans: Trump didn’t file for presidential primary, so he won’t be on ballot • Nevada Current

Donald Trump will not appear on Nevada’s presidential preference primary ballot — a decision made by the former president, not by election officials. Election administrators in the state’s most populous counties are hopeful voters understand this and will not be surprised when the GOP...

www.nevadacurrent.com

OOPS!

 

[bilby]

One key in justice is the criminal must intend to do something they know is illegal.

Mens rea requires that a person intends to do something that is illegal; Nothing in law requires that the defendant must know that his act is illegal.

Knowledge of the law is always and automatically assumed, under the principle that Ignorantia juris non excusat.

"I didn't mean to kill him" is a defence.

"I didn't know that killing him was illegal" is not.

 

[bilby]

Counties remind Nevadans: Trump didn’t file for presidential primary, so he won’t be on ballot • Nevada Current

Donald Trump will not appear on Nevada’s presidential preference primary ballot — a decision made by the former president, not by election officials. Election administrators in the state’s most populous counties are hopeful voters understand this and will not be surprised when the GOP...

www.nevadacurrent.com

OOPS!

Some election observers have expressed concern that voters might be confused by the competing events, which happen within days of each other and have different requirements for participation. In a political climate already rife with misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories, they worry the confusion could further erode people’s trust in the political process.

It strikes me as unreasonably charitable to assume, as this article implies, that eroding people's trust in the political process, is an unexpected and/or unwanted side effect of the GOP's handling of this situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump Demands Election Crimes Case Be Dropped In New Filing — Because Nobody Told Him Overturning Election Was Crime

Is this an admission he did it?

Sounds like it. And I can think of no case where not knowing the law is a defense. (There are a few crimes that could only be committed by knowing some other law.)

Competency would be one thing. One key in justice is the criminal must intend to do something they know is illegal. To suggest flat out stealing an election isn't illegal is grounds for being stuck a home for the mentally incompetent. Trump's problem (of the many) with this defense would be the January 6th Commission effectively proved that Trump had to know he didn't lose the election. So that sucks the air out of the strong arming... but I didn't know it was illegal defense.

No. You must have intent to have done the act, you don't need to know it was illegal. Occasionally relevant with DUI/spiked drinks/alcohol naive drivers. They don't know they consumed alcohol and thus don't have the mens rea to commit DUI.

We need much more severe sanctions for lawyers that bring such nonsense to the courts.

Welcome to the two tiered justice system. Poor guy suspected of crime has to plea out because he can't afford to be in jail because he can't afford bail... guy who has access to money can pay lawyers to argue to the cows come home the most ridiculous arguments possible to kill the clock. Trump broke the law, bigly, we all know it. He tried to conspire to steal the election, he then instigated a riot to try and steal the election. And the Jan 6th Commission proved Trump was informed that he lost. So everything he did, had nothing to do with justice and saving an election.

And he has yet to pay a price for any of his actions.

I'm aware of the two-tier system, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying there should be much stiffer penalties for bringing obvious nonsense to the court. If your legal theory is bonkers you obviously don't know the law and shouldn't be a lawyer. Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.