Can Insurrection participants run for Office?

Link below details to some extent 4 riotors who are running for US Congress.

Since one court has already stopped one person from running for office, via section 3 of the 14th, because he had sworn an oath to the Constitution as either a police officer or military officer, I don't know which, in AZ if my memory is working this morning.

If a person hasn't sworn an oath by being in the military, police, or public office are they allowed to run?

I don't know, what does tBIN crew say?

https://www.notus.org/congress/convicted-jan-6-rioters-are-running-for-congress-house-republicans-arent-fazed

I’m at the point where it seems like the crazy people are going to take over our country. Pretty much or teetering 50-50 right now with people who are sane in people who are insane. So here’s my thought. Yes, all of the insurrectionist, including the president will not only be able to run for office, but many will be elected, and our democracy and country will never be the same.

I don’t get it, I don’t understand why so many people want to just blow shit up, but it’s happening and we can’t stop it

DWags wrote:I’m at the point where it seems like the crazy people are going to take over our country. Pretty much or teetering 50-50 right now with people who are sane in people who are insane. So here’s my thought. Yes, all of the insurrectionist, including the president will not only be able to run for office, but many will be elected, and our democracy and country will never be the same.

I don’t get it, I don’t understand why so many people want to just blow shit up, but it’s happening and we can’t stop it

One man's insurrectionist is another man's founding father.

How history judges them depends on which side wins in the long run.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:I’m at the point where it seems like the crazy people are going to take over our country. Pretty much or teetering 50-50 right now with people who are sane in people who are insane. So here’s my thought. Yes, all of the insurrectionist, including the president will not only be able to run for office, but many will be elected, and our democracy and country will never be the same.

I don’t get it, I don’t understand why so many people want to just blow shit up, but it’s happening and we can’t stop it

One man's insurrectionist is another man's founding father.

How history judges them depends on which side wins in the long run.

History is always written by the winners. It’s why so much of what we think we know is inaccurate

I suppose a person actually convicted of insurrection shouldn't be allowed to run for office but other than that, keeping people off ballots seems undemocratic.

Zurn wrote:I suppose a person actually convicted of insurrection shouldn't be allowed to run for office but other than that, keeping people off ballots seems undemocratic.

That is an argument that historically does not hold up as all of the former officers on the United States who supported the Rebels during the War of Rebellion were not allowed to hold political offices after the war without having been convicted in a court.  Furthermore, the debate during the writing of the 14th could have included this additional requirement but didn't.

Court rulings on people involved in the insurrection on January 6th are also still that they do not need to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified from holding office.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couy-griffin-january-6-new-mexico-judge-14th-amendment/

However, the question regarding did Trump engage in an Insurrection, though legally not a question (he did) politically is a question, for all those who support an Insurrection, even though some of them did not directly take part in it like Trump did.

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/02/07/trump-did-not-engage-in-insurrection-on-jan-6-new-u-s-house-resolution-claims/

Zurn wrote:I suppose a person actually convicted of insurrection shouldn't be allowed to run for office but other than that, keeping people off ballots seems undemocratic.

We keep people off the ballot all the time. For example if someone is under 35 years old. Or, if someone was born in another country....you know, like how Trump wanted Obama to be removed from the ballots? I mean, that was a lie of course, but apparently he used to be ok with keeping people off the ballot.

Also, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and more were never was convicted of insurrection, but the law was written specifically about them and others, most of whom were not convicted.

one of them is running for president.

Trump should not be able to run for office. By arguing for immunity he is essentially admitting guilt and therefore, ineligible for office.

Can they make that part of the oral argument, today?

MiamiSpartan wrote:
We keep people off the ballot all the time. For example if someone is under 35 years old. Or, if someone was born in another country....you know, like how Trump wanted Obama to be removed from the ballots? I mean, that was a lie of course, but apparently he used to be ok with keeping people off the ballot.

Also, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and more were never was convicted of insurrection, but the law was written specifically about them and others, most of whom were not convicted.

Age and residency requirements for office aren't what we are talking about here. But as long as you brought it up we need to add in some age requirements on the back end for President, say 75?

And I agree that the president of a secessionist country or it's leading general shouldn't be on the ballot. Let me know when somebody like that shows up again

Now I know that you are going to say that somebody has, TRUMP!. Well the SCOTUS will decide if my opinion or yours is the valid one. Hopefully you will respect their decision as I will.

Zurn wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
We keep people off the ballot all the time.  For example if someone is under 35 years old.  Or, if someone was born in another country....you know, like how Trump wanted Obama to be removed from the ballots?  I mean, that was a lie of course, but apparently he used to be ok with keeping people off the ballot.

Also, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and more were never was convicted of insurrection, but the law was written specifically about them and others, most of whom were not convicted.

Age and residency requirements for office aren't what we are talking about here.   But as long as you brought it up we need to add in some age requirements on the back end for President, say 75?

And I agree that the president of a secessionist country or it's leading general shouldn't be on the ballot.   Let me know when somebody like that shows up again

Now I know that you are going to say that somebody has, TRUMP!.    Well the SCOTUS will decide if my opinion or yours is the valid one.   Hopefully you will respect their decision as I will.

 

The Court really is in a tight spot on this.  

States execute the laws of the United States all the time, so saying Colardo cannot execute the 14th is not something they are likely to do.

My guess is they will say since Congress at one time had a law that added definition to the 14th and let it lapse that until the Congress creates a new law that part of the 14th is not valid.  It's a dumb argument, but it is the sort of "out" that the Court likes to take.

We know two things about this Court. The 6 Republicans was corrupt as all get out and will vote their own interests over the law & they really want a 9-0 on this one, as we could see from the oral arguments.

Zurn wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
We keep people off the ballot all the time. For example if someone is under 35 years old. Or, if someone was born in another country....you know, like how Trump wanted Obama to be removed from the ballots? I mean, that was a lie of course, but apparently he used to be ok with keeping people off the ballot.

Also, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and more were never was convicted of insurrection, but the law was written specifically about them and others, most of whom were not convicted.

Age and residency requirements for office aren't what we are talking about here. But as long as you brought it up we need to add in some age requirements on the back end for President, say 75?

And I agree that the president of a secessionist country or it's leading general shouldn't be on the ballot. Let me know when somebody like that shows up again

Now I know that you are going to say that somebody has, TRUMP!. Well the SCOTUS will decide if my opinion or yours is the valid one. Hopefully you will respect their decision as I will.

I never said what my opinion was, just that your argument about him not being convicted of an insurrection is nonsense, as is your argument that we shouldn't keep people off the ballot.

My opinion is that the court should and will strike down Colorado's decision. So it's interesting to see that you are as bad at assuming what someone's opinion is as you are at making arguments to support a claim.

It isn't that I think Trump should be on the ballot, just that he shouldn't be on ANY ballots due to his insurrection. But I don't think individual states should be able to determine that eligibility for a national race. He should absolutely be barred from holding any public office wver again, and that should be a federal decision, not a state one.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Age and residency requirements for office aren't what we are talking about here.   But as long as you brought it up we need to add in some age requirements on the back end for President, say 75?

And I agree that the president of a secessionist country or it's leading general shouldn't be on the ballot.   Let me know when somebody like that shows up again

Now I know that you are going to say that somebody has, TRUMP!.    Well the SCOTUS will decide if my opinion or yours is the valid one.   Hopefully you will respect their decision as I will.

 

The Court really is in a tight spot on this.  

States execute the laws of the United States all the time, so saying Colardo cannot execute the 14th is not something they are likely to do.

My guess is they will say since Congress at one time had a law that added definition to the 14th and let it lapse that until the Congress creates a new law that part of the 14th is not valid.  It's a dumb argument, but it is the sort of "out" that the Court likes to take.

We know two things about this Court. The 6 Republicans was corrupt as all get out and will vote their own interests over the law & they really want a 9-0 on this one, as we could see from the oral arguments.

The liberals on the court seemed pretty strongly against this, too. I expect that the court will reject this at 9-0 or 8-1, and then either not take up the immunity issue (leaving Trump not immune), or taking up that case, just to do another 9-0 or 8-1 decision to make a firm statement that a president is absolutely not immune.

SCOTUS: 'states rights'

[states decide]

also SCOTUS: 'except for that'



again, it's what happens when politics and religion poison your mind.

Zurn wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
We keep people off the ballot all the time. For example if someone is under 35 years old. Or, if someone was born in another country....you know, like how Trump wanted Obama to be removed from the ballots? I mean, that was a lie of course, but apparently he used to be ok with keeping people off the ballot.

Also, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and more were never was convicted of insurrection, but the law was written specifically about them and others, most of whom were not convicted.

Age and residency requirements for office aren't what we are talking about here. But as long as you brought it up we need to add in some age requirements on the back end for President, say 75?

And I agree that the president of a secessionist country or it's leading general shouldn't be on the ballot. Let me know when somebody like that shows up again

Now I know that you are going to say that somebody has, TRUMP!. Well the SCOTUS will decide if my opinion or yours is the valid one. Hopefully you will respect their decision as I will.

how do you feel about a court convicting someone of rape?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
how do you feel about a court convicting someone of rape?

I think convicted rapists should go to prison for a long time.

Zurn wrote:

I think convicted rapists should go to prison for a long time.

Zurn wrote:To be fair (and I know that is not your goal here) the findings of a court (especially a NY court) aren't really proof of anything.  

and you wonder why people mock politically-inspired religious extremists.

Scotus says Nyet way Jose, trump back on the ballot.  Apparently they like to make up unwritten "rules" whenever they please.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

So I guess the answer to the OP question is, "only for federal office & only if they put 3 Justices on the Supreme Court".  The 9-0 ruling I see as court politics.  Trump is going to lose the Immunity Case, 9-0, eventually.

Trapper Gus wrote:So I guess the answer to the OP question is, "only for federal office & only if they put 3 Justices on the Supreme Court".  The 9-0 ruling I see as court politics.  Trump is going to lose the Immunity Case, 9-0, eventually.

If he doesn’t lose the immunity thing, what exactly could Biden do in office?

DWags wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:So I guess the answer to the OP question is, "only for federal office & only if they put 3 Justices on the Supreme Court".  The 9-0 ruling I see as court politics.  Trump is going to lose the Immunity Case, 9-0, eventually.

If he doesn’t lose the immunity thing, what exactly could Biden do in office?

Anything he wants to, until he is impeached AND CONVICTED BY THE SENATE

Given this Trump lapdog court it wouldn't be a surprise if they side stepped the immunity question and ruled that Trump was within the guardrails of being President by trying to insure a valid election.

Never mind the unanimous Washington DC Appeals court ruling against Trump.

Trapper Gus wrote:So I guess the answer to the OP question is, "only for federal office & only if they put 3 Justices on the Supreme Court".  The 9-0 ruling I see as court politics.  Trump is going to lose the Immunity Case, 9-0, eventually.

that was my thought as well. These people DEFINITELY play politics. It's why we recently saw a member of the left and right scotus appearing together on some talk show or something, it's designed. Designed to try and perpetuate their own legitimacy. This ruling is no different, you had 9-0 but then 4 justices vigorously objecting to main details of the ruling. politics. There was some kind of trade here between the factions