14A S3 Colorado closing -- decision Guilty of Insurection but

Lavender Room
1

Update:
He is on the ballot, judge found he did participate in insurrection, but 14A sec3 does not apply to POTUS.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Original post.

First, sorry, I missed closing, had to go to Mom’s her Alexa was not working and the rest of my (older) siblings were doing something called work.
Anyhow found this article that really does summarize the whole thing well worth the read if interested.

https://coloradonewsline.com/...ment-trial-colorado/

From the article;
So this was an interesting twist.

While serving as Colorado secretary of state in 2012, Gessler himself blocked the presidential candidacy of Abdul Hassan, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Guyana, who sued over the rejection. The case, Hassan v. Colorado, ultimately produced a ruling by the Denver-based Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in which future Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch affirmed the state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” by barring ineligible candidates from the ballot.

Personally, I think she finds cause to not include him on the ballot, and we move to the Colorado Supreme Court.

I think Trump/Rep move to not be included in the Jan 6th committee is going to further bite them.

Also I don’t get the arguement, but the videos are edited to only show the bad stuff, look at these other videos of people standing around, see it wasn’t so bad. I get why they are doing it (well they have to do something) plus they want to leverage that the folks that were doing the bad, were doing so not cause of Trump, the well behaved were doing what trump wanted.

Anyhow. Oh man I am out of the house tomorrow also, man a busy week for me, I have had something on my calendar 4 out of 5 days this week. Well hopefully when I get home, someone will have updated this with the Judges decision.

2

Update above.

3

Here is the decision.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

4

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

5

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

what’s considerable deference on appeal, and no deference on appeal mean?

Yeah, I pretty much had stated that in the “live” thread during testimony, (I think it was there) they left off potus but specifically mentioned others.

6

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

what’s considerable deference on appeal, and no deference on appeal mean?

Yeah, I pretty much had stated that in the “live” thread during testimony, (I think it was there) they left off potus but specifically mentioned others.

This is a fundamental issue of appellate law. When an appeals court reviews a district court decision, it has to decide how to credit what the district court did.

In the case of factual findings, the general rule is that the appeals court will accept a finding unless it is “clearly erroneous.” So, you can’t get a factual finding reversed on appeal by showing it is 50.1% wrong. You need a much stronger showing that it is wrong. In that sense, we say the appeals court shows considerable deference to the factual findings, by accepting them unless clearly erroneous. This makes sense, since the trial court sees the witnesses in person, which the appeals court cannot.

By contrast, an issue of law is reviewed from scratch, or de novo as lawyers say. There is no deference to the district court’s view of the law. The appeals court can review the statutes and cases itself. The trial court has no advantage in that regard.

7

Here is the decision.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/...%20Final%20Order.pdf

Tried to copy and paste the text around does it include President. I found her summary (starting on page 95) to be well thought out an logical. I think it lays a tough row to hoe for anyone trying to argue it does. But I guess it lays clear the hurdles to overcome.

I also found the section on trumps Ellipse speech interesting, where she talks about the difference between what he said and what was on the teleprompter speech, to be very damning.

All told, (I did not read the whole thing) I like her logic and how she came to her conclusions and it will be interesting, if this goes any further, to hear the arguments on why she is wrong.

As odd as it is, it seems pretty clear in the wording, the order of offices listed that President is not included. As I said before, my only thinking is since it is the office elected by the whole nation, if they feel someone who didn’t defend the constitution should be potus they may feel what he didn’t defend should not be there (assuming they win)

8

Here is the decision.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/...%20Final%20Order.pdf

Tried to copy and paste the text around does it include President. I found her summary (starting on page 95) to be well thought out an logical. I think it lays a tough row to hoe for anyone trying to argue it does. But I guess it lays clear the hurdles to overcome.

I also found the section on trumps Ellipse speech interesting, where she talks about the difference between what he said and what was on the teleprompter speech, to be very damning.

All told, (I did not read the whole thing) I like her logic and how she came to her conclusions and it will be interesting, if this goes any further, to hear the arguments on why she is wrong.

As odd as it is, it seems pretty clear in the wording, the order of offices listed that President is not included. As I said before, my only thinking is since it is the office elected by the whole nation, if they feel someone who didn’t defend the constitution should be potus they may feel what he didn’t defend should not be there (assuming they win)

I share your assessment of her decision. It was well reasoned and supported on the facts and the law. Surely the plaintiffs will appeal to the CO SCt.

9

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

what’s considerable deference on appeal, and no deference on appeal mean?

Yeah, I pretty much had stated that in the “live” thread during testimony, (I think it was there) they left off potus but specifically mentioned others.

This is a fundamental issue of appellate law. When an appeals court reviews a district court decision, it has to decide how to credit what the district court did.

In the case of factual findings, the general rule is that the appeals court will accept a finding unless it is “clearly erroneous.” So, you can’t get a factual finding reversed on appeal by showing it is 50.1% wrong. You need a much stronger showing that it is wrong. In that sense, we say the appeals court shows considerable deference to the factual findings, by accepting them unless clearly erroneous. This makes sense, since the trial court sees the witnesses in person, which the appeals court cannot.

By contrast, an issue of law is reviewed from scratch, or de novo as lawyers say. There is no deference to the district court’s view of the law. The appeals court can review the statutes and cases itself. The trial court has no advantage in that regard.

Been a long day here.

So if I translated this correctly, the finding he engaged in inseruction to be overturned will need clearly erroneous status to be overturned, as the finding on 14A would be looked at from scratch?

10

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

11

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

Yes, this is bizarre to me. The president does take a different oath, but this seems an incredible technicality.

It’s not insignificant that the ruling said he DID commit an insurrection, though.

This will go quickly to the Colorado Supreme Court…

12

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

what’s considerable deference on appeal, and no deference on appeal mean?

Yeah, I pretty much had stated that in the “live” thread during testimony, (I think it was there) they left off potus but specifically mentioned others.

This is a fundamental issue of appellate law. When an appeals court reviews a district court decision, it has to decide how to credit what the district court did.

In the case of factual findings, the general rule is that the appeals court will accept a finding unless it is “clearly erroneous.” So, you can’t get a factual finding reversed on appeal by showing it is 50.1% wrong. You need a much stronger showing that it is wrong. In that sense, we say the appeals court shows considerable deference to the factual findings, by accepting them unless clearly erroneous. This makes sense, since the trial court sees the witnesses in person, which the appeals court cannot.

By contrast, an issue of law is reviewed from scratch, or de novo as lawyers say. There is no deference to the district court’s view of the law. The appeals court can review the statutes and cases itself. The trial court has no advantage in that regard.

Been a long day here.

So if I translated this correctly, the finding he engaged in inseruction to be overturned will need clearly erroneous status to be overturned, as the finding on 14A would be looked at from scratch?

Right, with a caveat. Whether he engaged in insurrection is really two issues: (1) what did Trump and his followers do? and (2) what is the definition of insurrection in the 14A3 context? The first question is a factual one. The second question is a legal one. So, in deciding the definition of insurrection in the 14A3 context, the appeals court would look at the issue from scratch, as it were, though it would read what the trial judge decided and consider it for what it’s worth. It would then take the factual findings – except those that are clearly erroneous – and apply them to that definition.

13

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

Yes, this is bizarre to me. The president does take a different oath, but this seems an incredible technicality.

It’s not insignificant that the ruling said he DID commit an insurrection, though.

This will go quickly to the Colorado Supreme Court…

Its late “for me” don’t feel like pulling the language up. Google it, read it. read the judges findings in the link above again page 95 I believe.

Really, its kind of clear, they start with congress people, then electors, and then offices of the US… they don’t start at potus. (this is about offices you can hold) breaking oath to constitution while holding potus is a different part but requires you to buy into potus as office of the us, which by order listed is something less than a congressman or elector… Seems a bit clear, they left off potus for a reason.

14

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

It is weird either way. On the one hand, yes, why would it be ok for insurrectionists to be President but not to hold other offices? And, if you intended that result, why not just say that 14A3 does not apply to the President and VP? On the other hand, why would you list a bunch of offices with specificity, but fail to list President and VP, unless that is what you intended? Like 2A, it is not a model of clarity in drafting. But, the court found it persuasive that an earlier draft listed President and VP, so that supports an inference that the deletion was intended to remove those offices.

Also, there are two separate issues here, and the CO court ruled for Trump on both. The first is the above issue of whether the Presidency is an office which an insurrectionist is disqualified from running for. The second is whether the President is one of the officeholders who takes an oath to support the US Constitution within the meaning of 14A3. The court held that it is not. So, Trump would be eligible to run for Senate, even though an insurrectionist State legislator would be ineligible to run for Senate.

15

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

It is weird either way. On the one hand, yes, why would it be ok for insurrectionists to be President but not to hold other offices? And, if you intended that result, why not just say that 14A3 does not apply to the President and VP? On the other hand, why would you list a bunch of offices with specificity, but fail to list President and VP, unless that is what you intended? Like 2A, it is not a model of clarity in drafting. But, the court found it persuasive that an earlier draft listed President and VP, so that supports an inference that the deletion was intended to remove those offices.

Also, there are two separate issues here, and the CO court ruled for Trump on both. The first is the above issue of whether the Presidency is an office which an insurrectionist is disqualified from running for. The second is whether the President is one of the officeholders who takes an oath to support the US Constitution within the meaning of 14A3. The court held that it is not. So, Trump would be eligible to run for Senate, even though an insurrectionist State legislator would be ineligible to run for Senate.

It certainly makes me wonder, assuming removal of Pres and VP was deliberate, was it the result of political haggling to get support for the amendment? It would seem hard to believe that, at the end of the Civil War, there might be money or influence from the recently defeated Confederacy that could successfully keep open the possibility of a former Confederate being elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

16

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

It is weird either way. On the one hand, yes, why would it be ok for insurrectionists to be President but not to hold other offices? And, if you intended that result, why not just say that 14A3 does not apply to the President and VP? On the other hand, why would you list a bunch of offices with specificity, but fail to list President and VP, unless that is what you intended? Like 2A, it is not a model of clarity in drafting. But, the court found it persuasive that an earlier draft listed President and VP, so that supports an inference that the deletion was intended to remove those offices.

Also, there are two separate issues here, and the CO court ruled for Trump on both. The first is the above issue of whether the Presidency is an office which an insurrectionist is disqualified from running for. The second is whether the President is one of the officeholders who takes an oath to support the US Constitution within the meaning of 14A3. The court held that it is not. So, Trump would be eligible to run for Senate, even though an insurrectionist State legislator would be ineligible to run for Senate.

It certainly makes me wonder, assuming removal of Pres and VP was deliberate, was it the result of political haggling to get support for the amendment? It would seem hard to believe that, at the end of the Civil War, there might be money or influence from the recently defeated Confederacy that could successfully keep open the possibility of a former Confederate being elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

The article by Lash, which the court relies upon for its history of the drafts of 14A3, does not describe the reasons why that language was dropped. It notes that many of the proposed revisions to the draft came from northern members of Congress. But, it does not discuss why they made revisions. One might even read the drafting history to suggest that they did not directly drop that language (unlike a modern redline edit where we all see the deletion) but, rather, just had a new draft from scratch which happened to omit the President and VP language. So, absent some serious digging, we may be left to speculate what the reasons, if any, might have been.

The article can be reached via the link below:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591838

17

Sorry it is xTwitter, but here’s Judge Luttig’s take on this: https://x.com/judgeluttig/status/1725695335081594903?s=20

Luttig is a retired former Court of Appeals judge who is known as a conservative.

(manually unrolled, so I apologize for the lack of formatting)

The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect speech." The court also held that he “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.” The court thus found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president’s disqualification under Section 3. But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States” and that the former president was not an “officer of the United States” and did not take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.” It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that’s possible, that the former president did not take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America’s democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office in rebellious violation of the Constitution’s Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency.

18

Sorry it is xTwitter, but here’s Judge Luttig’s take on this: https://x.com/judgeluttig/status/1725695335081594903?s=20

Luttig is a retired former Court of Appeals judge who is known as a conservative.

(manually unrolled, so I apologize for the lack of formatting)

The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect speech." The court also held that he “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.” The court thus found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president’s disqualification under Section 3. But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States” and that the former president was not an “officer of the United States” and did not take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.” It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that’s possible, that the former president did not take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America’s democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office in rebellious violation of the Constitution’s Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency.

2 issues with this… 1 Twitter is not the place to give a long eloquent explanation of your position, and posting this there just makes me wonder about this person.

  1. he makes no mention to the detailed, analysis the judge gave, did he even read her findings or just heard what she ruled and went to tweet about it?

Personally from reading both her judgement and his twit, I believe he is just that a twit who is looking to get some attention, but never actually read why she ruled as she did.

19

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

Yes, this is bizarre to me. The president does take a different oath, but this seems an incredible technicality.

It’s not insignificant that the ruling said he DID commit an insurrection, though.

This will go quickly to the Colorado Supreme Court…

Not sure why folks have a hard time, understanding, why you would leave off the offices that are the only offices elected by a vote of the entire country.

Should we exclude someone from the top office if despite past actions, the majority (okay lets not get into the electoral college) of the population says should run the country? What they did must not be seen as so grievous by the majority of the country to get elected. The other positions listed, are either appointments or elected by only a single state, who might support what ever action that person took, despite the rest of the country disagreed.

Lets go back. If Lee ran for President and for what ever reason, many Norther states also thought he was the best choice, why should he be banned. Now why would the Northerners do that I don’t know, but that could be the point, we don’t know what happens over time things change. If the majority wants them POTUS should that not be the important factor in the now, and not some old fixed rule?

20

We have two threads on this, but I will post on this one.

The judge’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection by incitement is entitled to considerable deference on appeal. By contrast, her interpretation of the 14A gets no deference on appeal. But, her discussion of why the 14A does not apply to the President is carefully reasoned.

I understand the reasoning, especially in view of a bias towards not disqualifying unless it’s absolutely clear.

If her conclusion is accurate, then it would seem that the authors of the amendment missed some kind of important stuff either by design or accident. I have trouble believing they would intentionally draft something to keep insurrectionists out of every office but deliberately leave exceptions for insurrectionists to be President or VP.

Yes, this is bizarre to me. The president does take a different oath, but this seems an incredible technicality.

It’s not insignificant that the ruling said he DID commit an insurrection, though.

This will go quickly to the Colorado Supreme Court…

Not sure why folks have a hard time, understanding, why you would leave off the offices that are the only offices elected by a vote of the entire country.

Should we exclude someone from the top office if despite past actions, the majority (okay lets not get into the electoral college) of the population says should run the country? What they did must not be seen as so grievous by the majority of the country to get elected. The other positions listed, are either appointments or elected by only a single state, who might support what ever action that person took, despite the rest of the country disagreed.

Lets go back. If Lee ran for President and for what ever reason, many Norther states also thought he was the best choice, why should he be banned. Now why would the Northerners do that I don’t know, but that could be the point, we don’t know what happens over time things change. If the majority wants them POTUS should that not be the important factor in the now, and not some old fixed rule?

Not sure why you think the President and VP are elected by a vote of the entire country. Maybe you should stop being so dismissive of people who are questioning this, and read up on our electoral system.