You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed,
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
Yes, but CO would say they weren't putting him on trial for insurrection, but merely making an administrative determination about whether or not he qualified to be on their ballot. Due process only kicks in if you're facing criminal charges. Since they determined that he "engaged" an insurrection, he's not qualified. No criminal conviction or trial required.
They're playing word games to try and disqualify the Republican front runner from their election because "Orange man bad". And it's playing with fire, because there's nothing stopping the right from playing the same games in states they control.
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
The 14th amendment is unclear, but in general we get due process which means a trial where the defendant gets to make arguments.
Yes, but CO would say they weren't putting him on trial for insurrection, but merely making an administrative determination about whether or not he qualified to be on their ballot. Due process only kicks in if you're facing criminal charges. Since they determined that he "engaged" an insurrection, he's not qualified. No criminal conviction or trial required.
They're playing word games to try and disqualify the Republican front runner from their election because "Orange man bad". And it's playing with fire, because there's nothing stopping the right from playing the same games in states they control.
Sure like the Guantanamo inmates "weren't arrested or tortured or taken POW" and have no rights. It's just an administrative action, goys.