Posted on 12/20/2023 2:27:30 PM PST by PJ-Comix
“What’s their basis for claiming Trump is an insurrectionist?”
At this point about all I can tell is heresay as nothing has been produced in court as evidence. Funny thing is that there is a way to try for it by using a bill of attainder. But even that’s illegal as it oversteps the legal part of the law.
“In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.
There are rules concerning this action and if youi read further into the article, it becomes an effort to just make noise which is what thiks was all about anyway. But Colorado will will push the issue and will be over ridden at higher level based upon the Constitution and will get a slap on the wrist. For them, nothing ventured... But for Trump someone else putting out bad publicity before the election.
As for Colorado voters, Colorado has been a consistent democratic state but as of 1 December this year it is closer on record than it might seem. And if enough of the deocratic voters have had enough of high taxes and ignored treatment, it could swing the other way. And it won’t take many:
Democratic - 1,019,320
Republican - 901,219
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/VoterRegNumbers.html
wy69
“all I can tell is heresay as nothing has been produced in court as evidence”
Thanks the informative post. I had to look up “bill of attainder”.
It is where a legislature finds someone guilty and punishes them without a trial by our courts, and as you say, our Constitution prohibits it.
The Colorado Supreme Court is a court. Is it in their power to find Trump guilty?
“Is it in their power to find Trump guilty?”
I mentioned bill of attaidner because it is the way a legislative branch can try to find someone guilty of a crime with no court proceding. To my knowledge, the court that made the determination Trump was guilty of anything called no witnesses and therefore had no evidence other than heresay to determine Trump was even alive, let alone guilty of something. And who can make that determination as the proceedings is a a federal level and not at the state level.
An interesting article is this wrtten and put in, curiously, the Denver Post:
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/12/20/donald-trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-ruling/
wy69
“An interesting article is this written and put in, curiously, the Denver Post:”
Took a look at the article. Most of it is over my head but here’s a tiny excerpt:
“[would] require a majority of the justices to say that they are legally convinced that Trump’s Jan. 6 conduct doesn’t fit the constitutional meaning of insurrection.”
I say the justices’ thinking will be the reverse:
They will say not guilty unless they are legally convinced that his Jan. 6 conduct was “insurrection”.
“They will say not guilty unless they are legally convinced that his Jan. 6 conduct was “insurrection”.
For a justice to make a decision, there are certain requirements that must be met to try a person in a court action. Witnesses, documents, and the privilege of the opportunity of the accused being faced by his accusers. The judges cannot be accusers but are there to hear the case presented that never was and evaluate the evidence. The only evidence that was presented to the justices was heresay from media outlets that have the ability of absence of malice (the opportunity to lie without fault) and not proven or even displayed. That’s not a hearing, that’s a kangaroo court created for the purpose of not giving the accused any chance to be right or wrong. Justice? Not a chance. They’re no different than vigilantges with a rope.
The minute they added the words “legally convinced,” it went out the window. My opinion can be possibly based upon gut feeling. As a judge, sworn in, their opinion has to be based upon facts. That’s what they are paid and sworn in to do. That didn’t happen.
wy69
“... media outlets that have the ability of absence of malice (the opportunity to lie without fault)”
Worth remembering!
Your posts and other things I read and hear make me wonder why the Colorado Supreme Court made that ruling.
Because false dirt is better than no dirt at all?
“...why the Colorado Supreme Court made that ruling.”
Because they can. It is not the ruling they have accomplished. It is the appearance of questionability of Trump as a strong leader that is trustworthy in being able to do what is in the best interest or the country. And coming from an ultraliberal state like Colorado is not outside of their intent even if it is misusing the law. They can be corrected and the same lying, remember the vows they took about defending the Constitution, and the fact that doing it the way they did allowing the media to start piling on along with other politicians who hate Trump because he wants success rather than a stale, festering society they can get votes and remain in fortune and glory.
Our political system is failing not by its design, but by the people that control it for personal gains. All these years of having politicans trying for office are a direct opposite of the founders. They were farmers, and cobblers, and shop owners who actually were the work force. Now they are mouth pieces for their benefactors many not even in this country. And it’s the voters’ fault they are there because they didn’t demand more from their, so called, representatives. Trump wasn’t a politician. He was a work force. And that’s why we need him back to make this a country again and not an amusement park for the government.
wy69
“And it’s the voters’ fault”
Almost ‘by definition’ it’s the voter’s fault. I retain faith that enough voters will do the right thing in the next election. If that doesn’t happen, guess I’ll keep faith that they’ll do the right thing in the election after that one.
“... for their benefactors many not even in this country”
Indeed. Globalization, made possible by electronics and ships that can bring things across the world for next to nothing is responsible for that.
We can’t top those trends but there’s always physical and financial walls.
One of the bad things about being a citizen is when you let the politicians tell you how to live. For over 60 years the kids coming up have been rebooted to not want to be better. They have been taught that what they are givin is sufficient and oh so good, they don’t have to go through the struggles of improvement. If the government doesn’t want to provide it, you don’t need it. This is how sheep and cattle are herded with the promise of being taken care of so well that they don’t have to do anything (Except vote liberal and get slaughtered).
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.