Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Colorado Judge: Trump is an insurrectionist but the Constitution doesn't care

Trump to remain on ballot.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace's cockamamie argument:

Because of “the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies combined with the fact that Section 3 specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to ‘support’ the Constitution whereas the presidential oath is to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution,” Judge Wallace wrote, “it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

“Part of the court’s decision,” she continued, “is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3.”

She added in a footnote that it was “not for this court to decide” whether the omission of the presidency was intentional or an oversight.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12November 19, 2023 7:19 PM

Outrageous. She needs to be disbarred.

by Anonymousreply 1November 18, 2023 12:12 PM

Gah!

Reading that foolishness seriously made my brain hurt, and I'm fresh out of Amitriptyline.

Shit, this country is FUCKED.

by Anonymousreply 2November 18, 2023 12:20 PM

R1, that’s not how it works.

by Anonymousreply 3November 18, 2023 12:22 PM

Republicans for years have believed with Alberto Gonzales that the law is whatever I want it to be. It's time to issue a more serious correction to this type of behavior.

by Anonymousreply 4November 18, 2023 12:34 PM

And here the plain meaning of the words is dismissed because they didn't add a laundry list of 1200 positions specifically prohibited. |Madness!

by Anonymousreply 5November 19, 2023 10:19 AM

The judge is saying Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis could have run for U.S. president. What a liar! What a Fraud!

by Anonymousreply 6November 19, 2023 5:24 PM

A bit of pushback from the Secretary of State of Colorado. Excuse the huff post link.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7November 19, 2023 6:18 PM

R5 no that’s not what she decided. The word officer has a limited meaning in context, and it was unclear whether a President is an officer for purposes of the that section. She dodged a bullet—but she’s not clearly mistaken.

by Anonymousreply 8November 19, 2023 6:32 PM

She is mistaken and that is what she is saying. Don't lie R8, you really have no brain.

by Anonymousreply 9November 19, 2023 6:55 PM

The whole point of this law was to prevent that from happening. To have Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis running for president after the Civil War is exactly the scenario they were trying to prevent.

by Anonymousreply 10November 19, 2023 6:59 PM

R9 was an assistant paralegal and notary for three weeks at H&R Block

by Anonymousreply 11November 19, 2023 7:14 PM

This provision is - by definition - every bit as constitutional as the Electoral College.

by Anonymousreply 12November 19, 2023 7:19 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!