YoBuckStopsHereTrump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot | CNN Politics
The judge just nullified the United States Consitution in support of Trump.
FlowVoidNot really. There’s more to this than appears in the news reports.
There are basically two things that both need to be established to remove Trump from the ballot. First, he must have engaged in an insurrection. Second, he must be an “officer” subject to the 14th Amendment.
Despite what everyone thinks, the second is a matter of legitimate debate among law professors. Some very anti-Trump scholars think he isn’t an officer.
But what they think or you think or I think about this doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judges think.
Judges, plural. The judge here gets to rule on the first question, which is a question of fact. Questions of fact are almost never overturned on appeal. Trump did engage in insurrection as far as Colorado is concerned.
On the other hand, the second is a question of law. Anything this judge decides on the “officer” issue can and will be reviewed on appeal. Which it will be. And the key here is that the appellate judge has to ignore what the first judge thought about the officer issue, and start the analysis over from scratch.
So given that this case is going to be appealed no matter what, the judge made the only ruling that matters on the subject of insurrection. The rest was irrelevant, and she probably knew it.
SquorlpleThe judge: “POTUS isn’t an officer of the United States”
Also the judge:
I sure hope questions of fact don’t get overturned on appeal as you say they rarely do, since that excerpt is from the Finding of Fact section of the court ruling.
Look, I don’t agree with her conclusion regarding whether Trump is an officer of the United States. But her argument rests on the specific phrase “Officer of the United States” and how that phrase is used in the Constitution.
So in theory you can be the CEO of the executive branch but not an “officer of the United States”. People who buy that argument point out that the Constitution says the President nominates “all officers of the United States”, logically implying the President is not one of them.
Only mealy mouthed judges and lawyers could spin an elected office holder as not being an officer of the US. Fuckers have spun their way into negating most of our rights by literally making shit up so they can make their own offices more powerful.
The president is the Commander in Chief. That’s a military rank.
The Commander in Chief is nevertheless a civilian. That’s why they are not subject to the UCMJ.
jordanlundBased on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
www.senate.gov/about/…/oath-of-office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
constitution.congress.gov/…/ALDE_00001126/
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It’s not really about the word “support”.
The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).