News just in

[Sparko]

More anti-religious thought crimes in the UK:

Another English Pro-Lifer Is Penalized for Praying

They need to get a large crowd of people to go there and just keep praying. They can't arrest everyone and it would bring more attention to this abuse by the thought police.

[Starlight]

A Colorado judge has ruled that Trump "engaged in insurrection".

The 14th-admendment case was attempting to prohibit Trump being on the ballot. The judge ruled that based on the evidence, Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

The judge, however, decided that the President technically doesn't count as "an officer of the United States" for the purposes of the amendment. So Trump appears to be getting off on a technicality despite being found to have committed insurrection.

That section of the amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I find it a bit far-fetched to say that the Presidency isn't covered under that list. The president is definitely a person who takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Them then "engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion against the same", seems to be a breaking of that oath in the way the amendment writers are thinking of. I think by any reasonable interpretation of what the writers of that amendment clearly meant, the President is included as being subject to this, even if the list of offices that take such oaths to uphold the constitution does not explicitly say "President".

[rogue06]

A Colorado judge has ruled that Trump "engaged in insurrection".

The 14th-admendment case was attempting to prohibit Trump being on the ballot. The judge ruled that based on the evidence, Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

The judge, however, decided that the President technically doesn't count as "an officer of the United States" for the purposes of the amendment. So Trump appears to be getting off on a technicality despite being found to have committed insurrection.

That section of the amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I find it a bit far-fetched to say that the Presidency isn't covered under that list. The president is definitely a person who takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Them then "engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion against the same", seems to be a breaking of that oath in the way the amendment writers are thinking of. I think by any reasonable interpretation of what the writers of that amendment clearly meant, the President is included as being subject to this, even if the list of offices that take such oaths to uphold the constitution does not explicitly say "President".

The reasoning may be the result of someone seeking a way of taking a swipe at OMB after determining that the case had no merit. Kind of like what Mueller did when he proclaimed that he couldn't "exonerate" Trump of obstruction of justice (something he never had the power to do) when he said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with.

[Diogenes]

A Colorado judge has ruled that Trump "engaged in insurrection".

The 14th-admendment case was attempting to prohibit Trump being on the ballot. The judge ruled that based on the evidence, Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

The judge, however, decided that the President technically doesn't count as "an officer of the United States" for the purposes of the amendment.

The judge would be incorrect on both parts.

So Trump appears to be getting off on a technicality despite being found to have committed insurrection.

Trump got off for the wrong reason, but that's better than him being prevented ballot access for the wrong reasons.


ETA: If Jan 6 was an "insurrection", then the fire alarm stunt was equally "insurrection". Of course, the Left first wages war on words.

[Terraceth]

A Colorado judge has ruled that Trump "engaged in insurrection".

The 14th-admendment case was attempting to prohibit Trump being on the ballot. The judge ruled that based on the evidence, Trump had engaged in an insurrection.

The judge, however, decided that the President technically doesn't count as "an officer of the United States" for the purposes of the amendment. So Trump appears to be getting off on a technicality despite being found to have committed insurrection.

That section of the amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I find it a bit far-fetched to say that the Presidency isn't covered under that list. The president is definitely a person who takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Them then "engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion against the same", seems to be a breaking of that oath in the way the amendment writers are thinking of. I think by any reasonable interpretation of what the writers of that amendment clearly meant, the President is included as being subject to this, even if the list of offices that take such oaths to uphold the constitution does not explicitly say "President".

The question is not whether the president is someone who takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, it is whether the president is someone who takes an oath "as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States". Plenty of people take an oath to protect the Constitution but don't do so as one of those; the United States citizenship oath, for example, declares "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." So, is the President one of the people in that list?

The only one that can qualify is "an officer of the United States." Clearly the President is not a member of Congress nor in any state government. But the question of whether the President is an officer of the United States is actually a much more complicated question than it seems at first glance, as one can muster some reasonable arguments that they are not. I won't go through all of them, but for example, here's Article 2, Section 3. Referring to the President, it says:

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

It does not say all other officers of the United States, it says all the officers of the United States. It does not seem unreasonable to read this as saying that the President is not an officer of the United States. Now, there are counterarguments, I'm just pointing out this isn't an interpretation that comes out of nowhere.

Unfortunately, it's hard for me to know what the rationale(s) of the opinion was because having looked at various reports on it, no one bothers to link to it. Is it just not publicly available yet? Or are the articles reporting on it just being lazy?

[Terraceth]

So, I was able to finally find an article that bothered to link to the opinion, which can be found here for those curious:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...al%20Order.pdf

[Terraceth]

So, I've looked at the opinion now--again, at https://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...al%20Order.pdf --or rather, looked at parts of it, the thing's 102 pages long. If anyone is wondering what the opinion's rationale is for Trump being eligible despite having concluded he did engage in insurrection/rebellion, the discussion begins in section 299 (page 95) and runs through chapter 315 (page 101). So that's only 6 pages (and double-spaced aside from the footnotes at that), which makes for pretty easy reading; one doesn't have to read the full 102 pages to get that part.

For reference again, the 14th amendment section reads:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The opinion bases its conclusion that Trump can still become president on two rationales (either is sufficient for its conclusion to be valid). First, the presidency is not included in the list of "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State", meaning someone can engage in insurrection/rebellion and still be elected. I find the opinion's reasoning on this matter to be very suspect. The second assertion of the opinion is that taking the presidential oath does not count as "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States". This is the better argument, I think. Again, before anyone tries to argue for or against, I really recommend you at least spend just a few minutes reading the mere six pages (mostly double spaced) that explains its reasoning.

Actually, I find its treatment surprisingly brief, considering it's literally the reason it says Trump can run. It seems like the sort of thing that would require more analysis as a result. Maybe it just didn't get enough attention during the hearing itself for there to be that much to say about it; no doubt, after this, it's going to get a lot more attention. This blog post goes through a lot of the arguments in reasonable detail (disclaimer: The linked post's author is of the opinion that the office of the president is affected, but largely keeps presentation neutral on the subject, and he does say he thinks it's the strongest argument against Trump being disqualified) and discusses various things the opinion doesn't mention, but again maybe a bunch of it didn't really come up in the hearing.

[Starlight]

It always troubles me when informed people who genuinely want to follow the constitution can be so genuinely unsure about its meaning. That a document so powerful, influential, and (mostly) unchangeable, can be so often so vague and unclear is pretty scary.

From what I can see internationally, this sort of issue does seem to tend to occur more in the US than in other countries. So is the US constitution exceptional in terms of how badly it's written?

[JimL]

The reasoning may be the result of someone seeking a way of taking a swipe at OMB after determining that the case had no merit. Kind of like what Mueller did when he proclaimed that he couldn't "exonerate" Trump of obstruction of justice (something he never had the power to do) when he said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with.

And here's rogue, once again being his treason defending self, defending the obvious act of treason, suggesting the case has no merit when he absolutely knows the evidence for it, including all those already convicted and imprisoned for it, and Trump, the Commander in Chief, refusal to call in back-up until it was over 3 hours later, proves its merit.

Same way he did during, and just did again regarding the Mueller investigation suggesting that Mueller said " there wasn't enough evidence to charge him" which of course Mueller never did say. You give your support for treason by defending it every day there rogue old buddy.

[oxmixmudd]

The reasoning may be the result of someone seeking a way of taking a swipe at OMB after determining that the case had no merit. Kind of like what Mueller did when he proclaimed that he couldn't "exonerate" Trump of obstruction of justice (something he never had the power to do) when he said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with.

Sure, that's just gotta be it.

[oxmixmudd]

So, I've looked at the opinion now--again, at https://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...0Order.pdf--or rather, looked at parts of it, the thing's 102 pages long. If anyone is wondering what the opinion's rationale is for Trump being eligible despite having concluded he did engage in insurrection/rebellion, the discussion begins in section 299 (page 95) and runs through chapter 315 (page 101). So that's only 6 pages (and double-spaced aside from the footnotes at that), which makes for pretty easy reading; one doesn't have to read the full 102 pages to get that part.

For reference again, the 14th amendment section reads:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The opinion bases its conclusion that Trump can still become president on two rationales (either is sufficient for its conclusion to be valid). First, the presidency is not included in the list of "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State", meaning someone can engage in insurrection/rebellion and still be elected. I find the opinion's reasoning on this matter to be very suspect. The second assertion of the opinion is that taking the presidential oath does not count as "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States". This is the better argument, I think. Again, before anyone tries to argue for or against, I really recommend you at least spend just a few minutes reading the mere six pages (mostly double spaced) that explains its reasoning.

Actually, I find its treatment surprisingly brief, considering it's literally the reason it says Trump can run. It seems like the sort of thing that would require more analysis as a result. Maybe it just didn't get enough attention during the hearing itself for there to be that much to say about it; no doubt, after this, it's going to get a lot more attention. This blog post goes through a lot of the arguments in reasonable detail (disclaimer: The linked post's author is of the opinion that the office of the president is affected, but largely keeps presentation neutral on the subject, and he does say he thinks it's the strongest argument against Trump being disqualified) and discusses various things the opinion doesn't mention, but again maybe a bunch of it didn't really come up in the hearing.

It seems absurd that the office of president (and apparently also vice president) would have been excluded. How does 'or hold ANY office' not include the presidency and vice presidency?

[rogue06]

You really should seek help for your obsessions.

[rogue06]

Sure, that's just gotta be it.

It does seem like a cheap shot taken by someone who is miffed.

[JimL]

You really should seek help for your obsessions.

You're the one that needs to correct your cognitive dissonance problem, unless of course you are totally aware of Trumps attempted coup and were cheering it on which is what I suspect to be the case.

[Diogenes]

New York City mayor Eric Adams accused of sexual assault in 1993

The mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, has been accused of sexual assault in a court filing submitted on late Wednesday.

The summons against Adams alleges that the plaintiff “was sexually assaulted by Defendant Eric Adams in New York, New York in 1993 while they both worked for the City of New York”.

It was filed under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York state law which provided a one-year “look-back” window for adult sexual misconduct accusers to file civil lawsuits that previously would have been barred due to the statute of limitations.

While I would still maintain the law was unconstitutional as it constituted an ex post facto law, it's nice to see Democrats being targeted for 30 year old claims.

In other news, the Netherlands just had a huge upset.

Geert Wilders aiming to be PM after shock Dutch election result for far-right party and calls for immediate asylum restriction – as it happened

Now it's time to see who can pull together a government as Wilders' party got the plurality of support but only has 22% of the seats. The good news though is the Dutch are waking up as even the Farmer-Citizen Movement party went from 1 to 7 seats.