Cato Institute’s Anastasia Boden Pens an Overall Positive Review of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Trump 14th Amendment Decision — 26 Comments
She makes an interesting point. By the Colorado Supreme Court acting as they did, they have forced the US Supreme Court to take up the issue and revolve it definitively.
SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE UP ANY ISSUE.
14-3 – CRIMINAL CONVICTION — THEN DISQUALIF.
CONLAW DUNCE AWARD TO 4 DONKEY CO SCT HACKS.
I absolutely hate the notion that a Colorado state court is the place to determine whether a federal insurrection in Washington, D.C. occurred. This gives wide ranging view in the future for state courts, maybe those controlled by Republican supermajorities to unilaterally decide insurrections occurred from Event X where they pubish their political enemies. The lack of foresight on the can of worms here is stunning.
As far as removing candidates from the ballot, Eugene Debs ran for President from a jail cell in 1920 after a conviction of sedition that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Amazing, you managed to make an article here out of one person having an “overall positive” impression of a decision which was ridiculous on multiple grounds and has been condemned strongly by everyone from l.p. National to Amash to Rfk jr to Colorado GOP to many, many others.
US supreme court does not have to take it. They may or may not . If they do, they will overturn Colorado, hopefully in a way that puts all 14-3 nonsense against Trump once and for all, but most likely much more narrowly. The most likely solution to this pernicious nonsense is simply the Colorado GOP holding a caucus instead, and hopefully other states following suit.
Agreed with WMCT as well.
In my opinion, the Colorado decision is deeply flawed. It does not grapple with the point that the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give the government the authority to prevent people from voting for anyone they wish. The 14th amendment, section 3, only says that persons who engaged in insurrection after having taken an oath cannot hold the office. But the people who wrote section 3 never dreamed that it would be used to tell voters whom they can and cannot vote for.
It does not follow logically that government should prevent people from voting for unqualified candidates. People were allowed to vote for unqualified candidates for president and vice-president continuously from 1789 through 1968, and it didn’t do any harm. Every state in 1892 that used government-printed ballots did print the Prohibition Party nominee for vice-president on its ballot, even though he was only 33 years old and everyone knew it (except that in South Dakota the ticket was off the ballot for other reasons). Colorado printed the name of Linda Jenness on its 1972 ballot even though she was also under-age, and the Colorado law on that point hasn’t changed since 1972.
True, and there are many other reasons it’s deeply flawed, some of which have been pointed out in the comments on various articles your site has published about it.
FOLKS CAN WRITE-IN NAMES OF FOLKS WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED – 14-2
AS PROTEST VOTES — LIKE FOR M. MOUSE AND D. DUCK
In some states. But no one ewill have to write in Trumps name, which will be on all ballots.
Trump will win and Trump will be President.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I think this was a TERRIBLE court decision because J6 was NOT an insurrection, it was a government manipulated/provicateured psyop, and there is now a mountain of irrefutable evidence to back this up. It was obvious to me from the day that it happened that it was not an insurrection. If it had been a real insurrection the protestors would have been armed, and the Capitol Police would not have held the doors open and waved people inside. There were numerous undercover government agents posing as protestors urging people to enter the Capitol, and very little damage was done by the protestors. Donald Trump did not incite snf insurrection and there was no insurrection. I am astounded that anyone is still pushing this blatantly false narrative.
This type of drivel coming out of the Cato Institute is an example of why I have long prefered the Mises Institute over the Cato Institute.
Well said Andy. But as previously mentioned that’s only one of many reasons why the decision is caca.
“But the people who wrote section 3 never dreamed that it would be used to tell voters whom they can and cannot vote for.”
I would not go that far. It’s pretty easy in late 1860s America to imagine when Southern states did come back into the fold they could have voted for a Confederate politician to become President.
“I am not a Trump supporter, but I think this was a TERRIBLE court decision because J6 was NOT an insurrection, it was a government manipulated/provicateured psyop, and there is now a mountain of irrefutable evidence to back this up. It was obvious to me from the day that it happened that it was not an insurrection. If it had been a real insurrection the protestors would have been armed, and the Capitol Police would not have held the doors open and waved people inside. There were numerous undercover government agents posing as protestors urging people to enter the Capitol, and very little damage was done by the protestors. Donald Trump did not incite snf insurrection and there was no insurrection. I am astounded that anyone is still pushing this blatantly false narrative.
This type of drivel coming out of the Cato Institute is an example of why I have long prefered the Mises Institute over the Cato Institute.”
I find the question of whether an insurrection did or did not occur to be besides the point. A federal – not a state, but a federal – entity has to determine one did. I only see how Colorado has standing to rule on such a matter if it occurred inside the state of Colorado, which it did not. The ruling per the Cato article abroad explains away this issue by saying “there’s nothing stating who can rule insurrections occurred, therefore we can”. So I can rule on it according to my whims?
Insurrections should not be left in the eyes of the beholder because it’s going to lead to massively different interpretations by multiple jurisdictions looking out decades into the future.
If anyone is involved in an insurrection, it’s Biden with the Chinese.
Again, there are many,many grounds on which the ruling as absurd. If you read all the different articles and comments about it and since it was issued, given that comments don’t necessarily adhere strictly to articles, you’ll get an idea of a lot (but not necessarily all) of them.
Ron is also correct.
Ryan, the reason I said the people who wrote the 14th amendment never dreamed that section 3 could be used to tell people how to vote is that in 1868, the government had no ability to prevent any voter from voting for anyone he wished. There were no government-printed ballots back then. The first presidential election with government-printed ballots was 1892.
It varied by state. A few like Georgia and South Carolina were not until well into the 20th century.
1791 TAX LAW >>> 1794 REBELLION — TREASON TRIALS / PARDONS [ THEN NOOOO I/R LAW- SEE 1790 US CRIMES ACT]
>>> 1862 I/R LAW >>> 14-3 AMDT
@RW,
How did 1912 voters in California vote for some Republican electors but not all such that some Democrat electors were chosen?
@RW,
James Cranfill was 34 in 1892, and would have have been 34.5 by inauguration day in 1893. It is speculative that everyone knew the age of a 4th party VP nominee.
I found a Maine ballot for 1892 on eBay. It has a column for each party. At the top of the column are the last names of the candidates, but it would be conjecture that “Cleveland and Stevenson” were Grover and Adlai.
Below that was the party name and a box with the legend that it was for the presidential electors for the party.
Then there were the 5 elector candidates, including their full name and town of residence and a box.
So you could either vote for the party slate or individual electors. “Bidwell and Cranfill” was more a slogan.
James Weaver was in two columns, one for the People’s Party and one for Union Labor. But they had different elector candidates. You literally could not vote for Weaver.
It differed by state and year. I’d venture a guess that Richard Winger would have a good collection of those from different states and years, although I wouldn’t bet on a complete set.
@WMCT,
Prior to government-printed ballots, voters would have had to list all the elector candidates, or party printed ballots would have done so. There would be no way to comprehend “Trump electors”
The States would simply copy the common practice. We know this to be true since different individual electors had different vote totals.
She makes an interesting point. By the Colorado Supreme Court acting as they did, they have forced the US Supreme Court to take up the issue and revolve it definitively.
SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE UP ANY ISSUE.
14-3 – CRIMINAL CONVICTION — THEN DISQUALIF.
CONLAW DUNCE AWARD TO 4 DONKEY CO SCT HACKS.
I absolutely hate the notion that a Colorado state court is the place to determine whether a federal insurrection in Washington, D.C. occurred. This gives wide ranging view in the future for state courts, maybe those controlled by Republican supermajorities to unilaterally decide insurrections occurred from Event X where they pubish their political enemies. The lack of foresight on the can of worms here is stunning.
As far as removing candidates from the ballot, Eugene Debs ran for President from a jail cell in 1920 after a conviction of sedition that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Amazing, you managed to make an article here out of one person having an “overall positive” impression of a decision which was ridiculous on multiple grounds and has been condemned strongly by everyone from l.p. National to Amash to Rfk jr to Colorado GOP to many, many others.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293970/20231221105032440_United%20States%20v.%20Trump_CBJ%20Reply.pdf
SPEC COUNSEL SMITH RESPONSE TO TRUMP
SCOTUS 23-624
US supreme court does not have to take it. They may or may not . If they do, they will overturn Colorado, hopefully in a way that puts all 14-3 nonsense against Trump once and for all, but most likely much more narrowly. The most likely solution to this pernicious nonsense is simply the Colorado GOP holding a caucus instead, and hopefully other states following suit.
Agreed with WMCT as well.
In my opinion, the Colorado decision is deeply flawed. It does not grapple with the point that the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give the government the authority to prevent people from voting for anyone they wish. The 14th amendment, section 3, only says that persons who engaged in insurrection after having taken an oath cannot hold the office. But the people who wrote section 3 never dreamed that it would be used to tell voters whom they can and cannot vote for.
It does not follow logically that government should prevent people from voting for unqualified candidates. People were allowed to vote for unqualified candidates for president and vice-president continuously from 1789 through 1968, and it didn’t do any harm. Every state in 1892 that used government-printed ballots did print the Prohibition Party nominee for vice-president on its ballot, even though he was only 33 years old and everyone knew it (except that in South Dakota the ticket was off the ballot for other reasons). Colorado printed the name of Linda Jenness on its 1972 ballot even though she was also under-age, and the Colorado law on that point hasn’t changed since 1972.
True, and there are many other reasons it’s deeply flawed, some of which have been pointed out in the comments on various articles your site has published about it.
FOLKS CAN WRITE-IN NAMES OF FOLKS WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED – 14-2
AS PROTEST VOTES — LIKE FOR M. MOUSE AND D. DUCK
In some states. But no one ewill have to write in Trumps name, which will be on all ballots.
Trump will win and Trump will be President.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I think this was a TERRIBLE court decision because J6 was NOT an insurrection, it was a government manipulated/provicateured psyop, and there is now a mountain of irrefutable evidence to back this up. It was obvious to me from the day that it happened that it was not an insurrection. If it had been a real insurrection the protestors would have been armed, and the Capitol Police would not have held the doors open and waved people inside. There were numerous undercover government agents posing as protestors urging people to enter the Capitol, and very little damage was done by the protestors. Donald Trump did not incite snf insurrection and there was no insurrection. I am astounded that anyone is still pushing this blatantly false narrative.
This type of drivel coming out of the Cato Institute is an example of why I have long prefered the Mises Institute over the Cato Institute.
Well said Andy. But as previously mentioned that’s only one of many reasons why the decision is caca.
“But the people who wrote section 3 never dreamed that it would be used to tell voters whom they can and cannot vote for.”
I would not go that far. It’s pretty easy in late 1860s America to imagine when Southern states did come back into the fold they could have voted for a Confederate politician to become President.
“I am not a Trump supporter, but I think this was a TERRIBLE court decision because J6 was NOT an insurrection, it was a government manipulated/provicateured psyop, and there is now a mountain of irrefutable evidence to back this up. It was obvious to me from the day that it happened that it was not an insurrection. If it had been a real insurrection the protestors would have been armed, and the Capitol Police would not have held the doors open and waved people inside. There were numerous undercover government agents posing as protestors urging people to enter the Capitol, and very little damage was done by the protestors. Donald Trump did not incite snf insurrection and there was no insurrection. I am astounded that anyone is still pushing this blatantly false narrative.
This type of drivel coming out of the Cato Institute is an example of why I have long prefered the Mises Institute over the Cato Institute.”
I find the question of whether an insurrection did or did not occur to be besides the point. A federal – not a state, but a federal – entity has to determine one did. I only see how Colorado has standing to rule on such a matter if it occurred inside the state of Colorado, which it did not. The ruling per the Cato article abroad explains away this issue by saying “there’s nothing stating who can rule insurrections occurred, therefore we can”. So I can rule on it according to my whims?
Insurrections should not be left in the eyes of the beholder because it’s going to lead to massively different interpretations by multiple jurisdictions looking out decades into the future.
If anyone is involved in an insurrection, it’s Biden with the Chinese.
Again, there are many,many grounds on which the ruling as absurd. If you read all the different articles and comments about it and since it was issued, given that comments don’t necessarily adhere strictly to articles, you’ll get an idea of a lot (but not necessarily all) of them.
Ron is also correct.
Ryan, the reason I said the people who wrote the 14th amendment never dreamed that section 3 could be used to tell people how to vote is that in 1868, the government had no ability to prevent any voter from voting for anyone he wished. There were no government-printed ballots back then. The first presidential election with government-printed ballots was 1892.
It varied by state. A few like Georgia and South Carolina were not until well into the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
1791 TAX LAW >>> 1794 REBELLION — TREASON TRIALS / PARDONS [ THEN NOOOO I/R LAW- SEE 1790 US CRIMES ACT]
>>> 1862 I/R LAW >>> 14-3 AMDT
@RW,
How did 1912 voters in California vote for some Republican electors but not all such that some Democrat electors were chosen?
@RW,
James Cranfill was 34 in 1892, and would have have been 34.5 by inauguration day in 1893. It is speculative that everyone knew the age of a 4th party VP nominee.
I found a Maine ballot for 1892 on eBay. It has a column for each party. At the top of the column are the last names of the candidates, but it would be conjecture that “Cleveland and Stevenson” were Grover and Adlai.
Below that was the party name and a box with the legend that it was for the presidential electors for the party.
Then there were the 5 elector candidates, including their full name and town of residence and a box.
So you could either vote for the party slate or individual electors. “Bidwell and Cranfill” was more a slogan.
James Weaver was in two columns, one for the People’s Party and one for Union Labor. But they had different elector candidates. You literally could not vote for Weaver.
It differed by state and year. I’d venture a guess that Richard Winger would have a good collection of those from different states and years, although I wouldn’t bet on a complete set.
@WMCT,
Prior to government-printed ballots, voters would have had to list all the elector candidates, or party printed ballots would have done so. There would be no way to comprehend “Trump electors”
The States would simply copy the common practice. We know this to be true since different individual electors had different vote totals.
I understand that. My point was since then.