• jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    11 months ago

    The judge also found that the “Office of President of the United States” was not an office of the United States… so yeah…

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Elector of the President or Vice President” is an office. Even if this ruling means that Trump himself can’t be disqualified from running, his electors (as in: the electoral college) can be disqualified for providing “aid or comfort” to an insurrectionist by voting for him.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah it’s pretty wild. Someone else linked the full ruling below, but the relevant parts are:

        1. The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification. The disqualified offices enumerated are presented in descending order starting with the highest levels of the federal government and descending downwards. It starts with “Senator or Representatives in Congress,” then lists “electors of President and Vice President,” and then ends with the catchall phrase of “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 3.

        Edit: Starting on page 95 of this doc if you want to read it yourself: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

        • jrburkh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I’m also far more a “spirit of the law” advocate than “letter of the law”. With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.

          This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain’t wrong and if we’re not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.

          • jballs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I see your point, but can’t help thinking this from a layman’s perspective. If I were going out of town for the weekend and left a note for my kids that said “While I’m away, no keggers, ragers or any other types of parties at the house.” Then I come back to find out they held a massive rave that destroyed my house, and they say “obviously a rave wasn’t included when you said any other types of parties. A rave is bigger than a kegger or a rager.” I would be more than a bit upset.