Having watched every word of the Colorado 14th amendment, I have been trying to understand how to convey my severe disappointment in Judge Wallace’s decision. I believe I would have been much less disappointed had she simply stated she thought the actions that occurred on January 6th were just a tourist excursion. It would have made no more semantic sense that the ruling she did put forth but it would have least set forth a logical positional proposition for why Trump is not disqualified from running for President again.
You're certainly right about the unfathomable stupidity of the reason that Judge Wallace used to choose not to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot, after making good decisions on the substantial issues like Trump's involvement in July 6th criminal behavior. But Glenn Kirschner has pointed out that her good decisions, before the concluding blunder, are now part of the record. When her verdict is appealed, Kirschner says the discussion will focus on her final weird argument, so her judgement will inevitably be more "useful" than if she had disagreed on the substantial issues.
I agree, Ken. if the President is not an elected officer of the Government of the United States, what the hell is he? The President is not a lackey, or a bystander. The President has many "official" jobs, Chief of the Armed Forces, Signatory of legislation and has a duty to see that legislation both enacted and enforced. If these and other "official" jobs like head of State makes the President the Chief Officer of the State. I do somewhat agree with Minnesota Judge who was unwilling to keep his name off the primary ballots but inferred in his decision that the elective ballot was another matter in which Trump's name could be removed because of his criminal activities between November 4, 2020 up to January 20, 2021 and continuing.
Yes there is some merit to the argument that parties are political. The problem however is that parties end up in control of who can thereafter appear on the general ballot and in this sense, parties shouldn't be allowed to support candidates who are otherwise, or should otherwise be, ineligible. The parties oversized role in the selection of those candidates should be taken into consideration. Therefore can the party have the right to put Enrique Tarrio on the ballet for their candidate if cannot otherwise be eligible for the position they have nominated him. Also more and more states are defining eligibility to voting in the primaries to be able to be cross-voted by independents or members of other parties as long as they vote in only one primary. But my primary disagreement with accepting that the candidates should not be subject to removal in primaries is that primary candidates still have to submit to state regulations of eligibility and be placed on state ballots and that it is the state and not the parties that administer primary elections, i.e. it appears to be primaries are not private affairs of political parties, but public affairs administered by the public government.
If you remember the bygone days, state parties often met in private, closed affairs administered by the parties to select the candidate the state party officials would put forth as their candidate at a national official. Primaries were put forth as a opportunity for the entire members of a party to be able to choose their candidate through a public vote and to eliminate these closed selections by the top party officials within a state. I.e., party nomination primaries are not private, but public electoral contests that the parties themselves opened to the public control through initiation of primary elections that actively seek state support to insure the success and openness of the elections.
Ken,
You're certainly right about the unfathomable stupidity of the reason that Judge Wallace used to choose not to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot, after making good decisions on the substantial issues like Trump's involvement in July 6th criminal behavior. But Glenn Kirschner has pointed out that her good decisions, before the concluding blunder, are now part of the record. When her verdict is appealed, Kirschner says the discussion will focus on her final weird argument, so her judgement will inevitably be more "useful" than if she had disagreed on the substantial issues.
I agree, Ken. if the President is not an elected officer of the Government of the United States, what the hell is he? The President is not a lackey, or a bystander. The President has many "official" jobs, Chief of the Armed Forces, Signatory of legislation and has a duty to see that legislation both enacted and enforced. If these and other "official" jobs like head of State makes the President the Chief Officer of the State. I do somewhat agree with Minnesota Judge who was unwilling to keep his name off the primary ballots but inferred in his decision that the elective ballot was another matter in which Trump's name could be removed because of his criminal activities between November 4, 2020 up to January 20, 2021 and continuing.
Yes there is some merit to the argument that parties are political. The problem however is that parties end up in control of who can thereafter appear on the general ballot and in this sense, parties shouldn't be allowed to support candidates who are otherwise, or should otherwise be, ineligible. The parties oversized role in the selection of those candidates should be taken into consideration. Therefore can the party have the right to put Enrique Tarrio on the ballet for their candidate if cannot otherwise be eligible for the position they have nominated him. Also more and more states are defining eligibility to voting in the primaries to be able to be cross-voted by independents or members of other parties as long as they vote in only one primary. But my primary disagreement with accepting that the candidates should not be subject to removal in primaries is that primary candidates still have to submit to state regulations of eligibility and be placed on state ballots and that it is the state and not the parties that administer primary elections, i.e. it appears to be primaries are not private affairs of political parties, but public affairs administered by the public government.
If you remember the bygone days, state parties often met in private, closed affairs administered by the parties to select the candidate the state party officials would put forth as their candidate at a national official. Primaries were put forth as a opportunity for the entire members of a party to be able to choose their candidate through a public vote and to eliminate these closed selections by the top party officials within a state. I.e., party nomination primaries are not private, but public electoral contests that the parties themselves opened to the public control through initiation of primary elections that actively seek state support to insure the success and openness of the elections.