Michael Palij’s Post

Trump has been barred from the Colorado and Maine ballots based on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. These are huge legal actions that are constitutionally unprecedented. The implications for our democracy - with a major party frontrunner being thrown off a ballot - are also significant. The outcome of these cases - both of which have been appealed to the Supreme Court - may well hinge on whether the term "any office" in the 14th Amendment includes the Presidency. In this piece, I unpack the legal issues at play in the #trump ballot cases: https://lnkd.in/gfuPBHb2

Although I believe Trump is an insurrectionist who should be barred from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, I agree that the United States Supreme Court should reverse the Colorado Supreme Court because if we allow each state to decide this issue itself, enough states could conclude that he is not disqualified and elect him to high office. This result negates Section 3’s disqualification mandate. Section 3 disqualification should not be a question for the electorate. It’s a constitutional command. On the other hand, one state court should not be allowed to decide the issue for the entire country. This is a national issue and must be decided by a national process. The only way to achieve this is for Congress to enact legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, I realize that Congress will not act. That’s life in contemporary America. Our government often refuses to govern. Hear this morning’s oral argument before the Supreme Court and decide for yourself.

“ TOMORROW: The Supreme Court *finally* hears arguments about whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his criminal plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Here’s the problem: The Supreme Court is already helping Trump from the bench by waiting as long as possible to hear the case, which delayed his federal criminal case — possibly to after the election. The same MAGA Supreme Court majority Trump put in place is responsible for holding him accountable. Unless Congress takes action, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and his other right-wing cronies on the bench will stay in power for life – and likely remain in the majority until 2065. One solution? Passing the TERM Act, which would enact 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. This reform is gaining momentum. CALL to urge your rep to support Supreme Court term limits. “❗️❗️❗️

In response to Donald Trump's attempt to rig the 2020 election, the US Supreme Court decided to take up a historic constitutional and political dispute by deciding whether Colorado can prevent him from running for president. Arguments in the case will begin on February 8 and the justices will hear it expeditiously. They will examine a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that stated that by attempting to overturn Joe Biden's election victory and inciting the deadly Capitol assault on January 6, 2021, Trump engaged in insurrection and lost the right to run for president again. Don't miss out on the latest business and finance trends! Follow us today & stay updated. #worldeconomicmagazine #internationalnews #news #businessnews #globalmarketnews #updates #latestnews

US Supreme Court declared on Monday that former presidents have immunity for their official actions, upending the case against Trump over his attempts to subvert his 2020 election loss. OPINION OF THE COURT We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

The US Supreme Court has struck down efforts by individual states to disqualify Donald Trump from running for president using an anti-insurrection constitutional clause. The unanimous ruling is specific to Colorado, but it also overrides challenges brought in other states. That’s a crucial decision made by US Supreme Court for Donald Trump future election activities. The court ruled that only Congress, rather than the states, has that power. Republicans have more power in Congress than Democrats therefore nothing will change in this case. The top court's decision clears the way for Mr Trump to compete in the Colorado primary scheduled for Tuesday. What’s more important now no other states can block Donald Trump participation in primary election. The Super Tuesday results are opening wide for ex President Trump to put firmly his name as Republicans 1st choice for presidential nominee. Republican voters in Colorado and 14 other states will vote on Tuesday in a marathon contest dubbed Super Tuesday. The former president is widely expected to sweep the board and defeat his sole remaining opponent, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, in every battleground. Mr Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination and looks likely to face a rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden in November's general election. Furthermore if the election will take place now Donald Trump will win this rematch with President Joe Biden.

Hear, hear 

New direct evidence unsealed! Intent to unlawfully prevent the peaceful transfer of power. When you get the time, please read at least a few pages, if not the entire extraordinary document. Please share with anyone considering voting for Trump/Vance. READ THE 165 PAGE REDACTED DOCUMENT THAT WILL CHANGE HISTORY Excerpt of the document: Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 252 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 165 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF OF AMERICA v. v. : + * * * * * * * * CRIMINAL NO. 23.1257 (1SC) CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC) allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no. This motion DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. : * GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overtum the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted... #ruleoflaw #sedition #trump #education #vance #GOP

As many have predicted (including myself), the Supreme Court is wading into the 14th Amendment fracas over Donald Trump. https://lnkd.in/gaGrnWSp Three facts are indisputable here: 1 - Donald Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment trial of inciting an insurrection. 2 - Jack Smith declined to indict Donald Trump either for insurrection or seditious conspiracy in connection with the events of January 6, 2021. 3 - No one arrested in conjunction with the J6 riot has ever been charged with insurrection. Legally speaking, there was no insurrection and thus Donald Trump cannot be an insurrectionist. That alone invalidates any effort to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to him. Further, every such action by any state is an unconstitutional bill of attainder which is explicitly prohibited by Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. Until Donald Trump is tried and convicted of insurrection, the 14th Amendment cannot be brought to bear. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see this and rule accordingly.

It would be SUICIDE if the MAGATS try to overturn the free and fair presidential election in 2024, SCOTUS ruled... KING BIDEN, In his official capacity as the KING... Could absolutely activate any and all necessary entities, I.E. Seal team six... WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY! "President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled, to at least presumptive immunity! (1) Article II of the Constitution vests "executive Power" in "a President of the United States of America." $1, cl. 1. The President has duties of "unrivaled gravity and breadth." Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President's authority is sometimes "conclusive and preclusive." Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the Presi dent's actions. It follows that an Act of Congress-either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one -may not criminalize the President's actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for con duct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9. (2) Not all of the President's official acts fall within his "conclusive and preclusive" authority. The reasons that justify the President's ab solute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President's immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers' design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. https://lnkd.in/gs_7Q_re