Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Yeah right, Trump was told by his lawyers the election was legit, he purposely lied to everyone, the false electors, trying to break into the voting machines, he knew people at 1/6 were armed, Oath keepers made contact with secret service, Roger stone met with oath keepers just before attack on capital, and etc.

So my compliments on your investigative prowess on the matter.

 

Hey. I GET IT! It used to hurt my feeling the first 50 times the L people used it to describe conservatives, but you get used to itcafter awhile!

 

Sure! The 14th makes no distinction about criminality. <-period. Yes insurrection, rebellion and giving aid and comfort to enimies are crimes. But the 14th only requires that someone who is under oath to protect the Constitution to engage in them to disqualify themselves from EVER holding office or a position of authority at the Federal or State level again.

 

Still digesting that propaganda? WOW!

Midievil attackers lmfao

 

Unfortunately- the jokes on you, and you haven't figured that out yet.
You plan to be the last American to do so?

 

The 14th is not what determines criminality, as such it doesn't need to determine criminality. Our Criminal Code, as dictated by Congress and signed into law by the President, decides what are and are not crimes. And guess what...it has determined that Insurrection and Rebellion ARE crimes.

And how is the government supposed to determine whether or not someone has engaged in crimes? Hint: It is not through opinions.

 

don't you think there should actually be a high level of proof required? seems like the kangaroo court didn't care

 

It is like the gun banners who want those who are "crazy" to be banned from owning guns and that is not based on a court hearing with procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed, but rather the mere opinion of what most likely would be an anti gun "doctor"

 

So whats going to be your new excuse when the SCOTUS shoots this down for no prior convictions, just like the 3 Democrat dissenting judges claimed, and why the other 91 justices in 13 states won't touch it?
You going to stand by their ruling and admit you were wrong?

 

Unfortunately truth is not part of the left's philosophy; it's come to the point where they would deny the world is round or water is wet if they thought it would benefit them.
When I was teaching classes on the skills of reading people, I often asked the class how many times a dog would be allowed to bite them before they reached the conclusion that the dog bites?

Same is true regarding the left, and the democrats and liberals orchestrating the circus. How many times will you fall for it before you begin to see it?
To get real answers- you have to ask the right questions.

When a person lies to deceive you, you can walk away if you recognize it. But when a government does that intentionally, it shouldn't take long to understand and say- NO. You need to be particularly aware of that, in government, because while you can choose to ignore an individual- government can impose the injustice of deception and abuse on you regardless. If the government lacks honor, the nation is in great danger.
This administration and the left is cultivating dependence, ignorance, gullibility, weakness- and disassembling democracy. You are being trained to tolerate corruption and abuse.
Ask yourself why they would do that.

What Trump was told DOES NOT create truth, nor does it make Trump wrong. So long as I control the test, I can prove the earth is flat- and if I refuse to allow conflicting views to be considered, then I must be right.
The left is fully engaged in that kind of mindset and strategy today. Because- it is the only way they can hold power.

 

Please show me where I have ever stated I was ok with partisan gerrymandering? I’ll wait while you do you typical response

 

And the government's prosecutor investigated this, and declined to charge Trump with insurrection or rebellion.

The left ignores what they don't like and pretends what they want to think happened- happened anyway. They know it's wrong, but don't care- it's the means to an end, and they think that justifies anything.

 

Coming from someone of your caliber I will take that as the ultimate compliment. Cheers.

Now feel free to take the last word, I would hate for you to walk away without anything. Cheers

 

The interesting aspect of this is that it will provide a clear path to a SCOTUS mandate that will effectively invoke the supremacy clause.

So, for the sake of argument, these clowns in Colorado just gave Trump a clear path to bypass the other litigation regarding election integrity.

 

I got 3.

It was Trump who invited the seditionists to Capitol Hill on 1/6.

It was he who asked them to prevent the certification of the vote.

He has said repeatedly that he would pardon those who have been condemned for sedition if elected.

 

wow the seditionists!!! reminds me of this

 

This qualification is not a criminal action. It's an administrative action you're conflating a criminal charge with an administrative action. This is your fundamental error

 

I though you posted this one

 

I don't think that was the question, I refereed to the many gun laws on the books.

And you can search for "and" in the Constitution and get hundreds of returns.

No, but even if it has that doesn't necessarily assign it the meaning you're trying to impose.

"ArtI.S3.C7.2 Doctrine on Impeachment Judgments
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Senate’s power to convict and remove individuals from office, as well as to bar them from holding office in the future, does not overlap with criminal remedies for misconduct. Indeed, the unique nature of impeachment as a political remedy distinct from criminal proceedings ensures that the most powerful magistrates should be amenable to the law.10 Rather than serving to police violations of strictly criminal activity, impeachment is a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men for the abuse or violation of some public trust.11 Impeachable offenses are those that relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.12 Put another way, the purpose of impeachment is to protect the public interest, rather than impose a punitive measure on an individual.13 This distinction was highlighted in the impeachment trial of federal district judge Alcee Hastings. Judge Hastings had been indicted for a criminal offense, but was acquitted.14 In 1988, the House impeached Hastings for much of the same conduct for which he had been indicted. Judge Hastings argued that the impeachment proceedings constituted double jeopardy because of his previous acquittal in a criminal proceeding.15 The Senate rejected his motion to dismiss the articles against him.16 The Senate voted to convict and remove Judge Hastings on eight articles, but it did not disqualify him from holding office in the future.17 Judge Hastings was subsequently elected to the House of Representatives.18"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-2/ALDE_00000701/

Sure.

No, I studied the Constitution in depth when I was in college.

Sure.

But it dosn't mean what "YOU" think it does. (read above)

You claimed that the 5th requires a jury trial in ALL cases. It does NOT.

I will admit that

Yeah, you're attempting to obfuscate the fact that you didn't read the Amendments you quoted.

Where?

Possibly

Read above

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

Um... the 14th amendment ABSOLUTE address criminality in section 1.

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of the Democrat supreme court dissenters describes perfectly and which why each other states lower courts (including Colorado) have thrown this out. The other two dissenters were on the same page as Samour.

II. As Demonstrated by the Proceeding Below, the Statutory
Timeline for a Section 1-1-113 Proceeding Does Not
Permit a Claim as Complex as the Electors’
¶264 In addition to qualitative incompatibilities, the complexity of the Electors’
claims cannot be squared with section 1-1-113’s truncated timeline for
adjudication. Section 1-1-113 actions for presidential primary ballots fulfill a need
for speed by requiring the district court to hold a hearing within five days and issue
its decision within forty-eight hours of the hearing:
Any such challenge must provide notice in a summary manner of an
alleged impropriety that gives rise to the complaint. No later than
five days after the challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which
time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity
of all alleged improprieties. The district court shall issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the
hearing. The party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the
challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.
6
§ 1-4-1204, C.R.S. (2023). This speed comes with consequences, namely, the
absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for
complex constitutional litigation. As President Trump, argues and the Electors do
not contest, section 1-1-113’s procedures do not provide common tools for
complex fact-finding: preliminary evidentiary or pre-trial motions hearings,
subpoena powers, basic discovery, depositions, and time for disclosure of
witnesses and exhibits. This same concern was raised in Frazier; the then-Secretary
argued that “it is impossible to fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within
days or weeks, as is typical of a section 1-1-113 proceeding.” ¶ 18 n.3, 401 P.3d at
545 n.3. While we avoided deciding if a claim could be too complex for a section
1-1-113 proceeding in Frazier, that question is unavoidable here, and it demands
that we reconcile the complexity of this issue with the breakneck pace of a
section 1-1-113 procedure. In my view, the answer to this question is dispositive.
¶265 This case’s procedural history proves my point. Despite clear requirements,
the district court did not follow section 1-4-1204’s statutory timeline for
section 1-1-113 claims. The proceeding below involved two delays that,
respectively, violated (1) the requirement that the merits hearing be held within
five days of the challenge being lodged, and (2) the requirement that the district
court issue its order within forty-eight hours of the merits hearing.
7
¶266 The Electors filed their challenge on September 6, 2023. Although the
question of whether this action should be removed to federal court was resolved
by September 14, the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing until
October 30. The majority appears to imply that a “status conference” on
September 18 fulfills the statutory requirement that the hearing be held within five
days of the Electors’ challenge. Maj. op. ¶ 83. However, a status conference
plainly does not satisfy the requirement: “No later than five days after the
challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which time the district court shall hear the
challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties.” § 1-4-1204 (emphasis
added); see Carson, ¶ 21, 370 P.3d at 1142 (ruling that section 1-1-113 “does not
permit a challenge to an election official’s certification of a candidate to the ballot,
solely on the basis of the certified candidate’s qualification, once the period . . . for
challenging the qualification of the candidate directly has expired . . . .”). It is no
mystery why the statutory timeline could not be enforced: This claim was too
complex.4 The fact it took a week shy of two months to hold a hearing that “must”
take place within five days proves that section 1-1-113 is an incompatible vehicle
4 The intervals between the challenge and the hearing, and the hearing and the
order, should not cast aspersions on the district court, which made valiant efforts
to add some process above and beyond what the election code provides.
However, the Colorado General Assembly, not the district court, decides when
and how to change statutory requirements.
8
for this claim. The majority recognizes the five-day requirement, Maj. op. ¶ 38,
but it does not acknowledge the violation of section 1-4-1204’s timeline or give
consequence to that violation.
¶267 Nonetheless, the majority touts the fact that a hearing was held and lauds
the district court’s timely issuance of its decision as evidence that this matter was
not too complex for a section 1-1-113 proceeding. Maj. op. ¶¶ 84–85. But was the
order timely issued? Substantially, I think not. Compare Maj. op. ¶ 22 (“The trial
began, as scheduled, on October 30 [a Monday]. The evidentiary portion lasted
five days [through Friday, November 3], with closing arguments almost two
weeks later, on November 15. . . . The court issued its written final order on
November 17 . . . .”), with § 1-4-1204 (“The district court shall issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing.”).
Section 1-4-1204 only mandates two deadlines, and neither were honored. After
all the evidence had been presented at a week-long hearing, the court suspended
proceedings for two weeks. I find nothing in the record offering a reason
grounded in the election code for the interval between the five consecutive days
of the hearing and the solitary closing arguments. However, I understand the
necessity to postpone the closing arguments for one reason: The complexity of the
case required more time than “no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing”
for the court to draft its 102-page order. Thus, while the district court formally
9
issued its order within forty-eight hours of the closing arguments, the interval
between the evidentiary hearings and the closing arguments was not in
compliance with section 1-4-1204.
¶268 The majority condoned the district court’s failure to observe the statutory
timeline by concluding that it “substantially compl[ied].” See Maj. op. ¶ 85. This
renders the statute’s five-day and forty-eight-hour requirements meaningless.
Contra Ferrigno Warren, ¶ 20, 462 P.3d at 1085 (holding that, under Colorado’s
election code, a “specific statutory command could not be ignored in the name of
substantial compliance”); Gallegos Fam. Props., LLC v. Colo. Groundwater Comm’n,
2017 CO 73, ¶ 25, 398 P.3d 599, 608 (“Where the language is clear, we must apply
the language as written.”). If a court must contort a special proceeding’s statutory
timeline to process a claim, then that claim is not proper for the special proceeding.
¶269 From my perspective, just because a hearing was held and Intervenors
participated, it doesn’t mean that due process was observed. Nor should it be
inferred that section 1-1-113’s statutory procedures, which were not followed,
were up to the task. I cannot agree with the majority that the district court’s
extra-statutory delays and select procedure augmentations indicate that the
Electors’ claim was fit for adjudication under sections 1-4-1204(4) and 1-1-113.
Contra, Maj. op. ¶ 81 (“In short, the district court admirably—and swiftly—
discharged its duty to adjudicate this complex section 1-1-113 action.”). Dragging
10
someone through a “makeshift proceeding” is not an indication that it was an
appropriate process. See Dis. op. ¶ 274 (Samour, J., dissenting). Importantly, the
Electors were not rushed into the process; they didn’t have to file their challenge
until they were prepared. Only Intervenors arguably had inadequate time to
prepare.
¶270 Finally, only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can overturn
a Section Three disqualification. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. This remedy is
extraordinary and speaks volumes about the gravity of the disqualification. Such
a high bar indicates that an expedited hearing absent any discovery procedures
and with a preponderance of the evidence standard is not the appropriate means
for adjudicating a matter of this magnitude.5 See Frazier, ¶¶ 17–18, 401 P.3d at 545
(holding that “inconsistencies” between the procedures of section 1-1-113 and a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “reinforce” the conclusion that not all federal law
claims can be raised in section 1-1-113 proceedings).
5 Although the district court made its findings using the clear and convincing
standard, the election code calls for a preponderance standard. § 1-4-1204 (“The
party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a
preponderance of the evidence.”).
11
III. Conclusion
¶271 My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts
of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrectionrelated
offense.
¶272 The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not
contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement
statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory
timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of
an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a
candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause
of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at
issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 

The 14th has NOTHING to do with criminality. <-period

 

A link would have sufficed...

Minority opinion.. as most MAGA opinions are

 

Now democrat justices are MAGA? Wow... you guys really move the goal post allot.

https://washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf

 

Of course I will stand by their ruling and if I'm wrong I will certainly admit it; will you. Let's see how the Supreme's decide and what the Majority Opinion says. My bet is even if tRaitor tRump prevails it won't because he wasn't tried and convicted of insurrection before the Colorado Supreme court decision.

 

LOL worst lefty take ever but keep up the good laughs and I think the pot thing has merit in this and the colorado courts take.