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

Wanna bet…….

So the three dissenting made a claim, but the majority in the decision say your wrong. Any person with basic reading comprehension will show that the clause doesn't require “conviction” because it isn't even mentioned at all.

 

You don't even know how the judges voted or why.
All you have done is chime in with things you saw in other post.

The justices who disagreed with the decision were Berkenkotter, Samour and Boatright, the chief justice.
Boatright's dissent focused on the lack of any criminal conviction against the former president.

“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,” he wrote.

Justice Samour
A determination must follow the appropriate procedural avenues. Absent adequate due process, it is improper for our state to bar him from holding public office. More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis. Surely, this enlargement of state power is antithetical to the framers’ intent.”

Does the fact that this old civil war amendment has never been used like this in history ring any bells for you
Does the fact that 94 justices have seen this and all have claimed the same thing ring any bells for you
Does the fact these 4 (So called) justices have found Trump guilty of a crime he was already acquitted of ring any bells for you

But then again, you thought someone could be acquitted of impeachment,
Then you claimed the 2nd amendment had been changed by leftist in the past
Then you claimed a judge can convict people without a trial or due process

So its no doubt you don't really know what you're talking about
And when the SCOTUS rules EXACTLY like I told you, I can't wait to hear what you say then.

 

Yet 94 justices in total made the same claim, and your 4 Democrats stand alone.
Since you like numbers, theres one you can chew on

Yet 94 justices says it does.
You don't even know what the amendment was written for, how would you know anything else. lol
So when the SCOTUS rules against these idiots, whats going to be your excuse then?
I bet it won't be anything about the majority. lol

 

Such an erudite response…! But then, if you’ve nothing of value to say….?

 

Yeah, you studied the constitution and thought you could be acquitted from a process.
And we saw how that turned out.
Now you can't wrap your head around 94 justices vs 4?
What ever math you're using no one has heard of. You got that part right

 

Yes, it speaks volumes about the unprecedented treachery tRaitor tRump attempted.

Yes, it speaks volumes about the unprecedented partisanship tRaitor tRump has fomented in America.

Because that's what they are.

NO, no "they" haven't AND NO, no he wasn't.

Then again you believe someone can't. Hint: don't tell tRaitor tRump that, his supporters will come after you.

NO, no I did NOT.

ibid

You need to put that mirror away when you're posting.

IF they base their ruling on what "you've told me", I will be astonished.

 

Why make it PERSONAL??? It achieves noting , being counterproductive.

 

You were worng.

94 PARTISAN JUSTICES ... (fixed it for you).

I didn't say no one (that would be me ... and I have heard of it) ... I said YOU.

 

Fascism is a fork and evolution of communism. The fascist leaders in history started as full Marxists who realized it wasn't working because people would eventually revolt. So they added authoritarianism and often scapegoats to help with gaining majority support.

The UN and United States have sanctioned countries for doing less. Keeping your political opponents off the ballot based on obviously partisan goals is something we expect to happen in fascist countries and the third-world.

 

What it's going to do is get his posts deleted as the flame bait they are and personal attacks that they are.

So far all he's proven is that I'm better educated than he is, and he's out of rational arguments and pissed off about it.

 

Yet no one has done that.

 

No; we already know the dems will use use any excuse to arrest anyone they think opposes them. And I doubt is any went to jail crying except some children that the tainted cops abused.
When thugs are behind things, they need to make ugly happen or they will be seen for what they are.... the perpetrators.

The double standard doesn't excuse the left, except in their own imagination. Hell, if they still had character and morals, none of this would have happened in the first place.

 

That does not make any sense. The "dems" will continue to bring those that break the laws to justice. Sadly..... the R
s have lost their values and changed what is illegal and what is not.
Anything to do with Trump , in their eyes , is just fine. He can do as he wishes and they enable him in what has become a pathologically co-dependent relationship. He can make all kinds of crazy claims and they believe him....
If one believes that Trump should not be held to account.......then one has elevated this sociopath into some kind of super human level where he has absolute power.. That is delusional and dangerous. too many have been conned by his paying the victim....... as he is very good at that role. Some just refuse to accept that HE is the author of all his problems. He is fully responsible for his actions and words.

 

More fence jumping than a white tail

 

They DO, don't they??

 

Yep, more flip flops than spring break at Daytona

 

It is a matter of interpretation , isn't it??

 

All of the fascist movements that have existed in the last 100+ years have been of an extreme right-wing philosophy and have been anti-communist, often violently…

 

Do you ever get tired.

You do the twist better the chubby

 

So you managed to quote the applicable portion of the Constitution, and then you utterly failed to interpret it properly. It seems like quite the feat, considering it isn't complex and appears to be written in your native language.

Let me help you out:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Notice all the people listed that this clause pertains to does not include the President. It says "elector of President." Not the president. Basic English skills are important. In fact, an earlier draft included the President in this section, but they chose to remove it from the ratified version. Trump has never held the position of any of the people listed in this amendment, and the office he is running for is not one of these positions either. It literally has nothing to do with him. Not even a little bit. Let us know when he runs for Congress...

Also, the "fake electors" plot is also known as the alternate electors plot. And in many states, it is the process that is followed to contest an election. In fact, Trump's team copied the strategy of previous Democrats who contested an election in the same manner.

 

What absolute rot…! The closest you get to that is the case of Mussolini, who did begin his early years as a socialist, before being thrown out of the Socialist Party and radically changing his philosophy. However, you might like to provide evidence of any of the other “fascist leaders in history” who “started as full Marxists”…?

 

Here's more doubting Thomas

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-legal-...s-not-to-certify-2020-election-005258713.html

• The Detroit News obtained an audio recording of a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call in which Trump pressured Palmer and Hartman to withhold their signatures to an official document so as to block the certification of Biden’s victory in the swing state.
  

Eventually the Alex Jones talking MAGAs are going to hit the brick wall of reality, and I assure you, I will don the biggest sh!t @ss eating grin when that day comes.

 

There is only one circumstance that triggers section 3, and that is if someone running for an office, who previously swore an oath, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection/insurrectionists. And since that is rare, there will be no flood of cases if Trump does not win the appeal.

 

I'm just saying anyone can become knowledgeable about a subject. I wouldn't reject the argument of a foreigner because they were a foreigner.

 

The 10th amendment applies here, and evidence of this is that in most state constitutions is given a 'qualification process' by which either a State Secretary of State, or some other official, is in charge of qualifying candidates.

A criminal sanction moves along on an entirely different track than section three.

In section three, no crime is being alleged. An insurrection, though a crime, is not being treated as one, because for the purpose of section three's qualification process, it's looked at merely as an act which triggers disqualification.

Now, it's possible the SCOTUS could determine that a criminal conviction is necessary, I don't know, but if they did, they are not being what is known as 'textualists'. I don't see how Gorsuch can side with Trump, given his prior ruling on this issue in Hassan v Colorado. It's also possible that the SCOTUS could determine there was no 'insurrection'. We'll just have to wait and see.

Now, at some later date, a prosecutor could use the section 3 rulings by judges in his future indictments, that I can see, but at that juncture the act progresses along a criminal process.

On the flip side, if there is a prosecution, that would certainly buttress a section three disqualification, but it's not absolutely necessary, given that no criminal aspect exists in the constitution for disqualification.