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

Don't stop believing, obviously you and a few others will be severely disappointed, and I can't wait to read all the excuses...Not even worth discussing it's so dead.

 

Section 3 is about rebellion against the constitution and its process for presidential succession. Nobody can argue that Trump didn't rebel against the constitutional process for presidential succession. Violence is not required. In fact, section 3 says simply "aid and comfort" to those rebelling against the constitutional succession process is enough.

I'm presuming CO is involved in that its state election law would call for qualified candidates by federal standards.

In my view, Trump deserves significant prison time on this issue.

BUT, removing the right of a citizen to run for office is not in line with general American democratic values.

It will be interesting to see what the SC does.

 

You aren't listening. I'm leaning toward blocking Trump in this way being a bad idea.

Of course, I'm SERIOUSLY opposed to Trump. I just think Section 3 was a bad idea when it was written. It's not in line with American democracy.

However, I don't know how the SC can pull that off. It seems open and shut that by the 14th amendment he is NOT qualified.

 

Blah blah blah, can't wait to see your excuses when the SC slaps this illusion down 9-0. A speech is now rebellion and aiding in comforting but we must omit the go and make your voice heard and protest peacefully from that rebellious speech. Can you imagine all the politicians that wouldn't be allowed to run if your standards were in place. I mean Schumer told the SC they will PAY, then protests outside their home erupted and a threat on Kavanaugh's life was attempted. He I guess shouldn't be allowed to run either. Lefties never give hateful speeches against America. Sorry in this country we don't take kindly to making crap up and trying to imprison opposition, we also don't take kindly to idiots trying to remove political opponents from the opportunity to run, with no conviction.

 

You have to identify how the constitution is being violated.

 

OK, good idea.

The 14th amendment section 3 is about qualifications for those running for office and who have sworn to uphold the constitution.

It doesn't say anything about criminality.

It DOES say that a history of having rebelled against the processes of the constitution is disqualifying.

These people swore to uphold the constitution and then rebelled against the constitution.

CO requires candidates to pass federal qualifications for office. They noticed that Trump does not qualify, because of section 3. In his case, he worked hard to block the constitutional process of elections and succession of the presidency.

This was before the courts in CO, appealed to their SC. All along, Trump was defended by his legal staff.

Now, he can continue defending himself before the SC.

 

Did they? Have you read the decision?

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling

Or are you simply going by whatever your favorite right wing biased source is telling you? I prefer first hand knowledge whenever possible.

And before you go there, yes, I'm aware that my link is to NPR, but their site is easy to load due to fewer annoying ads and other pop-ups. You can Google it and likely find it on one of your favorite sites, but the text of the ruling will be the same.

 

Sigh! Civil case. And Trump had the opportunity to put forth a defence - his lawyers just were incompetent - as usual
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240

 

We can't lose focus over a candidate we don't like.
Win, lose, or draw, we can't allow 4 unelected rouge judges to decide who can and can't run for office.
This Pandoras box would never be closed again.

 

Why would you ask that?

 

The authors of section 3 had a very reasonable objective.

Section 3 applies to those who took an oath of office to defend the constitution and then they revolted against the constitution.

I do have a problem with then simply administering the same oath AGAIN to these same people!

Does anyone think the result will be different? Isn't that a definition of insanity?

Next, THAT is our Constitution!

We have a process for changing the Constitution.

And, that process isn't to threaten those who abide by it - which is EXACTLY what Republicans are doing.

 

I think you're losing focus on the important things over your hatred for Trump.
I get it. He's a pompous ass. But we aren't changing the constitution over Trump.

The 14th was provided to keep Confederate officers from gaining elected office. You can read a thousand pages about it prior to them actually putting it in there.
And you can't just read one section of the Constitution and declare thats all it says.
Just like the lefts attack on the 2nd amendment. It never succeeds in over 200 years.

No judge can determine if Trump or anyone else committed insurrection or even participated in an insurrection.
The 6th amendment bars any judge from such decisions.

If judges could simply claim a candidate did (X), how many times do you think the 14th would be used.
It just doesn't work that way and the SCOTUS will rule the very same way the 3 Democrat dissenting judges and the other 94 from 13 states.
No conviction, no authority to remove.

 

It's our constitution - the one Trump swore to preserve, protect and defend.

Section 3 states that if someone takes such an oath and then works against our Constitution, then that person may no longer hold an office where such an oath is required.

There is NO requirement for some other court case. He was found to have moved against the Constitution in the CO court and that case has been reviewed up to the USSC, which has the final decision.

Judge Luttig explains this - in the following and other places:


I don't believe that the SC is going to erase a piece of our constitution. There is a process spelled out for changing the constitution, and it doesn't involve the SC erasing what it doesn't like.

 

I keep pointing out that it is not really about REMOVING him but finding that he does not meet eligibility standards

 

It isn’t about removing the right to run for office.

It’s about eligibility to be president. The Constitution sets eligibility requirements. Some people are eligible. Some are not. Some are disqualified based on their actions.

I don’t see anything wrong in having a court decide whether trump’s actions have disqualified him according to the constitution.

Ultimately, this will go to SCOTUS and I will respect their decision, whatever it is.

 

Now you're just making up information to fit your narrative.
No where does it say found to move against the Constitution.
The Constitution is specific with specific wording.

It says, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

First off, there was no insurrection. It was just a riot
Second, He was never convicted of any insurrection
Third, No judge can arbitrarily legally claim Trump committed insurrection

Thats how the 3 dissenting judges ruled
Thats why the other 94 wouldn't even take the case
And its exactly how the SCOTUS will rule.
And it will be 8-1 or it will be unanimous

 

SCOTUS has knocked back Smith's motion to expeditiously hear the argument about presidential immunity. No urgency.

Equally then, SCOTUS should knock back any attempt by Humpty to quickly deal with any appeal he makes about being booted out by Colorado, yes?

 

I haven't jumped on that too hard, because in my layman's reading it seems like there is a question on that.

Section 3 says:

It doesn't just say they can't RUN for one of those offices.

I would suggest that someone in one of those offices yet who has then rebelled, given aid or comfort against the constitution has committed an offense that Section 3 states as impeachable.

I would point out that this is a serious issue, as Trump is certainly NOT the only elected official who has sworn to protect and defend the constitution, but rebelled against our constitution.

Our Speaker of the House was a major coordinator and instigator in attempting to reverse the presidential election through nefarious means. There are state level officers who have taken such oaths, yet worked on "fake elector" schemes and refused to sign state authorizations of results as is their duty. And, there are others in congress and state and federal offices who have taken such oaths of office as condition of service, yet have taken part in rebellion against our constitution in the 2020 election and transfer of power. These acts have done serious damage to America, as it has even undermined our fundamental principles of democracy.

Also, a number of congressmen have passed a bill to begin working on impeaching our president when they admit they have zero evidence and no direction of concern to even look at. This is equivalent to charging someone with a crime as a way of gaining more power to investigate whether there even was a crime committed. HOW can that be constitutional?

How can it be that these people may continue in office when Amendment 14, Section 3 says that they shall not hold such office???

 

The issue includes the phone calls attempting to coerce Georgia to change it's election outcome, Trump's calls to MI to get them to refuse to certify their election, the his contribution to the fake electors program, the constant rallying of his followers to encourage them to believe the LIE that the election was stolen, etc., etc.

The indictments on Trump for violating his oath to carry out the constitution are numerous, and that IS what Section 3 is about.

Your total disrespect for our Constitution should be shocking, but it isn't.

 

Leaving these questions open is how to create gigantic mistrust in our democracy.

When we have an SC who validates assaults on our constitution and our election process, it simply means that they agree that criminal activity is what is required.

I don't believe that democracy can survive that.

 

I'll respect their decision if they follow the constitution - which is what they are required to do.

 

I've made it no secret here. The USA Judicial System is fundamentally corrupt, and has been since day dot. It is inherently screwed and will self destruct eventually.

 

The simple fact that the Colorado Supreme Court with 7 judges reviewed it, shows that 7 people touched it

 

This is asinine to me. Democrats claim that if Trump were reelected he will destroy democracy yet the democrats are literally destroying democracy right in front of our faces

 

How are they doing that ? Be specific ?