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

Sorry, you have to use the entire constitution, not just the parts you like.
Like the part that states no judge can convict anyone without a trial.

 

Every protest where people block a street or refuse to disperse or ignore orders by police is then, by your definition- an insurrection.
In the last five years, that would number at least 500 insurrections. Have you identified them as such?

If burning 200 businesses in Minneapolis is "mostly peaceful protest" and Jan 6th is an "insurrection" the person thinking that has to have a mind totally compliant to whatever they want to believe, regardless of facts.

We are in severe need of honesty, integrity, consistent and honorable values, truth and stability in our thinking today.
We have far too many whose trajectory of thought is similar to that of a ping-pong ball in a paint shaker.

 

Umm ! We do have video of Biden talking about interfering in the Ukraine to fire an AG investigating Burisma Oil in return for a aid package from the USA. We do have copies of Biden paying cash for a home that normally could not be bought with his salary.

With reference to Article 14 (3 In 1872 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.[6]

 

Would it be a Criminal Act if someone who was ineligible to become president was sworn in?

 

Given that a convicted felon can be in prison and still be a member of congress- even run for the office from their cell, it's pretty obvious that this is a hail-mary shot from a desperate left.
Of course, it's only one link in a long chain of such incidents.

Aside from the qualification of any candidate, the very act of distorting the constitution for political objectives is an offense that should never be tolerated, let alone be open to discussion as if it were honorable.

 

I'm pretty sure the SC will slam this down. If they don't then what happens? All blue states take trump off and all red states take Biden off since Biden was also only ACCUSED of things and not (wait for it boys).....CONVICTED
That word matters
Go look it up!

 

The 14th Amendment does not stipulate that the candidate must have been convicted to be removed from the ballot.

Read it properly.

 

Which has nothing to do with the case.
Without a conviction, you can't administratively do squat
And since Trump was actually acquitted of insurrection in the 2nd fake impeachment, you guys burned that bridge down down years ago.
Which is also why the 3 dissenting judges all stated, without a conviction, they have no authority to remove Trump from the ballot.

 

They didn’t “rig” anything. They made a fact finding based on the Republican lawsuit. They then immediately stayed the ruling pending USSC review.

Rigging is what Republicans did in FL and NC as well as states throughout the nation to steer election results.

That doesn’t happen in Republican gerrymandering. Try again.

Yeh, some people have jobs or transportation issues. Which is why Republicans shut down locations and push to remove same day registration.

If you think you are fooling someone by acting like either of these are a good thing — you aren’t.

 

I am laughing

Because it’s a joke of a statement

 

Your facts are wrong. This conspiracy theory has been debunked from many sources.
Shokin was the target of firing as a matter of US Foreign policy for his failure to investigate corruption. So, the opposite of your allegation is true.

Biden used American leverage to get Ukraine to fire Shokin. This was the foreign policy at the time, and was supported by Dems and Repubs alike, and that of our allies and the INternational Monetary fund. There is no crime in that video; all it shows is Biden bragging how he got Ukraine to fire Shokin. You see, the Obama administration was reluctant to send aid Ukraine because at that time, under Poroshenko, corruption was wide spread and getting Shokin fired was the first step in that direction.

Forbes documented Biden's income increase towards the end of his career, how Joe followed a similar path that many presidents follow, speaking engagements, book tours, and the like, are very lucrative once you become famous. There is nothing untoward about Joe's finances, and he has made public all of his tax returns.

You did not give the source to the above quote, let alone quote it properly, nor did you make a point for doing it.

 

Do you know why that 2/3 rd.'s of the Senate was required to convict Trump of any Crimes? It so now or in the future that any person in the Congress or Executive can arbitrarily be removed on the whims of a majority. If that was the case every time a President was elected the opposition could vote him out on a majority of one. Trump has not been found to be ineligible to be president no matter what you personally believe. It is the same with me and what I believe about Joe Biden being a crook. I have to wait to see what justice comes up with.

 

Yes the sitting President of the United States led an insurrection against himself. It makes a lot of sense. He was the head of the government at the time of the insurrection and you contend that he lead an insurrection against the very government he already ran. This level of clown show rivals the men can have breasts insanity. I would love a world where we all at least existed in reality. The rest of the world sees America as the insane clown posse for very good reason. There is no reasoning with this level of madness. We need adults to remove all these clowns from power and into hospitals where they can get the proper mental care they so obviously need.

 

I'm not defending Trump, the rioters, or anybody else! More than anything else, I'm calling BULLSHIT on the notion that the 'Jan6' thing was an "insurrection". I've been in countries that were in the very real process of having armed insurrections, complete with deployment of military force and the whole 'deal'. 'Jan6' was a stupid, out-of-control carnival that turned violent and ugly -- but insurrection? My foreign friends have told me that we Americans live in our own 'little world', all by ourselves, with our own little set of fantasies and delusions... and I'm starting to see that much more clearly.

 

Most polls are open from 6 Am to 7 Pm. If one wanted to vote they can find away. Most people with transportation problems find a way to go shopping, go to the DMV, make dental and doctor appointments and go to the casino. Same day registration denys the registrars from having ample time to vette and verify.

 

Actually, the Colorado court of appeal has found him to be ineligible.
In the same way a court could rule that someone under 35 was ineligible (if there was a dispute about their age, for example).
Or a court could rule on whether someone was a natural born US citizen (if there was a doubt about it).

 

There are a lot of falsehoods to debunked in just a few lines.

Your "legal opinion" is based solely on your unconditional love of Trump.

Trump won't be able to run in Colorado.

Will other states follow? Certainly.

Probably all the blue states.... but you especially have to fear Georgia, Arizona and finally Pennsylvania.

LoL

In what way did Biden lend comfort to insurrectionists or participate in an insurrection?

 

The 14th doesn't have too as the constitution in its entirety does.
Why don't you read the constitution in its entirety instead of cherry picking what you want it to say.

 

Not every time.

That's interesting, I would like you to back that up.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Some opinions matter, some don't.

No, he was not. He was acquitted of the impeachment. If he hadn't been he could have been removed from office, BUT would have to have been indicted and prosecuted for ANY of the offenses, the impeachment was based on, in a court of law if there were to be legal consequences.

That's not what the 5th Amendment says.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's not what the 6th Amendment says.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Your problem is this IS NOT a criminal case. It's a judgement that tRaitor tRump, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.", in violation of the 14th Amendment Section 3, while under oath to, "support the Constitution of the United States". Which triggers the first sentence, "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".

It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be. You should actually read the Constitution before quoting it or making claims about what it says.

 

No court can convict anyone of a crime without a jury. EVER

 

Long title An Act to remove political Disabilities imposed by the fourteenth Article of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Nicknames Amnesty Act of 1872
Enacted by the 42nd United States Congress
Citations
Public law Pub. L. 42–193
Statutes at Large 17 Stat. 142
Legislative history

• Introduced in the House as H.R. 2761 by Benjamin Butler (R–MA) on May 13, 1872[1]
• Passed the House on May 13, 1872 (voice vote[2])
• Passed the Senate on May 21, 1872 (38-2[3])
• Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on May 22, 1872

 

Where?

Not true.

Good advice, you should take it.

 

Based on a crime he hasn't even been indicted for. Since the Colorado court of appeals is not a criminal court, they have no jurisdiction to claim that he committed such a crime in order to make him to be ineligible based on a crime.

False equivalency. Being under 35 is not a crime.

Another false equivalency. Whether or not someone is a natural born citizen has nothing to do with crimes.

 

Oh FFS this has been explained countless times. The standard the CO courts applied was not a criminal standard. They determined whether or not he engaged in insurrection. Within the common meaning of that word.

They did not (and did not claim to, or purport to) determine whether he was guilty of any crime.

All of these things are about eligibility. So a court can determine them. Without ever discussing whether a crime had been committed.

 

Your characterization is false. he led an insurrection against the US Constitution, against the opposition who won the election, in compliance with the constitution who was due to replace him. Some called it a ' coup', even the CATO institute said it:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-it-was-attempted-coup

What would be madness would to allow a man who unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to subvert an election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to retain the reigns of power.