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

“As an officer of the United States”.
Defined as:”legitimate government officers are those who hold their offices under the constitutional rules”
The office of POTUS is clearly defined in the constitution:

Just WOW….now you should educate yourself on “alternate electors”, and WHO nominates and assigned those electors…..lemme get that for ya…The STATES define the electors, not the POTUS

I just love how the righties are contorting themselves and trying to now contort theConstitution to fit the orange guy. It’s JUST STUNNING watching these righties call themselves “patriots”, and try to userp the constitution because…well…because TRUMP.

 

That Yahoo at least brought to the front news about the crisis happening on our southern border. At least the American people are now seeing for themselves what the mainstream media has tried to ignore to help Biden out. I hope he continues to keep sending as many as he can to sanctuary cities. When those cities can no longer afford more housing, health care, or other social services and its own citizens have to come up with more taxes or less services for its legal citizens, then maybe then, they will wake up to their plight. In fact, when they are down and about out, I hope he sends more planeloads. I have hard time understanding how so many Americans are not outraged over the situation on our southern border. If you have thousands coming in everyday from all over the world. Some are criminals, sex offenders, possible terrorists, sex slaves, dope pushers, unvaccinated, all unemployed, and they are being released into the country and being treated better than are own veterans, mentally ill, homeless mothers with children. etc. Some are working in jobs and being paid under the table and not paying taxes. Others have disappeared into the country and working as self-employed laborers. Cities now are asking for more money because their school systems, emergency rooms in hospitals are overcrowded, and even the churches and food banks are finding their shelves and resources are empty.

 

Well, you got one part right, Good for you

Isn't it? Can't follow the math?

91 justices in 13 states have refused to even look at this idiocy
And 3 in Colorado dissented for the same reasons.

 

How about we just take Trump out of the picture for conversational purposes. Lets view this in its real legal light and the consequences of something like this because I am SURE you realize, if it were this easy, it will be used in every election moving forward.

First off, Section 3 of the amendment was a disqualification clause written and enacted explicitly to limit the influence of former Confederates in the Reconstruction era. But putting that aside, no judge has the power to convict anyone and you need a conviction before you could even think of instituting the 14th.

Because if that isn't the case, you don't think there are a few thousand political lawyers out there a bit smarter than we are that would be instituting this against Biden before he even ran?
Like, selling influence, making his deal with Ukraine, stealing documents from the SCIF.
Remember, if the 14th only requires the justice to accuse and no conviction is necessary, this goes off the rails from here to eternity.
Trump or no Trump

 

A conviction isn't required because??? You say so??? So dispense with trials and the need for convictions to penalize you or anyone???

 

I am not interested in your media complaints. It is complete BS.

 

Everyones counting on it.
You should run with that

 

Oh, he's definitely part of section three, per the colloquy revealed from the congressional record which was established by Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Merrill on the floor of the senate in 1866. See;
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...settled-it-does-include-the-president.615509/

Feel free to name others who have insurrected against the constitution.

If you are going to go by Chomsky's list, that is an unsettled foreign policy debate, not a constitutional violation fact.

 

I doubt there are a lot of Americans who are well versed on the Constitution.

Doesn't negate my point.

 

There are two aspects, a crime, and the act.

A criminal sanction applies to the crime.

An administrative process applies to the act.

Proof of this is that a criminal sanction, via due process, can deprive someone of their liberty, which is why due process is required.

An administrative qualification is a process, and can remove someone from a ballot based on disqualifying acts per section 3. No liberty,. property, rights, or anything material or abstract is being taken away from the person attempting to qualify. There is no 'right' to be on a ballot. There is no right of voters to vote for someone who is not qualified to be on a ballot. There is no due process required for the person attempting to be on a ballot.

However, the electorate has a right to know that the disqualification was fair and just, and they are due 'due process'. So......

Given the great public interest of the primary ballot, no doubt state constitutions put forth protocols to assure that if someone is disqualified from the ballot, there is a process to assure the justness of the disqualification. In Colorado, that was achieved by a ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court. Trump has or will appeal, and it will be decided by the US Supreme Court. The electorate will recieve due process with the SCOTUS's ruling.

Don't conflate the two, criminal sanctions pertain to crimes, administrative process pertains to acts. The former can deprive one of liberty, the latter cannot.

 

The President is not and never has been considered an officer of the United States. Officers are defined in the Constitution. Hamilton also wrote about them in the Federalist Papers. Officers are nominated by the President. They are not the President. You don't get to redefine the meaning of the Constitution to keep a candidate off the ballot that you dislike. That's the kind of thing third-world dictators do, and it has no place in America. Let's keep that stuff in the third world, and people who support that type of fascism should go to those countries rather than trying to promote it here.

This doesn't say the President is an officer of the United States. This is basic English. It's not complicated in the least. I cannot fathom any legitimate or ethical purpose to twist the Constitution into a pretzel and claim it says the exact opposite of what it says. The courts have ruled on this since the inception of our nation. It's not debatable. You're just flat-out wrong. There's no gray area here. Everyone should read the Constitution at least once in their lives. It's a great document, and it would help people understand how our government works.

Again, let me help you out. Let's use Hawaii's election of Nixon as an example. Both Republican and Democrat electors certified the election. Nixon initially won the election, but Democrat electors also cast their votes for Kennedy. This forced a recount and gave time for Democrats to challenge the election in court. So while Nixon initially won, the election was left open for legal challenges and allowed it to be flipped to Kennedy after recounts showed that he had won. They did it this way because the Electoral Count Act has legal avenues to contest. This is what Republicans in Georgia attempted to do as well. No Democrats were charged with a crime when they did it in Hawaii. In fact, the state flipped and they won Hawaii's electoral votes. A majority of the Democrat electors in Hawaii were federal judges who knew the law and believed this was the best vehicle to contest the election.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nt-of-colorado.615487/page-18#post-1074577384

 

Fair argument.

Well I could start with President Biden. He admitted that he didn't have the constitutional authority to forgive student loans, than proceeded to forgive student loans, and got slapped by the court for it.

Insurrection to the consitution. He knew he was violating it when he did it.

This will be chaos of your own making.

 

It actually does.

 

Those people in jail over the lies, I am sure they appreciate it.

 

Huh, what people in jail. How did you go from media lies to people in jail?

 

Huh?

 

Go to any media wb site and point out the lie !!!!

 

Wait, you want me to provide you with links to lies from the media?
Just the ones they were caught with?
There isn't enough data space for that post

 

Thank you

Got a link?

And how many presidents in US History have issued EOs of debatable constitutionality? These are hardly of a comparable magnitude insofar as the 'insurrection against the US Constitution' caliber of violations committed by Trump which have resulted in some 45 felony counts.

I'll file that in the hysterics and other hyperbole complaints file. See above.

 

My point is that I don't reject someone's argument regarding an American issue just because they are not American.

I would consider more pertinent facts, like their credentials, their knowledge, experience and expertise, as the decisive factors.

And, in point of fact, your comment didn't negate that point.

If you think otherwise, then let's see your reasoning.

 

Yeah right. !!!!
Buck up and provide one link !!!!

 

Update!

If U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese's Amicus Brief is correct, than Jack Smith may not have a job as Special Counsel come the New Year.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0231220140217967_US v. Trump amicus final.pdf



CONCLUSION

Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review. We express no views on the merits issues addressed in Smith’s unauthorized petition.

 

So Math says 13 of the 50 states have looked at this.....simple math eludes you......36 states with 240 havent even reviewed it yet....see how dumb that sounds...

 

I'll look him up later, but I read his article on Politico. He was actual someone widely cited by Trumpists when he was saying that Trump could not be impeached after leaving office, but Trumpists turned on him when he said the 14th Amendment disqualified him.