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

Well, Dersh says at least this will be over turned.

 

No you and fellow travelers don't believe in Democracy; that's why you've broken every norm we've had to deny Trump even the opportunity to run for re-election. I'll predict that even if Trump somehow beats all of your fake criminal charges, this absurd section 3 challenge, and wins the election, you guys will still deny him the Presidency.

As it is, you guys are running Radio Rwanda 24/7 on your favorite news channels hoping that some lunatic takes care of your meddlesome billionaire problem.

You guys have already killed democracy, you just don't know it.

 

That's what authoritarian types do.

 

This won't be the last attempt by the left to overthrow our democracy.

 

These are the people that lied to the FISA court to engage in 3 years of Russia hoax. It has been said if voting really ever changed anything, it would be illegal. They sure are trying.

 

Of course their isn't in rigthwinglandia…..

 

Serious question Condor:

We know for a fact that Donald Trump tried to get fake electors to cast votes via Mike Pence, and he tried to get Mike Pence to lie about those votes. This isnt up for debate because Trump admitted he did…..is that acceptable to you ?

Insurrection:

 

They were alternate electors as stipulated in the Electoral Act of 1887... a law on the books for 135 years... they are no different from the Hamilton electors, just change the names from fake to faithless and all is good...

Democrats set the precedent when overthrowing democracy.... would you like to talk about it?? George Santyana : "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

""America needs 37 “faithless electors” from states Trump won""
Looks like they will have to explain the “Hamilton electors,” a group of electors who have sworn not to vote for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/15/opinions/faithless-electors-save-america-piro/index.html

Meet the 'Hamilton Electors' Hoping for an Electoral College Revolt
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oping-for-an-electoral-college-revolt/508433/

The last-ditch push for the Electoral College to stop Trump, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

""The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the "Hamilton Electors" co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election


""A group of so-called “Hamilton Electors” — nine Democrats and one Republican who borrowed the Found Father’s name in a nod toward his call for deliberation — has been working to persuade at least 36 other Republicans to ditch Trump, just enough to block his immediate election and send the contest to the House of Representatives.""
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogue-electors-hamilton-232802

 

Does it bother you that the Democrats did the same thing and set the precedent?
it was a law already on the books..... only the Democrats tried it before and got away with it....
It is the same law the Democrats tried in 2000, 2004, 2017....

January 6, 2017.... seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ho...ion-results-fight-republicans-2020-challenges

 

Well… yes it does. Those are officers of the US.

See, in 1888(after the ratification of the 14th) SCOTUS ruled that officers of the US are appointed. In 2010, SCOTUS ruled that people do not vote for officers of the US. Both of those EXCLUDE the president.

So all those positions you mentioned…. Those ARE officers of the US so are included in the amendment.

 

Lets go with that. Lets agree everything you just posted is fact.
Guess what else we know?

Obama sent a plane load of cash to terrorist usurping the federal banking system. Aiding the enemy
Hillary Clinton was involved in selling Uranium to the Russians. Aiding the enemy
Biden has fought against the US at every turn to stop illegals from crossing our borders.
Biden is involved in selling his influence to foreign nationals and we have the bank accounts to prove it
Kamala was shouting for protestors to continue while they were murdering Americans and burning down billions in American businesses

Now don't EVEN try and tell me this is even up for debate or that judges on the right aren't convinced of any of it.
You don't get the one way privilege.

You really want to open this pandoras box? Because if you thought this would be an isolated event just to get Trump, you aren't paying attention to reality.

 

By name…by name..! Yes, it simply describes them all as a group of “officers”….including the President.

 

See my earlier response. What I was saying was that it doesn’t refer to them individually, as Secretary of this and that. It lumps them together as “officers”…including the President.

 

Another serious note to consider
I will give you another example of a pandora box moment ignored by Democrats that cost them dearly.

During Obamas second term, the Democrats in the Senate couldn't get 60 votes to move their federal judges on the bench.
So what did they do? Employed the nuclear option (First time in history) to get them affirmed with only 51 votes.

Fast forward to Trumps election. 3 Conservative judges appointed to the SCOTUS with only 51 votes. Another historical first.

So my warning to Democrats here is, don't be so blinded by hatred for Trump, to open doors that will be costly to your future.
You are asking the SCOTUS to confirm judges have the right to accuse a candidate so they can use the 14th to remove them from ballots.
Do you really think all Republicans are so honest they won't do the very same thing?
I know you know better than that

 

They have different criteria for eligibility…! You have to be >35 years old to be President. Do voters have to be >35…? Of course not, so your “logic” that they somehow should be the same flies out the window…

 

No judge in this case “declared” that a crime had been committed….but you know that…

 

We’re not discussing age, we are discussing what each mentions criminally. I’d they don’t have to be tried of said crimes or insurrection then it then becomes a matter of opinion. It only flies out the window for those who want it to work in their favor. Whether you want to admit it or not this most definitely opens a door in both sections because neither mentions conviction for what can be a limiting factor.

 

Dems resemble Putin so much more than they realize.

 

No, we were discussing eligibility and ineligibility. YOU claim that if a conviction of a crime makes a voter ineligible, then it should apply also to someone running for President…and vice versa. Well, sorry…you can’t make that ‘leap of logic’ in isolation…

 

Then what is the argument for disqualifying Trump from office?? You just declared that you have no case for removing Trump using A14S3. Or is your argument going to be "insurrection isn't really a crime you know"???

 

Are presidents appointed or elected? If elected, see 2010 SCOTUS ruling(not an officer of the US).

 

Claiming someone engaged in insurrection, and is guilty of that, AND we have laws on the books(federal NOT state) declaring that a criminal offense, yes, he was being considered guilty of a federal crime.

 

And thats what scares everyone about allowing low information voters to actually vote.

Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...tates-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484
The high court's decision reverses a lower court's ruling that said Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting a riot on Jan. 6, 2021, but that presidents are not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

The majority of the state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court judge, Sarah B. Wallace, that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but rejected her finding that the president is not an officer of the country that elected him.

 

Suggest you do some reading…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/731

" This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

“In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.”

 

50 pages and you don’t get it…? The court did not require a conviction of a crime. It simply had to be satisfied that he had ENGAGED in supporting the insurrection. Read the wording of Section 3…