Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The lower court decided UNIANIMOUSLY that Trump took part in an insurrection. The CO SC didn't touch that because higher courts are loathe to reverse findings of fact. Same applies for the USC. The only way the USC finds for Trump in this case is if they ignore the plain language of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Why do so many people believe civil proceedings don’t count, or that only criminal convictions count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

There was no lie in the PP's post. That you think there are lies means you need new sources of information, not the ones who have settled court cases for 10 figures for their lies.

Also, the US Constitution does not specify that one be convicted of Insurrection in order to be ineligible. The Colorado court system found after many days of proceedings, that Trump had participated in the insurrection. That is the threshold outlined in the Constitution.

And...

Trump is going to have trouble squaring the circle of slow playing this case in parallel to the Jack Smith cases dealing with whether or not Trump is...an insurrectionist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Supreme Court says that the office of President isn't an "office" or that attempting to violently overthrow the United States government isn't an "insurrection," then the state courts are probably stuck with the Supreme Court's Humpty-Dumpty definitions.

But, if they didn't weigh in on the subject and then Trump were to win the national Republican primary, he'd still likely be off the ballot in Colorado. (Someone would bring a similar challenge with respect to the general election and the courts would follow the same path.) Part of our federalist structure is seen in state-level ballot access procedures.

They cannot do that. Article II of the Constitution explicitly states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

How can strict constitutionalists deny that the second Article explicitly calls it the Office of the President? That would be ridiculous when it was plain and explicit for all to see.

Also, the 14th amendment, section 3 says:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

It is pretty clear here that the 14th amendment meant to include the office of the President, as was defined in Article II.

[Anonymous]

Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal for a sitting president to foment insurrections at any time, which obviously makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait to VOTE FOR TRUMP. Please leave if it makes you unhappy when he is elected again!

Well, hopefully you don't live in Colorado (unless you're planning to vote for him as a write-in candidate).

If Trump is barred from the ballot in Colorado his write-in votes would not count either.

Yes, the court ruling specifically barred the Secretary of State from listing his name on the primary ballot and counting any write-in votes for him.

[Anonymous]

The voters already spoke with respect to Trump and that ended with an insurrection and attempted coup.

Why should Trump get another chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This tweet made me laugh out loud. After years of Fox, Daily Wire, and all the right wing grifters telling their prole audience to not let their kids go to college, have them pick up a trade and do manual labor instead:

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal for a sitting president to foment insurrections at any time, which obviously makes no sense.

If Trump is not barred from being elected, what is to stop any president losing an election in December from refusing to allow Congress to convene in January to count and certify the electoral vote. He can just gather any militia to come and prevent the electoral college from meeting at the Capitol. It doesn't have to be violent if they just barricade the Capitol and prevent the Congressmen and Senators from convening. If they were not violent, then it wouldn't be insurrection. If the military or LEO appeared, the militia would just be defending themselves from attack and ensuring a free state, but protecting the POTUS's rights.

This argument that what Trump did, in trying to impede and overturn a legally and multply recounted election that he lost, not being an insurrection and that as a then-sitting lame duck president, he have immunity would completely undermine our entire system of government by giving carte blanche power to the president to reject his departure from office, essentially declarering himself an authoritarian leader.

[Anonymous]

Well the last time democrats wanted to keep a republican off the ballot was Lincoln in 1860.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.