Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's heading to SCOTUS.

Is there any doubt that the SC will apply different standards for Trump than it would for, say, Lyndon LaRouche?

[Anonymous]

Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

The significance is that a state determined someone's Constitutional eligiblity to be on the ballot. Gorsuch's opinion on it when it came before the appeals court he was on upheld that. Will he change his mind now that he's on the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

The 14th amendment isn’t actually part of the constitution is….an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

There was a 5 day trial. You just didn’t like the outcome.

Trump’s lawyers should have spent more time on disputing facts, instead of whining about how the people on the J6 committee were too biased against Trump. It’s too late to dispute facts now.

[Anonymous]

Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

You are obviously deranged and not logical because you stubbornly refuse to accept or acknowledge that *Donald Trump* has not been convicted of any crimes in the name of treason.

The Colorado and Maine actions are declaring Trump guilty of a crime he has not been prosecuted and convicted for. Not even Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump under the treason clauses. I had once thought that the legal system in this country was based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The latter part is very important. Trump has not been proven guilty of treason by any court in this country.

SCOTUS will naturally shoot this down fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

You are obviously deranged and not logical because you stubbornly refuse to accept or acknowledge that *Donald Trump* has not been convicted of any crimes in the name of treason.

The Colorado and Maine actions are declaring Trump guilty of a crime he has not been prosecuted and convicted for. Not even Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump under the treason clauses. I had once thought that the legal system in this country was based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The latter part is very important. Trump has not been proven guilty of treason by any court in this country.

SCOTUS will naturally shoot this down fast.

"Stubbornly refuse to accept" lol

SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

You are obviously deranged and not logical because you stubbornly refuse to accept or acknowledge that *Donald Trump* has not been convicted of any crimes in the name of treason.

The Colorado and Maine actions are declaring Trump guilty of a crime he has not been prosecuted and convicted for. Not even Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump under the treason clauses. I had once thought that the legal system in this country was based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The latter part is very important. Trump has not been proven guilty of treason by any court in this country.

SCOTUS will naturally shoot this down fast.

What if he is proven guilty of supporting/encouraging/instigating the insurrection? Would you agree he cannot run/serve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

You are obviously deranged and not logical because you stubbornly refuse to accept or acknowledge that *Donald Trump* has not been convicted of any crimes in the name of treason.

The Colorado and Maine actions are declaring Trump guilty of a crime he has not been prosecuted and convicted for. Not even Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump under the treason clauses. I had once thought that the legal system in this country was based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The latter part is very important. Trump has not been proven guilty of treason by any court in this country.

SCOTUS will naturally shoot this down fast.

They may shoot it down, but we and they all know he’s guilty. He’ll be dead of a heart attack in a couple years, and history will always remember the Trump Insurrection as recorded in the SCOTUS landmark decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

In federal court, six people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, a crime related to insurrection and treason.

Those are true facts, unlike your fake facts.

They’re running for President, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe posted already on this thread?
Gorsuch opinion when Colorado said a naturalized citizen (first name Abdul) could not be on the ballot, upholding the state's power to impose constitutional requirements on candidates.

That would be true in ANY state.
It is a specific requirement in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What Colorado has decided isn't. Especially since it is clear that "insurrection" has not been defined WRT Jan. 6. No court has heard evidence nor found anyone guilty of such. A single state (or even a few states) making that declaration doesn't make it so.

The significance is that a state determined someone's Constitutional eligiblity to be on the ballot. Gorsuch's opinion on it when it came before the appeals court he was on upheld that. Will he change his mind now that he's on the Supreme Court?

You bet he’ll change his mind! Nothing means anything to these extremist judges, not even their own prior opinions. There’s always a loophole and nothing means anything.

Never vote for a Republican again.