It’s difficult to see how this survives SCOTUS for a lot of reasons (how does a court in Colorado decide that someone committed a crime in another jurisdiction where the defendant is never afforded due process), but it does show just how anti-democratic the liberals have become and the lengths to which they are willing to go to get their way.
DENVER (AP) — A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
I do find it funny that the CO court used a Gorsuch precedent to assist in making this ruling. And whatever happened to “allowing the states” to conduct and control their elections the way they see fit? Funny how that gets thrown out the window.
In general, I disagree with the ruling as well and hope that the SC throws it out.
The decision wasn’t designed to withstand the inevitable appeal within the legal process. It was designed to influence public opinion in the interim. They actually left themselves an out the size of an eight lane freeway that keeps Trump on the ballot.
It should concern every American that the political class is finding it soooo easy to suspend due process of law when it becomes expedient to further political aims. Trump’s political opponents, both Democrat and Republican alike, seem to believe they can control this genie they’re letting out of the bottle. I don’t agree. The legal abuses being used for your political benefit today could just as easily be used against you in the future. That’s not wisdom… it’s just plain common sense.
The five who voted FOR this inane decision are Harvard Law grads.
The four minority are U of Denver grads.
By the way, the text of the 14th/3 does NOT mention “President.” Apparently at Harvard Law, the ability to read is not a requirement.
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.
Dad29, I wonder if the argument could be made that he is the Commander in Chief of the army and that would qualify as a military office?
The President’s position is sui generis, as he is in charge of all Executive departments except when they are full of hard-Left brats who don’t do what they’re told. As such, his duty as CinC is not likely to fall under the meaning of the 14th.
>And whatever happened to “allowing the states” to conduct and control their elections the way they see fit? Funny how that gets thrown out the window.
How would that work JV? Any court in any State that wants to affect a national election can decide who is on the ballot? States can do whatever they want with their own State elections, but it does seem like national elections must fall under federal jurisdiction, don’t you think?
What if every red State in the union took Joe Biden off the ballot for failing mental issues? It would be hard for anyone to win a national election if they were only allowed to get votes in half the States.
I think it’s very revelatory that the CO court… with every justice picked by Democrats, was split. Even more so that jv said he doesn’t agree with their decision either.
Tuerqas. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Each state has a completely different way for independents to get on the ballot. We currently allow the states to determine their own rules for ballot access. “It would be hard for anyone to win a national election if they were only allowed to get votes in half the States.”… welcome to the 2 party system that we have now. Both sides have made it so difficult for a true independent candidate to get on ballots in EVERY state. We currently allow states to handle elections almost any way they want. Different ballot types, different voting machines, different voting hours. Look at how many larger cities have gotten screwed with wait times because the party in power doesn’t want to open up additional polling locations.
But YOU are drawing the line at the state court allowing someone to be on a PRIMARY ballot? So do you want the national government to setup voting standards for all national elections? Times, voting density, candidates, ballot type, etc? How very “big government” of you.
Like I said, I don’t agree with the decision because Trump hasn’t been convicted.
Personally, I think the Nov. voting day should be a national holiday each year. **shrug**
I think the Nov. voting day should be a national holiday each year.
Good idea!! Let’s perfect it: no more mail-in voting, and no more drop-boxes. There will be NO EXCUSE for not showing up on Election Holiday!
Interesting conversation here. Some thoughts:
>>>>By the way, the text of the 14th/3 does NOT mention “President.”
But it does mention “officer of the united states” which the court said included the President. There is a LOT of debate about this, and it is interesting. I tend to agree that it includes the president because the constitution refers to the presidency as an office in other places (Article 1 Section 3 for example)
>>>>Like I said, I don’t agree with the decision because Trump hasn’t been convicted.
The text says “engages” not convicted. yes it is semantics, but important one IMHO
>>>> There will be NO EXCUSE for not showing up on Election Holiday!
Well except for being deployed….or working overseas…or working an an occupation that does not get national holidays off……or being confined to home or a medical facility…..
Let Red States start to get rid of Biden off the ballot for supporting enemies of the US.
That’s easily provable.
But isn’t Colorado one the first states to legalize pot?
Seems like these 4 justices have partaked in smoking the bong for years.
>Look at how many larger cities have gotten screwed with wait times because the party in power doesn’t want to open up additional polling locations.
Remember just a couple topics ago about the standard of proof you were demanding regarding FOIA requests and shady communications via shady and illegal email addresses?
Please supply some here for your misinformation statement. And I demand that proof to include factual details on “how the party in charge acted in some nefarious way to help said party stay in charge.”
>Personally, I think the Nov. voting day should be a national holiday each year. **shrug**
I’m ok with that too, as long as some sort of ID is required to vote.
Jason.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl
Too bad you just looked at the headline and skimmed. It doesn’t address proof of anything, and actually disagrees with your implications.
“But the bill, SB 463, was opposed by Democratic lawmakers and voting rights groups, who argued that any revamping in an election year would cause confusion and create more ways to keep people from casting their ballot.”
“Nikema Williams, chair of Georgia’s Democratic Party, said that while state officials took little or no action to stop widespread voting problems in nonwhite communities, local elections officials are also responsible, since they ultimately decide whether to close or open more voting sites.”
Want to keep trying? Or just stick with your misinformation?
Well except for being deployed….or working overseas…or working an an occupation that does not get national holidays off……or being confined to home or a medical facility…..
Those should have been mentioned in the post. But: 1) “confined to home”? Will require solid proof of condition. Also require 2 witnesses (one D, one R) for votes of hospitalized/nursing home residents. 2) ‘…not get holidays off…..’ Really? They work 24 hours? Polls are open from 0700-2000 and that time can be extended under the law.
Jason, I never said it was ONLY due to the gov’t in charge. Unlike you, I am not trying to pin the entire country’s problems on one side. It is a much wider spread issue. Voting suppression happens in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people. And thankfully the past 2 or 3 years the wait times have been much better for many places. But that is probably due directly to mail-in voting, early voting, and drop boxes for people.
Dad, I don’t think that your hospital/nursing home requirement is realistic. One D and one R? What about independents? The logistics of that are a very large hurdle to jump. And what kind of “solid proof” would you require? Doctors note? That wouldn’t be hard to fake or receive.
>Jason, I never said it was ONLY due to the gov’t in charge.
No, you said this “Look at how many larger cities have gotten screwed with wait times because the party in power doesn’t want to open up additional polling locations.”
With no proof… and when asked, you linked to some rando article that doesn’t offer a shred of evidence of your statement. You’re funny – 7 times you wrote the word “PROOF” in this discussion – https://www.bootsandsabers.com/2023/11/27/tony-evers-denies-lawful-open-records-disclosures-with-secret-email/
And yet you just want to slip in your own falsehoods and misinformation. Tell me again how impartial you are – your actions don’t match your words today.
The logistics are a cakewalk. The vote-fraud committed in nursing homes is disgusting. 2) OK, then: notarized doctor’s note. We had plenty of “confined” people who were on the ski slopes the day after “confinement.” IOW, fraudsters. By co-incidence, at least one was a prominent Democrat. Sheer co-incidence. Never happened before in history.
I tend to agree that it includes the president because the constitution refers to the presidency as an office in other places (Article 1 Section 3 for example)
Your Con-Law creds, aside from that?
I don’t have any at all. I just read a lot. And 14/3 does NOT apply to the President.