Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from serving as president

[Bigun]

bele wrote:
"From my understanding each state has their own laws regarding elections and as long as they are in compliance with federal laws the states cannot be overruled "

I disagree.

The Constitution specifies the "qualifications" of who can serve as president.
They are limited, but explicitly stated.

By its ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court has created "out of thin air" ANOTHER "qualification" (or, more accurately, a "DISqualification") of its own. And having created such disqualification, it then decides that because of same, Mr. Trump is "ineligible" to appear on the state primary ballot.

If I was on Mr. Trump's legal team, this is the approach I'd take.

A state court has no right to impose new qualifications for a presidential candidate above and beyond those already existing in the Constitution.

By doing so, that court's ruling is of and by itself, UNconstitutional.

  

[mystery-ak]

Critics of Colorado's Trump ballot ban comparable to confederates: NYT writer
The Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from state ballots for inciting 'insurrection'
By Lindsay Kornick Fox News
Published December 20, 2023 6:00pm EST

[mystery-ak]

Joe Biden
@JoeBiden
·
13m
Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America’s standing in the world.

But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy.

If we lose that, we lose everything.

[libertybele]

Joe Biden
@JoeBiden
·
13m
Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America’s standing in the world.

But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy.

If we lose that, we lose everything.

No.  YOU and the DEMS pose those threats. What a flippin' liar and hypocrite.

Let's Go Brandon!!

[mountaineer]

Biden's FBI probably is investigating every tweeter who responded to his idiotic comment at this very moment.

[Smokin Joe]

He hasn't been convicted of anything. On what basis did they make their ruling?

Exactly. The ruling flies in the face of the 5th Amendment, and others.

Some folks need to be relieved of their duties if they are making rulings like this.

[LMAO]

Critics of Colorado's Trump ballot ban comparable to confederates: NYT writer
The Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from state ballots for inciting 'insurrection'
By Lindsay Kornick Fox News
Published December 20, 2023 6:00pm EST

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6343619389112&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at foxnews.com</noscript>

Have folks notice that the left only loves America and are concerned about treason when it serves their own purpose?

These are people that can’t stand this country. Yet somehow in this one case, they are concerned about traitors?

[LMAO]

No.  YOU and the DEMS pose those threats. What a flippin' liar and hypocrite.

Let's Go Brandon!!

I’m beginning to hate the word democracy like I hate the words equality and justice

If democracy means labeling parents that show up to  school board meeting with domestic terrorist labels, forcing people to take an experimental jab to remain employed, and having a government body that monitors people social media posts, count me out

[Smokin Joe]

I’m beginning to hate the word democracy like I hate the words equality and justice

If democracy means labeling parents that show up to  school board meeting with domestic terrorist labels, forcing people to take an experimental jab to remain employed, and having a government body that monitors people social media posts, count me out

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu. Mob rule.

[Hoodat]

Have folks notice that the left only loves America and are concerned about treason when it serves their own purpose?

These are people that can’t stand this country. Yet somehow in this one case, they are concerned about traitors?

Ayn Rand described this as the second greatest evil - holding others to a standard that you yourself don't follow,

[mystery-ak]

Chairs of group that led effort to boot Trump from Colorado ballot donated to Biden
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington helped bring the lawsuit against former President Trump on behalf of 6 voters
By Joe Schoffstall , Aubrie Spady Fox News
Published December 21, 2023 12:01pm EST

The board chairs of the group that brought the lawsuit leading to former President Donald Trump's removal from the 2024 Colorado ballot had previously donated large sums to President Biden's campaign and victory fund, filings reviewed by Fox News Digital show.

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the ballot on Tuesday under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots.

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the court's majority wrote. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a self-identified "nonpartisan" watchdog group, brought the Colorado lawsuit against Trump on behalf of "six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials," the group wrote on its website in early September.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chairs-group-led-effort-boot-trump-colorado-ballot-donated-biden

[mountaineer]

Alan Dershowitz: “There is no power in a state court to enforce the 14th Amendment.”

Section 5 reads: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce…the provisions of this article.”

https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1738019976294826408

[LMAO]

Alan Dershowitz: “There is no power in a state court to enforce the 14th Amendment.”

Section 5 reads: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce…the provisions of this article.”

https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1738019976294826408

And this alone is probably why this will be overturned

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If Section 5 (which applies to the entire Amendment, not just Section 3 and the insurrection clause) requires implementing legislation before courts may apply it, then courts wouldn't have been able to apply either the due process or equal protection clauses contained in Section 1 either.  Yet, both federal and state courts have been doing that since the Amendment was first passed despite the lack of implementing language from Congress.

Concurrent jurisdiction of state courts over claims raised under federal law is a very long-established principle.  The exceptions are those laws where Congress has specified exclusive federal jurisdiction, which it has not done with respect to the 14th Amendment.

That being said, I agree that the Colorado decision will be overturned.  Just not on this specific ground.

[Hoodat]

Alan Dershowitz: “There is no power in a state court to enforce the 14th Amendment.”

Section 5 reads: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce…the provisions of this article.”

https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1738019976294826408

Game, set, match.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Game, set, match.

Like I said, I don't think it's that simple.  I think the correct argument along these lines is that Congress actually has passed such legislation.  That would be 18 U.S.C 2383, which reads:

 

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

What I would argue is that because Congress has passed a law that expressly defines insurrection and refers to the prohibition on holding office, application of the 14th Amendment prohibition would require a conviction under that statute.

Because Trump has not been convicted under that statute, or even charged, It would be a violation of due process to treat him as having engaged in insurrection.

Adding even more weight to that conclusion is the Senate's failure a convict him under charges that approximated insurrection. I believe it will be the lack of a Senate conviction, plus the lack of a conviction under 2383, that will form the linchpin of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court.  I'd also predict that argument gets more than six votes on the Supreme Court. In other words every Republican appointee plus at least one Democratic appointee will buy that argument.

The court might also find that the prohibition doesn't apply to the President at all, But I actually think that argument would get less support than the one relying on 18 USC 2383 and the lack of a Senate conviction.

[Hoodat]

I am more interested in what the law actually says than I am with the way lawyers try to finagle around it.

[Hoodat]

Just to note, two of the four majority justices did not serve a day on the bench before being appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court.  How's that for precedence?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I am more interested in what the law actually says than I am with the way lawyers try to finagle around it.

Then read 18 U.S.C. 2383.

[libertybele]

Ultimately, we'll see how SCOTUS rules. They are the key as to whether or not Trump will run.  Will they throw their hands up and walk away, or rule?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ultimately, we'll see how SCOTUS rules. They are the key as to whether or not Trump will run.  Will they throw their hands up and walk away, or rule?

You mean state legislatures, hell state judges, can just issue a "Bill of Atainder", unilaterally decree someone an "insurrectionist" with no trial and ban them from the ballot of absolutely no way to appeal? Sounds like a fun future for our Republic.

[Hoodat]

You mean state legislatures, hell state judges, can just issue a "Bill of Atainder", unilaterally decree someone an "insurrectionist" with no trial and ban them from the ballot of absolutely no way to appeal? Sounds like a fun future for our Republic.

You have a point.  Black-robed tyrants, indeed.

US Constitution

Article 1

Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

While 'bill' is considered the purvey of the Legislature, it does say 'State' and not 'State Legislature'.  So technically, this should apply to the State of Colorado as a whole and not just the Colorado State Legislature.

[Hoodat]

Then read 18 U.S.C. 2383.

Read US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Read US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

I did.  18 U.S.C. 2383 created the process by which someone can be declared an insurrectionist.  The failure to obtain a conviction under that statute before taking action against someone as an "insurrectionist" is a violation of Due Process under Section 1 of the 14th.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Jason Chaffetz: "I think it’s scary… the number of people that are willing to take somebody off the ballot, unilaterally, for a crime he was never charged with, never convicted of.”. (Video)

https://twitter.com/MAGAIncWarRoom/status/1738222796063531300