Trump kicked off Colorado ballot (14th Amendment)

[Melensdad]

Looks like we have a problem for the Trump campaign to resolve.

READ: Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from ballot under 14th Amendment

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday evening issued a ruling that former President Trump should be prevented from appearing on the GOP primary ballot next year. The ruling reverses a previous deci…

thehill.com

Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from ballot under 14th Amendment​

AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool
Donald Trump sits at the defense table at New York Supreme Court, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Pool)

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday evening issued a ruling that former President Donald Trump should be prevented from appearing on the GOP primary ballot next year.

The ruling reverses a previous decision by a district court that ruled that the disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment, originally intended to address secessionists in the wake of the Civil War, did not apply to Trump.

 

[Melensdad]

Viewpoint from CNN

Live updates: Colorado Supreme Court rules on Trump 14th Amendment case

The Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn't an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban." Follow here for the latest live news updates.

www.cnn.com

The 14th Amendment is at the center of the Colorado challenge against Trump. Here's what it says​

From CNN's Marshall Cohen

A Colorado judge ruled in November that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidentiall electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

The major decision issued by Wallace came after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots. Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.
However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

 

[Melensdad]

And Politico's take on the story:

Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again

It ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

www.politico.com

Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again​

It ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.​

12/19/2023 06:14 PM EST

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday threw former President Donald Trump off the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, ruling that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “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.”

The court is the first in the nation to side with activists and voters who have filed numerous lawsuits claiming that Trump is barred from holding future office under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.” It reverses a lower-court ruling that found Trump had engaged in insurrection but that the Constitution’s ambiguity on the matter left Trump eligible to remain on the ballot.

 

[m1west]

And Politico's take on the story:

Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again

It ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

www.politico.com

Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again​

It ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.​

12/19/2023 06:14 PM EST

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday threw former President Donald Trump off the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, ruling that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “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.”

The court is the first in the nation to side with activists and voters who have filed numerous lawsuits claiming that Trump is barred from holding future office under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.” It reverses a lower-court ruling that found Trump had engaged in insurrection but that the Constitution’s ambiguity on the matter left Trump eligible to remain on the ballot.

Thats a state court ruling on a national election, it will never fly in the end.

 

[tommu56]

What would be amazing if he won Colorado on a write in ballot.
But in the end I dont think they will hold in court unless theres a conviction your inocent till proven guilty and theres no conviction!

 

[Melensdad]

But in the end I dont think they will hold in court unless theres a conviction your innocent till proven guilty and theres no conviction!

This is the part that confuses me.

The Colorado court essentially says or implies that Trump is guilty. But he has not been convicted of anything (at least not yet). So how could the basic presumption of innocence engraved in our law be enforced?

Thats a state court ruling on a national election, it will never fly in the end.

Pretty sure that the federal courts have allowed states to administer their elections, in their own way, many times. Each state has its own set of election laws, etc.

I believe there needs to be a Constitutional Issue or some sort of violation of Federal law for this to get bumped up to, ultimately, our Supreme Court. But there must be some way to get this into federal courts or up to the Supreme Court. I mean there just has to be. I simply don't understand what mechanism exists for that. Blame my own ignorance.

 

[tommu56]

What happens to Biden if he is impeached and convicted of something will his name be removed from the ballot????
Riddle me that batman!

 

[Melensdad]

If impeached, nothing.

Not sure about a conviction, I would assume that he could still be President while in jail unless there is a law preventing that, at which point we'd get VP Kamala Harris as our President.

 

[bczoom]

Assuming this goes to the Federal Supreme Court and they overturn this, does that then throw away many of the other cases currently in progress for Trump?

 

[Melensdad]

From the folks at ZeroHedge, apparently even without going to the US Supreme Court, there is a 'work around' solution that involves switching to a Caucus format from a Primary format.

Full story at link >>> https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ophole-after-state-supremes-boot-trump-ballot

Colorado GOP Unveils 'Caucus' Loophole After State Supremes Boot Trump From Ballot​

In response to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on state ballots, the Colorado Republican Party has trotted out a loophole - whereby they'll switch from a primary ballot system to a caucus system.​

​

​

​

In response to candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's threat to pull out of the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is allowed back on, the Colorado Republican Party responded: "You won't have to because we will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand."​

​

Difference between a primary and a caucus​

​

A primary is a state-level election in which voters pick a candidate to run in the general election, whereas a caucus system is essentially a local meeting where a party's registered members from a city, town, or country vote for their preferred candidate - which in this case would allow them to bypass the primary ballot issue regarding Trump.​

​

The GOP members can then elect Trump for the 2024 race, according to the Epoch Times, which adds;​

​

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to bar President Trump from the state ballot makes Colorado the first and only state to take such an action.​

​

The decision was based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits individuals who have engaged in “insurrection” from taking public office. . . .​

​

 

[FrancSevin]

Insurrection???

As I recall, Donald Trump was not in the Capitol building during the demonstration by Americans wanting the Senate to just openly "Validate" the 2020 election results.

The rhetoric that every Politician uses to "fight for your rights" was conveniently interpreted to be an insurrection. No arms were used by anyone but the Capitol police who killed an unarmed civilian.

If we let this stand, our nation is toast. Only the election of a strong conservative President will get justice for Ms. Ashley Babbit and that crime of cold murder.

The threshing floor, where laws are made and taxes levied, needs to be cleared and cleaned of corruption.

 

[chowderman]

there is an upside . . . . left untouched, the combination and permutation of 50 states + DC will result in no one on the ballot to elect....

history repeats
Hitler:
In July 1933, other political parties were banned. The Law Against the Formation of New Parties meant only the Nazi Party was allowed to exist.
. . . . and the Nazi party won by a landslide . . .

 

[pirate_girl]

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is running as an independent for president in 2024, issued a warning after Colorado’s Supreme Court blocked former President Trump from the ballot over Jan. 6.

"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.

"It’s time to trust the voters. It is up to the people to decide who the best candidate is. Not the courts. The people. That’s Democracy 101," Kennedy said. "When any candidate is deprived of his right to run, the American people are deprived of their right to choose."

Calling for a swift reversal, RFK Jr. said the 4-3 Colorado decision deeming Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause, "contributes to the perception that the elites are picking the President by manipulating the legal system, and through other interventions."

"Every American should be troubled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot," Kennedy wrote on X. "The court has deprived him of a consequential right without having been convicted of a crime. This was done without an evidentiary hearing in which he is given the basic right of confronting his accusers."

RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said Colorado Supreme Court's ruling blocking former President Donald Trump from the ballot deprives American voters of a "fair election."

www.foxnews.com

 

[FrancSevin]

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is running as an independent for president in 2024, issued a warning after Colorado’s Supreme Court blocked former President Trump from the ballot over Jan. 6.

"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.

"It’s time to trust the voters. It is up to the people to decide who the best candidate is. Not the courts. The people. That’s Democracy 101," Kennedy said. "When any candidate is deprived of his right to run, the American people are deprived of their right to choose."

Calling for a swift reversal, RFK Jr. said the 4-3 Colorado decision deeming Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause, "contributes to the perception that the elites are picking the President by manipulating the legal system, and through other interventions."

"Every American should be troubled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot," Kennedy wrote on X. "The court has deprived him of a consequential right without having been convicted of a crime. This was done without an evidentiary hearing in which he is given the basic right of confronting his accusers."

RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said Colorado Supreme Court's ruling blocking former President Donald Trump from the ballot deprives American voters of a "fair election."

www.foxnews.com

RFK is spot on right.

 

[EastTexFrank]

RFK makes sense to me. I'm starting to worry about myself and my thinking now.

 

[tiredretired]

The last time a candidate was kept off the presidential ballot, through judicial fiat, it was 1860 and the candidate was Abraham Lincoln,

Guess what party did it. Yep, you got it, the Dumbocrat Party.

This ruling hurts the down ballot candidates more than Trump. No way he was going to win CO. Cheating and ballot harvesting is now beginning to become an art form for the communist party,

 

[pirate_girl]

RFK makes sense to me. I'm starting to worry about myself and my thinking now.

But wait! There's more.

RFK Jr slams California Lt Gov for eyeing bid to remove Trump from ballot | Fox News

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blasted the California lieutenant governor's order to the secretary of state to "explore legal options" for keeping former President Donald Trump off the ballot.

www.foxnews.com

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blasted the California lieutenant governor for calling on the state's secretary of state to "explore legal options" to remove former President Trump from the ballot.

Kennedy blasted Golden State Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis in a tweet after her Wednesday orders to Secretary of State Shirley Weber to look into "legal options" to take Trump off the ballot.

"Someone needs to explain to Lt. Governor Kounalakis that in democracy, we choose candidates by VOTING," Kennedy wrote. "Not by legal maneuvers to get them off the ballot."

 

[Melensdad]

Some officials in Texas are looking to have Biden removed from the ballot.

Apparently using the 14th Amendment also.

This is all very dangerous to the Republic

 

[Kevlar]

It should be a red flag to everyone when all the career politicians are doing everything they can to keep an outsider from running. Absolutely disgraceful. These people live in a world of their own and will do anything to protect that.

 

[m1west]

This is the part that confuses me.

The Colorado court essentially says or implies that Trump is guilty. But he has not been convicted of anything (at least not yet). So how could the basic presumption of innocence engraved in our law be enforced?





Pretty sure that the federal courts have allowed states to administer their elections, in their own way, many times. Each state has its own set of election laws, etc.

I believe there needs to be a Constitutional Issue or some sort of violation of Federal law for this to get bumped up to, ultimately, our Supreme Court. But there must be some way to get this into federal courts or up to the Supreme Court. I mean there just has to be. I simply don't understand what mechanism exists for that. Blame my own ignorance.

The state electors control the elections, not the courts. I believe there is a recent SCOTUS ruling on that after the last stolen election where state courts changed the rules.

 

[m1west]

Some officials in Texas are looking to have Biden removed from the ballot.

Apparently using the 14th Amendment also.

This is all very dangerous to the Republic

Florida also

 

[FrancSevin]

Some officials in Texas are looking to have Biden removed from the ballot.

Apparently using the 14th Amendment also.

This is all very dangerous to the Republic

Florida also

I think not. The court of public opinion does not have any legal standing.
There may be evidence suggesting, via interpretation of the term "Insurrection," but no actual trial and conviction of treason or insurrection. So how does the Supreme courts of those states conclude the 14th amendment applies?

 

[Melensdad]

This blog is just one of many editorials on this topic. I do know that the Washington Post, a far left mainstream media source, strongly disagrees with the Colorado ruling and is in favor of keeping Trump on the ballot. There are many opinions in between this blog and the WaPo.

Should Texas Ban Biden from the Ballot for Not Securing the Border?

Why not? Wouldn’t it make as much sense as Colorado’s ban of Trump?

mishtalk.com

​

Should Texas Ban Biden from the Ballot for Not Securing the Border?​

Wouldn’t it make as much sense as Colorado’s ban of Trump?​

​

​

I am not seriously proposing that, but apparently it is under discussion in Texas following a ridiculous decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to ban Trump from the Colorado ballot on grounds of insurrection.​

​

Trump Disqualified From 2024 Colorado Ballot​

​

I wrote about the ban on December 19, in Trump Disqualified From 2024 Colorado Ballot, Supreme Court Challenge Coming​

​

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump is guilty of insurrection and blocked him from the primary ballot. This is headed to the US Supreme Court.​

The court issued a stay until January 4 allowing for appeal. I expect this ruling is headed for the ashcan.​

This is disgraceful politics by the Colorado Supreme Court. Trump has not been convicted of anything, at least yet.​

Not Even Charged With Insurrection​

​

More accurately, Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, to which he would be entitled to a trial by jury. ​

​

Nonetheless, the court ruled that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. That link is the court ruling.​

​

I strongly accuse the Colorado court of extreme politics. So does anyone with an ounce of common sense. ​

​

Sandbagging the Supreme Court​

​

The left’s legal assault on Trump is a threat to the institution—and that’s by design, says WSJ writer Kimberley Strassel in Sandbagging the Supreme Court​

​

Take the Colorado Supreme Court majority, and its laughable claim in its decision this week that it didn’t “lightly” reach its finding of Trump-as-insurrectionist and was “mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions” and “solemn” about it. The opinion was in fact so wild—glossing over basic questions of due process, federalism and the Constitution—that three liberal justices strongly rejected it. The majority knew it would be left to the U.S. Supreme Court to clean up their mess.​

There was a day when the professional class—in particular prosecutors and lower-court judges—cared about institutions at least as much as about winning. Not this crew. What makes their actions more deplorable is the cynical view that harming the high court is an added benefit, not a cost. They come amid a vicious campaign to vilify the court as partisan and corrupt. If the justices rule against Mr. Trump in these suits, the left accomplishes an immediate political goal. If they rule in Mr. Trump’s favor, the left smears the justices and ramps up its campaign to pack the court.​

The Supreme Court may have no choice but to hear and decide these cases. But there are better and worse outcomes. The biggest question now is whether the three liberal justices understand the grave risks of this lawfaring agenda—not just to the immediate moment, but to the future health of the nation. Do they sign up for the campaign with opinions that justify novel legal theories and the judicial usurpation of elections—in the process inviting more special counsels, more rogue court decisions, more litigation? Or do they recognize this game for what it is, acknowledge the sound legal reasons for why no one has attempted such reckless prosecutions and lawsuits before, and send a message it needs to stop?​

The best outcome would be a string of 9-0 Supreme Court decisions that put a decisive end to the current upheaval and discourage a repeat. There’s a much easier way—for all involved—to settle the nation’s political disputes. It’s called an election. Let’s have one, and live with the results.​

Novel Legal Theories​

​

Here’s the question at hand: Should Texas Ban Biden from the Ballot?​

​

Peggy Noonan discusses that question in National Unity and the Colorado Supreme Court​

​

Mr. Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection by a jury or judge. It seems to me that when and if he is, a state court might feel free to remove his name from a ballot. Until he is, they shouldn’t. Because without conviction, whether Trump committed insurrection is a matter of opinion and argument. With conviction it can be asserted as proven fact.​

The southern border of the state of Texas is in functional collapse, with an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. The Washington Post this week likened the border area to a “Mad Max” world of cut-through barriers and debris. Fox News on Wednesday showed an order instructing a recently crossed migrant to report to U.S. immigration officials to make her case to stay in America. Fox showed the date on the order: January 2031. An immigration lawyer said it is proof of what illegal immigrants already sense: The administration is in effect granting back-door amnesty to all who come. And so they’re coming. Among them are—again the number is unprecedented—natives of China, India, Africa, Turkey. This is a challenge to our national security that most won’t begin to worry about until something bad happens. The Department of Homeland Security reported this week that 35,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions were encountered in fiscal 2023. That’s only the number caught. In October alone, Customs and Border Protection reported apprehending 13 people on the terrorist watchlist. Again, that’s only the number caught. What a disaster.​

If Colorado is able to ban Mr. Trump from the ballot over charges of insurrection, can Texas ban Joe Biden from the ballot on grounds he has defied his constitutional responsibility to defend the country by securing its borders? There are politicians in Texas already promising to do just that.​

Spirit of the Decision​

​

Noonan says “I sympathize with the decision’s spirit, but it was a dangerous move in a deeply divided country.”​

​

I don’t have sympathy with the “spirt” because who gets to decide that?​

​

Under guise of spirit, Texas banning Biden from the ballot make about as much sense as Colorado’s ban of Trump.​

 

[FrancSevin]

Not Even Charged With Insurrection
More accurately, Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, to which he would be entitled to a trial by jury.
Nonetheless, the court ruled that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. That link is the court ruling.
I strongly accuse the Colorado court of extreme politics. So does anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Donald Trump should sue any state that tries this. He is not guilty of insurrection unless proven in a court of law.
For millions in defamation of his name.
Then, use the proceeds to fund his campaigns.

He gets free publicity during the trials and $millions to pay off poll workers for middle of the night ballot counting.

 

[tommu56]

from here ​

​

By Trying To Keep Trump Off The Ballot, Democrats Are Staging A Coup In Broad Daylight​

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON
DECEMBER 22, 2023

f it wasn’t obvious before now that the left will do anything to stop Donald Trump from winning a second term in the White House, the events of the last few days should leave no doubt in any American’s mind. Democrats, including President Biden, are prepared not only to rig the 2024 election in broad daylight but also to twist the U.S. Constitution and undermine the republic so they can hold on to power.

As most everyone knows by now, an infamous 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that voters in their state will not be allowed to cast a ballot for Trump in next year’s presidential election. The court’s outlandish claim is that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says candidates who have “engaged in insurrection” are prohibited from holding public office.

According to the court, which is dominated by left-wing ideologues appointed by Democrat governors (all the judges on the Colorado Supreme Court are Democrats, some are just more radical than others), Trump meets this definition because he “incited” a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Never mind that Trump has yet to be convicted of a crime associated with Jan. 6 (or any crime for that matter) or that the 14th Amendment doesn’t include the president or vice president in a list of offices to which its Section 3 provision applies. For the leftists on the Colorado Supreme Court, it’s enough to declare Trump an insurrectionist and viola! He’s off the ballot — all in the name of “defending democracy.”

More here: https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/2...mocrats-are-staging-a-coup-in-broad-daylight/


David French called it a “bold, courageous decision,” but setting aside the constitutional/legal debate, consider what it means practically. About 1.4 million Coloradans voted for Trump in 2020. All those voters, if they want to vote for Trump again this time, have been disenfranchised by the court. That’s bad enough, but the left’s strategy here is larger than just one state. Before the ink was dry on the Colorado ruling, California Democrats leapt into action. The lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, sent a letter to Secretary of State Shirley Weber asking her to “explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.”

 

[FrancSevin]

I do wish the Democrats would stop trying to save our Democracy.
We are not a Democracy.
We are a Constitutional Republic.

Every judge, when sworn in, takes an oath to protect that condition of our union of states. Nowhere do they receive authorization to alter the laws they are supposed to service. Why doesn't the violation of that oath not force their dismissal?

 

[tommu56]

Now its Maine

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs state authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally in a decision that has potential Electoral College...

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs state authority to block former president​

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally in a decision that has potential Electoral College consequences.

While Maine has just four electoral votes, it’s one of two states to split them. Trump won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.

The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado is a Democratic-leaning state that is not expected to be competitive for Republicans in November.

 

[tommu56]

Well he's back in Colorado ballot

POLITICS

Trump back on ballot in Colorado while state Republicans appeal ban to Supreme Court​

link

The Colorado Republican Party on Wednesday appealed that state's Supreme Court decision that found former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency, the potential first step to a showdown at the nation's highest court over the meaning of a 155-year-old constitutional provision that bans from office those who "engaged in insurrection."

The first impact of the appeal is to extend the stay of the 4-3 ruling from Colorado's highest court, which put its decision on pause until Jan. 4, the day before the state's primary ballots are due at the printer, or until an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is finished. Trump himself has said he still plans to appeal the ruling to the nation's highest court as well.

Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said Thursday that, with the appeal filed, Trump will be included as a candidate on the state's primary ballot unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case or upholds the state supreme court's ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to government. It says that anyone who swore an oath to "support" the constitution and then "engaged in insurrection" against it cannot hold government office.

The Colorado high court ruled that applies to Trump in the wake of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, intended to stop the certification of President Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. It was the first time in history that the provision was used to block a presidential contender's campaign.

 

[FrancSevin]

If this country, AKA The United States of America, fails, it will be because of the corrupt politicians and agency heads who failed to uphold (much less defend) the Constitution and usurped the power of control by "WE THE PEOPLE" via open and fair elections.
My biggest disappointment with President Donald Trump and the GOP is that they didn't prevent the corruption of our voting system in 2020.

VP Mike Pence held that power for a critical moment on January 6 2021, and failed. I suspect he was told to do so. My disappointment with him is that he didn't have the courage or discipline to do his sworn duty. He was empowered by the Constitution to protect and defend the integrity of our election. In that sacred trust, placed by the Founders as a security stopgap to prevent a fraudulent installation of a candidate, he failed.
The statistical improbability of a Biden win was, in and of itself, enough evidence to question validity of the national electoral outcome.

His action was akin the SCOTUS nullifying one of the first ten amendments. Yes, it was that vile.

I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog.

 

[Melensdad]

Supreme Court will step in. . .

Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado

The case raises a novel legal question under a constitutional clause that prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" from serving in the federal government.

www.nbcnews.com

Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado​

The case raises a novel legal question under a constitutional clause that prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" from serving in the federal government.​

Jan. 5, 2024, 4:04 PM CST / Updated Jan. 5, 2024, 6:36 PM CST​

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether former President Donald Trump could be deemed ineligible to run for federal office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — a case that could have a seismic impact on the presidential election.​

​

The justices will review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said Trump could be barred from the Republican primary ballot in that state, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is likely to have national repercussions, potentially setting guidelines that would determine how every other state would handle the issue.​

​

The brief order said the case would be argued on an accelerated schedule on Feb. 8, indicating that a ruling will follow soon after.​

​

One other state, Maine, has issued a similar decision saying that Trump cannot appear on the ballot. Like the Colorado ruling, the Maine decision is on hold while litigation continues. Trump remains on the ballot in both states. . . ​

STORY continues at the link above