sure seems like it:


as only conservative news networks allege...

 

 

"In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings."


Well, now. The Colorado Supreme Court is certainly not mincing words.

Jan 5 is the deadline for Colorado to print its state primary ballots, which likely explains the choice of Jan 4 as the date to which the ruling is stayed. This gives the Colorado Reds about two weeks to try to rocket the petition for cert which they doubtless have already drafted through the US Supreme Court.

Not that Colorado, by itself, really matters. It'd been a predominantly red state throughout all of the 20th century, but has voted solidly blue in every Presidential election since the first Obama term. They're fully democrat in the US Senate, majority-democrat in the US House, and solidly democrat in Colorado.

But this now establishes precedent. Or, it's about to, at least. If the Republicans do take this to the Supreme Court, and lose, then that's it. More star systems will slip through their fingers.

Trump's polling numbers are, to quote Trump himself, "Uuuge" at the moment. That won't matter if he's not on the ballot. It's going to be very interesting to observe the other 49 states' Republican committees in the coming weeks.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...23/23SA300.pdf

 

This is an immense loss of liberty and anti-democratic. There is no other way to see this. This is the gov't telling you who you can vote for. The first step in tyranny.

Whether you would vote for Trump or not, you need to see this for what it is.

 

 

When exactly was he or anyone else for that matter charged with an insurrection?


Cause it's weird to legally say the court "MUST do this cause because XYZ," but XYZ didn't happen...

 

1) Trump was never convicted of “insurrection”
2) No one involved in Jan. 6 was convicted of “insurrection”
3) Trump was never charged with “insurrection”
4) No one involved in Jan. 6 was charged with “insurrection”
5) Trump was acquitted on the 2nd impeachment on charges that related to the events of Jan. 6
6) The 14th Amendment Sec. 3 does not apply to the President.

 

Election interference. What is sad and alarming is that there are people willing to give up their rights to let this happen. Although it's more of a media hype stunt because he will appeal and still be on the ballots in March.

 

There are a lot of conflicting opinions on many points of fact surrounding this situation. Here are some of the ones which do not actually matter in the real world:

1: Was Jan 6 the gravest act of sedition on US Soil since 1776, or was it merely criminal trespass and vandalism, with a bit of assault & battery mixed in?

2: Has The Donald been convicted either by Congress or by a a criminal court of aiding in an insurrection?

3: Hunter Biden.



Here are some of the things which DO matter in the real world:

1: The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Benevolent Orange Leader is ineligible to run for President in 2024.

2: Chances are that SCOTUS is going to make a ruling on that soon.



This is the real sticking point. If Trump does nothing, then they lose a state which they were never going to have to begin with, but otherwise things continue as before.

If Trump challenges this at the US Supreme Court (and, c'mon, this is Trump we're talking about), then he opens the door to a frightening possibility: the Court might not reverse the Colorado decision.

If that happens, then precedent is set. The Seventh Angel will immediately break the Seventh Seal, and every single district court in the US will suddenly find itself beset upon by claimants that Trump is ineligible and the US Supreme Court said so.

 

One point which has been discussed but not with enough seriousness is the fact that security was unusually and historically low on J6. I think we know that it was a set up at this point. I doubt the supreme court will agree with CO. I guess we will know in March. After the 24 election, if Trump wins and was not convicted of any crimes will anyone on the left admit that this election interference to aid the reelection of a trailing candidate?

 

The following individuals have thus far been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for their behavior on Jan 6:

Joseph Biggs (sentenced to 17 years in prison)
Zachary Rehl (sentenced to 15 years in prison)
Roberto Minuta (sentenced to 54 months in prison)
Elmer Rhodes (sentenced to 18 years in prison)
David Moerschel (sentenced to 3 years in prison)
Joseph Hackett (sentenced to 42 months in prison)
Edward Vallejo (sentenced to 3 years in prison)


Note that this is an incomplete list, and about half of the J6 cases have not yet reached a verdict.


Where in the Constitution or the Code of Federal Regulations does it say that?

 

Well, at least the president of El Salvador has weighed in on the matter:

 

I'm not sure if seditious conspiracy is the same as insurrection. The definitions of anything that relates to J6 are very fluid now and being adjusted to suit current events. Wikipedia claims in the past people have been charged with both.

 

True all.

Again, it doesn't actually matter.

I keep hearing things like "the court can't disqualify Trump, since nobody has been convicted of insurrection," and yet the overwhelming legal opinion is that this simply isn't true. This imaginary bar which Trump apologists think has to be met in order for The Constitution to have effect does not exist. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does the phrase "shall have been convicted of" (or similar) appear.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone of that here, so I'm not going to try again. Because, frankly, it doesn't harm me for other people to have incorrect understandings of constitutional law. (Provided those people aren't police officers or judges, obviously.)


Anyway, to lighten the mood:

 

That is true, one does not need to be convicted to be held accountable. They just need to be found associated by opinion. Many that have been vocal about this topic are saying that J6 was not an insurrection. The issue is with the proof of what actually happened. What is the correct classification or definition of what occurred? If someone had been convicted on insurrection charges that would support the classification.

 

It still does not matter whether anyone has been convicted of anything in any court.

The Constitution applies all of the time.

 

I understand how the constitution works.

My point is are they associating him with something other than what actually happened? What if it truly could be defined as an unruly crowd or riot. For that matter what if it was a birthday party. Could we say that Trump should be held accountable or associated with an insurrection when it was a birthday party for someone that he did not know personally?

The question is other than the media has the event been determined to have been an insurrection? It seems to be very long after the fact that we ask this question, and I don't believe it has been proven to be what is claimed. So how can opinion be made about something that may not have happen? No insurrection, no 14th amendment.

If it was an insurrection, then the question would be, was Trump associated with it? I believe we have automatically and prematurely defined what happened to suit the needs of the opposing party.

 

The Colorado Court's opinion is fatally flawed in a number of ways, and an echo chamber of leftist "peer review" legal opinion cannot make it right by proclamation.

First, their argument acts as if section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists in a vaccuum, which it does not. Section 5 very clearly establishes the enforcement mechanism: legislation passed by Congress. Congress did in fact pass the appropriate legislation, 18 USC 2383. That is the enforcement mechanism; it is NOT 'self-enforcing'... that's just made-up 'law' that has been bounced around the academic community for the last year or so for the specific purpose of going after Trump.

Second, the Constitution also establishes a right to Due Process. No court can simply declare a person penalized under law without Due Process. Trump has not been convicted, nor even charged, under 18 USC 2383, so the penalty for that statute cannot legally be applied to him. In fact, the only actual legal process that took place regarding Trump's role in J6 was the Congressional Impeachment, and the Senate specifically acquitted Trump of "insurrection" charges.

We are at a dangerous crossroads... a government that can tell you who you get to vote for can do to you just about anything they want.

 

Each state cannot define insurrection differently from the next. He is either an insurrectionist to the federal government therefore, illegible to be on any ballot on any state, which today there's no evidence of that. Or he's not.

It's pretty much a simple as that.

Otherwise, every red state can define Joe Biden as an insurrectionist and remove him from their state ballot. Which is literally the opposite of the intent of the 14th amendment...