Another desperate attempt by the idiots on the Left...

[Mark]

The idiots on the Colorado supreme court demonstrated that they don't have a clue what the 14th amendment actually says. This is pathetic, and it will not stand...

The Colorado Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president, removing him from the state's primary ballot.

The ruling is the first successful lawsuit from left-wing legal groups looking to disqualify Trump from state primary ballots over his actions on and around Jan. 6. The case is now widely expected to go to the United States Supreme Court for a final decision.

The court filing found Trump was ineligible to run for president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/co ... r-AA1lLcjX

[BigTex]

We've been fighting a civil war by other means for several years. Now it starts to get real.

[planosteve]

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn't have a clue about the Constitution but Mark does.

[Mark]

There isn't anything mysterious about the Constitution. It was written in plain English so anybody can understand it. Why don't you go read section 5 of the fourteenth amendment and report back here to everybody what it says?

[planosteve]

There isn't anything mysterious about the Constitution. It was written in plain English so anybody can understand it. Why don't you go read section 5 of the fourteenth amendment and report back here to everybody what it says?

Anybody that wants to know what it says can read it themselves. What is important is what does it mean. And the only thing relevant here is what does a majority of the Supreme Court of the US thinks it means. There's is the only opinion that counts.

[Mark]

There isn't anything mysterious about the Constitution. It was written in plain English so anybody can understand it. Why don't you go read section 5 of the fourteenth amendment and report back here to everybody what it says?

Anybody that wants to know what it says can read it themselves. What is important is what does it mean. And the only thing relevant here is what does a majority of the Supreme Court of the US thinks it means. There's is the only opinion that counts.

If you're asserting that the USSC will affirm the decision by the Colorado Kangaroo Court, then I've got a hundred bucks that says it won't.

[Mark]

Vivek:

I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.

Response by the Colorado Republican Party:

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.

[planosteve]

There isn't anything mysterious about the Constitution. It was written in plain English so anybody can understand it. Why don't you go read section 5 of the fourteenth amendment and report back here to everybody what it says?

Anybody that wants to know what it says can read it themselves. What is important is what does it mean. And the only thing relevant here is what does a majority of the Supreme Court of the US thinks it means. There's is the only opinion that counts.

If you're asserting that the USSC will affirm the decision by the Colorado Kangaroo Court, then I've got a hundred bucks that says it won't.

I don't have any idea what they will do. I'm not a mind reader or a fortune teller.

[Sangersteve]

Even Doug Schoen knows this is wrong.

Schoen stated that as a Democrat, he believes it will not only hurt the party, but “democracy” as well. The pollster continued to highlight allegations against Trump have yet to be “fully vetted in a court of law,” emphasizing Biden should fight to keep him on the ballot.

“Well, this is one Democrat who believes this is gonna hurt Democrats and certainly hurt democracy. You know, Donald Trump has not been convicted of anything, and to kick him off the ballot preemptively is to me anti-democratic and against the interests of the Democratic Party,” Schoen stated.

[Mark]

Dan Bongino:

The democrats REALLY hate US citizens.
It’s not debatable anymore, case closed.

[GRANDPA]

What Is the Disqualification Clause?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"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."

[planosteve]

Even Doug Schoen knows this is wrong.

Schoen stated that as a Democrat, he believes it will not only hurt the party, but “democracy” as well. The pollster continued to highlight allegations against Trump have yet to be “fully vetted in a court of law,” emphasizing Biden should fight to keep him on the ballot.

“Well, this is one Democrat who believes this is gonna hurt Democrats and certainly hurt democracy. You know, Donald Trump has not been convicted of anything, and to kick him off the ballot preemptively is to me anti-democratic and against the interests of the Democratic Party,” Schoen stated.

This is mainly about Jan 6 and how you view it. If you think it was just a protest or an actual insurrection.

[Mark]

What Is the Disqualification Clause?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"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."

Don't forget to include section 5.

[GRANDPA]

What Is the Disqualification Clause?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"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."

Don't forget to include section 5.

Amendment 14 Section 5 Enforcement
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Kiamichi]

How can anyone believe that any (serious) court would uphold the principle that judges can tell the members of a political party who they can or can't vote for in their party primaries?

[Mark]

Rhetorical question: What if the Texas Supreme Court deems Joe Biden guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and is therefore ineligible to be on the ballot in Texas in 2024?

[Mark]

How can anyone believe that any (serious) court would uphold the principle that judges can tell the members of a political party who they can or can't vote for in their party primaries?

All 7 members of the Colorado supreme court were appointed by Democrats. Apparently, 3 of them recognized this as a farce. The other 4 are hopeless political hacks.

[planosteve]

How can anyone believe that any (serious) court would uphold the principle that judges can tell the members of a political party who they can or can't vote for in their party primaries?

They didn't. They believe that he was ineligible under the section 3 of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the US Capitol.

[Mark]

How can anyone believe that any (serious) court would uphold the principle that judges can tell the members of a political party who they can or can't vote for in their party primaries?

They didn't. They believe that he was ineligible under the section 3 of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the US Capitol.

How many people have been charged with insurrection under section 2383 of the US code?

[planosteve]

How can anyone believe that any (serious) court would uphold the principle that judges can tell the members of a political party who they can or can't vote for in their party primaries?

They didn't. They believe that he was ineligible under the section 3 of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the US Capitol.

How many people have been charged with insurrection under section 2383 of the US code?

According to Websters-Insurrection is an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. I'd say that Jan 6 meets the definition of insurrection. But, a jury could interpret it either way.
My guess is that this is the reason that Trump was prevented from going to the Capital. To prevent him from being accused of insurrection.