Colorado Will Not Be Allowed To Deny Trump Access To Their Presidential Ballot

[SmokingFap]

You suggest banning Trump and his family from voting? They all mail in their votes.

Well-played, my friend.

 

[phrodeau]

I don't give a single fuck if MAGA thinks the election results are legitimate or fair. Not. One. Fuck.

Despite how well Republicans did in 2020 and 2022, MAGAs still think elections were rigged.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Perhaps we should do away with early voting and mail in ballots and require proper ID.

Anything other than showing up, in person, on election day, at the correct location, within the set hours, able to prove your identity, using paper ballots counted by humans being observed by other humans, is a method of making vote fraud easier... and that's what it's intended to be.

Go back to that system and people won't believe elections are rigged.
Or keep the current system and they have no reason to think they're legitimate.

Yeah, lets make it harder for people to vote. The purpose of this of course is that Republicans know they don't represent a majority of voters. They aren't even trying anymore the goal is limit voters. There is no need for all of this. There is no reason for people to have any doubt whatsoever in the current system.

Even if we did all of that the idiots who think its rigged would still think its rigged. They'd just alternate it from people doing false mail ins to something else.

Curious why you hate the military. Can you explain why the Marines should have brought me home for a long weekend to vote cus obviously Saddam wasn't important but my vote was way too vital sign off?

 

[DeluxAuto]

From The 14th Amendment:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President… 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…”.

The left likes to make up its own law but in the case of denying Trump on their presidential ballot on the basis of the 14th Amendment restrictions regarding "officers" engaged in insurrection fails on the words of John Roberts in the case mentioned below:
w:

In the decision of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion:

“The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the ‘assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.'” – Chief Justice John Roberts, 2010.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/

You have a shit track record for calling out state's election processes.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Why would anyone want to deny Trump the opportunity to be on the ballot? If he's as terrible as you people seem to think, he couldn't possibly win.

Don't you trust the voters to make that judgment?

Great question.

Should people be allowed to deny Arnold Schwarzenegger a chance to run on the Republican ticket for POTUS? We should let the people decide, right?

 

[YDB95]

Anything other than showing up, in person, on election day, at the correct location, within the set hours, able to prove your identity, using paper ballots counted by humans being observed by other humans, is a method of making vote fraud easier... and that's what it's intended to be.

Come back when you've got actual evidence of voter fraud beyond the occasional isolated incident (all of which in the last election were committed by Trump voters, too).

Go back to that system and people won't believe elections are rigged.

1) You can't go "back" to a system we never had, and 2) People like you would still whine about fraud every time a Democrat won.

Or keep the current system and they have no reason to think they're legitimate.

"They" have no real reason NOT to think that. Voter fraud simply isn't common at all.

 

[dkovic77]

It's the left, they like to make up their own legal reality. It will fail because they are ignorant.

Own legal reality?? You live in your own “factual” reality. How would you know anything about a subset legal reality??

 

[dkovic77]

Perhaps we should do away with early voting and mail in ballots and require proper ID.

Anything other than showing up, in person, on election day, at the correct location, within the set hours, able to prove your identity, using paper ballots counted by humans being observed by other humans, is a method of making vote fraud easier... and that's what it's intended to be.

Go back to that system and people won't believe elections are rigged.
Or keep the current system and they have no reason to think they're legitimate.

Because the system allows more people the opportunity to vote- and those people overwhelming are the hourly workers who don’t have the flexibility to vote on election and tend to vote on the left- of course you have to paint it as fraud.

Please, as a joke, your evidence for fraud on the left? Have seen countless right wing versions stories, including Mark Meadows registered to vote using an AirBnB, dead parents voting for the Cheeto, and whatever scam the third Florida Senator is pulling…but haven’t seen the evidence of fraud on the left.

I have seen what the right has thought to be evidence and it gets laughed out of court (even with Judges appointed by the Cheeto) over and over again.

I know you have bought into the lie of the voter fraud outside of Election Day, we got it.

If you really want it, offer a full Federal Holiday, ensure lines aren’t super long in the early morning hours and late hours (since there are people who have to work a full day regardless), make sure voting precincts are fair and equitable.

Since a full federal holiday, how about a voting location at EVERY school. Pay teachers an extra day of pay if they work and states can run through the entire electorate on the single day. The buildings can handle the traffic and there will be more than enough space for everyone to cut down on lines. Instead, some precincts are a single school in some places that are surrounded by 4-5 other schools and the lines get long.

But you aren’t interested in those things, you just see your influence dying away and need to hold onto power by limiting who can vote.

Just be upfront with it. Or hide behind lies and zero-truths.

 

[Rightguide]

Own legal reality?? You live in your own “factual” reality. How would you know anything about a subset legal reality??

Fuck off, stupid.

 

[Rightguide]

trump is not the President

He was at the time his alleged crime of "insurrection" took place, so using the 14th Amendment as a basis to deny his candidacy is legally incorrect nd will not pass constitutional scrutiny.

 

[Rightguide]

So Ol' Babydoll Hands will likely get to remain on the ballot in a state he lost by 14 points in 2020?

Winning!

As long as the 14th Amendment is the basis for denying his candidacy, yes.

 

[SmokingFap]

As long as the 14th Amendment is the basis for denying his candidacy, yes.

Saved by the very Constitution he despises, disrespects, and disregards.

 

[LLCox]

He was at the time his alleged crime of "insurrection" took place, so using the 14th Amendment as a basis to deny his candidacy is legally incorrect nd will not pass constitutional scrutiny.

We are going to find out.

 

[Rightguide]

We are going to find out.

We already know.

 

[Rightguide]

Democrats are doing the same thing in Minnesota and apparently failing:

Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Dresses Down Leftist Lawyer Working to Keep Trump Off 2024 Ballot (VIDEO)​

By Cristina Laila Nov. 2, 2023 2:00 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/0-1600.jpg


Five of the Minnesota Justices, four of whom are Democrats, appeared skeptical that states can decide whether Trump can appear on the 2024 ballot.

Two of the justices recused themselves from the case.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson sharply criticized the leftist lawyer’s argument and said, “This is a national matter for Congress to decide.”


Justice Hudson continued, “So, should we do it even if we could do it and we can do it?” She also argued that if states had the power to block a person from the ballot it would create “chaos.”

More here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/minnesota-supreme-court-chief-justice-dresses-down-leftist/

 

[dkovic77]

Fuck off, stupid.

Clearly the uneducated short sighted answer we expect from you as you clearly admit you ain’t got the cards.

 

[Rightguide]

Clearly the uneducated short sighted answer we expect from you as you clearly admit you ain’t got the cards.

The educated answer is in post #1. The one you don't understand. Here's another brilliant legal mind weighing in on my point:

LAWCOMMENTARY

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots​

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / November 02, 2023

Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office​

First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.

He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.

Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.

The Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.

It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not “Officers of the United States.”

Much more, here especially on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment may be extant but legally meaningless in contemporary times.:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11...is-unconstitutional-and-lawfare-at-its-worst/

 

[ll74]

The educated answer is in post #1. The one you don't understand. Here's another brilliant legal mind weighing in on my point:

LAWCOMMENTARY

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots​

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / November 02, 2023

Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office​

First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.

He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.

Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.

The Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.

It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not “Officers of the United States.”

Much more, here especially on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment may be extant but legally meaningless in contemporary times.:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11...is-unconstitutional-and-lawfare-at-its-worst/

have they thrown the lawsuit out yet?

 

[Rightguide]

have they thrown the lawsuit out yet?

It's still in court. All I'm saying is the case against Trump in this instance will fail, either in this court or on appeal. There is no legal basis to pursue this avenue of litigation. It serves no other function than its media value against Trump aimed at the ignorant.

 

[ll74]

It's still in court. All I'm saying is the case against Trump in this instance will fail, either in this court or on appeal. There is no legal basis to pursue this avenue of litigation. It serves no other function than its media value against Trump aimed at the ignorant.

So they didn't throw the lawsuit out.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well according to the 14th a foreign born citizen can run for president so. . . .

?

 

[Rightguide]

?

Yes, he's an idiot.

 

[Rightguide]

So they didn't throw the lawsuit out.

Thanks for confirming.

It's a political trial you dummy.

 

[phrodeau]

It's a political trial you dummy.

Elections are political trials, dummy.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Well-played, my friend.

Umm..
If you are banned...............
You CAN'T vote by mail.
Go ask any felons.
OH..... but in Florida where they voted to ALLOW some felons to vote? Ask their legislature which knows better than the voting public!