LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

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

Rightguide said:
Their decision was a political one with no basis in law. Their finding that Trump committed insurrection had no basis in law or fact and was completely outside their purview.
Click to expand...
Their argument was a legal one, hence them quoting Gorsuch in their opinion. They had every right to make the decision, else it would've been blocked by the federal courts.from being heard in the first place.

Your opinion of the courts is pathetic.
 
ll74 said:
Their argument was a legal one, hence them quoting Gorsuch in their opinion. They had every right to make the decision, else it would've been blocked by the federal courts.from being heard in the first place.

Your opinion of the courts is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Pathetic? There you go again. Lst I heard Trump was not a civil war politician nor indicted or charged with insurrrection
 
rainsol said:
Pathetic? There you go again. Lst I heard Trump was not a civil war politician nor indicted or charged with insurrrection
Click to expand...
The amendment mentions neither. But add words where you need to feel good.

Did you just out your alt?
 
Rick345 said:
Yes! No trial is necessary the insurrection clause is a direct result of the American Civil War and there are cases of Confederate politicians and military officers being banned from running for political office from May 1865 onward. President Jefferson Davis, never had a trial and was banded from running for office. Confederates Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided insurrections and banned from running office they were never tired. There are dozens of other Confederates banded from running for office none were ever tired.

There is a remedy for Trump he merely has to convince 2/3s of Congress to let him run, that is in the Constitution but following the Constitution is not his strong suit.
Click to expand...
As I previously posted:

"Section 3 was intended to apply only to those who participated in the Civil War, and not to any future cases of alleged insurrection or rebellion. This argument is based on the historical context and purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and to prevent the former Confederate states from rejoining the Union without complying with certain conditions. Section 3 was designed to prevent the former Confederate officials from regaining political power and undermining the Reconstruction efforts. Therefore, one could claim that section 3 is outdated and irrelevant to the modern context of the presidency."

"The Amnesty Act of 1872 was passed by a Republican-dominated Congress that was divided into two factions: the Radical Republicans, who favored harsher measures against the former Confederates and greater protection for the rights of Black Americans, and the Liberal Republicans, who advocated for reconciliation and reform. The Amnesty Act was a compromise between these two groups, as it removed the disability from most of the former Confederates, except for the highest-ranking officials and military officers. The Amnesty Act did not nullify the purpose of section 3, but rather attempted to balance the need for national unity and the need for justice and equality."

"The Amnesty Act of 1898 was passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress that was influenced by the rise of the Populist movement and the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. The Amnesty Act was motivated by a desire to heal the wounds of the Civil War and to rally the nation for a new war against a foreign enemy. The Amnesty Act removed the remaining disabilities from the former Confederates, including the highest-ranking officials and military officers, as a gesture of goodwill and patriotism. The Amnesty Act did not nullify the purpose of section 3, but rather reflected the fading relevance of the Civil War and the Reconstruction era in the face of new challenges and opportunities."

Although the purpose of section 3 remains, its relevancy to the modern era, especially in light of both amnesty acts, is quite questionable. Especially today since the 14th Amendment section 3 language does not apply to the President or the Vice President in the first place.
 
ll74 said:
So states don't decide their elections.

Lol...got it.

Kinda seems weird ....that whole certification of elections thing then, eh?
Click to expand...
States make their election laws, but they do not have the power to enforce or pronounce punishment under the 14th Amendment, only Congress does. See section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
 
Rightguide said:
States make their election laws, but they do not have the power to enforce or pronounce punishment under the 14th Amendment, only Congress does. See section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
They decide their state ballot and elections. As the decision mentioned.
 
jomar said:
If that’s your attitude then quit your bitchin’ about whatever it is you think the dems are up to whenever you think they’re up to something.
Click to expand...
You wrote let’s count the ways, my response was it doesn’t matter, meaning a decision was rendered and it doesn’t matter what we think.
 
icanhelp1 said:
You wrote let’s count the ways, my response was it doesn’t matter, meaning a decision was rendered and it doesn’t matter what we think.
Click to expand...
Only in the sense a decision was rendered, then. But context and reasons matter and it’s best not forgotten.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
I know you don’t want me illustrating the fallacy of the CO court’s finding by referencing a decision made by prosecutors in related case. Sorry. What’s done is done. The post has been made.
Click to expand...
What fallacy? Are you claiming that the Colorado SC didn't find Trump had violated the 14th amendment?
 
Fuzzy1975 said:
Yes we know you think courts are political, that's just one of your many faults as a human being.
Click to expand...
Just some. Sullivan vs Flynn stands out. Our judicial system is so slanted against Trump it boggles the mind. The DOJ is literally running a protection racket for the Biden crime Family.
 
icanhelp1 said:
If you don’t care then STFU!
Click to expand...
As I said I don't give a shit about some court case you pulled out.

As I said to Boomer, and I'll say to you. This thread is about Colorado's SC ruling that Trump was party to an insurrection. That will stand unless SCOTUS agree's to hear the Colorado GOP's appeal.

Sorry Mr "I don't carry water for Trump", but that's the reality of it, kind of like Trump was impeached twice.....and you can scream and yell and shake your fist in the air, but that won't change one damn fact....*chuckles*
 
Fuzzy1975 said:
As I said I don't give a shit about some court case you pulled out.

As I said to Boomer, and I'll say to you. This thread is about Colorado's SC ruling that Trump was party to an insurrection. That will stand unless SCOTUS agree's to hear the Colorado GOP's appeal.

Sorry Mr "I don't carry water for Trump", but that's the reality of it, kind of like Trump was impeached twice.....and you can scream and yell and shake your fist in the air, but that won't change one damn fact....*chuckles*
Click to expand...
His impeachment is worn like a badge of honor by leftist looney toons, doesn’t amount to a hill of coffee grounds.

I’ll wait for the SCOTUS ruling. It’s fun watching leftist lunatics twisting themselves into pretzels trying to justify a group of activist judges bastardizing the constitution. I can understand this behavior because the leftist lunes see due process as an obstruction to their agenda.
 
icanhelp1 said:
His impeachment is worn like a badge of honor by leftist looney toons, doesn’t amount to a hill of coffee grounds.
Click to expand...
I've read on here elsewhere that the more someone repeats it, the more they believe it.
icanhelp1 said:
I’ll wait for the SCOTUS ruling. It’s fun watching leftist lunatics twisting themselves into pretzels trying to justify a group of activist judges bastardizing the constitution.
Click to expand...
Well, you should know, you're the pretzel maker king!!
 
Fuzzy1975 said:
What fallacy? Are you claiming that the Colorado SC didn't find Trump had violated the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...
Yes it did, and pending an expected appeal by Trump next week, SCOTUS will review that finding. Trump will be on the 3/4 ballot in CO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments over validity of "one federal judge issuing nationwide injunctions"
Replies
1
Views
96
Lance_Castro
Lance_Castro
P
Congressman introduces articles of impeachment against Trump
2
Replies
42
Views
641
Politruk
P
P
We won't be using the Army to arrest migrants just yet
Replies
4
Views
160
Politruk
P
P
'Catastrophe': Trump uses 'phony energy emergency' to 'illegally' destroy state laws
Replies
12
Views
212
Politruk
P
Rightguide
Will Trump Suspend Habeas Corpus For Illegals?
6 7 8
Replies
186
Views
3K
HisArpy
HisArpy
Back
Top