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

[Rightguide]

Breaking News: The Secretary of State of Maine has disqualified Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot, citing 14th amendment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot

Trump team immediately dials up the vitriol to 11:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1740524889919173008

Rob cheers on another communist move by his party.

 

[dkovic77]

I’m not disputing your narrative. However this is not immediate post civil war. Where I disagree is what is the definition of insurrection. No one individual was convicted or charged with insurrection. 2) I believe section V requires a 2/3rds congressional majority to keep him off the ballot. Sec I requires due process.

I hope Biden wins the democratic nomination.

The 2/3rd is to remove a disqualification.

 

[HisArpy]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Kicking a treasonous politician off the ballot is not depriving him of life, liberty or property.

Maybe not, but denying the people of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice is a violation of their 14th Amendment guarantee of privileges or immunities.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Maybe not, but denying the people of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice is a violation of their 14th Amendment guarantee of privileges or immunities.

No such right exists. The people have the right to vote for qualified candidates and no one is denying them that.

 

[Dunes_et_Soleil]

No such right exists. The people have the right to vote for qualified candidates and no one is denying them that.

Just out of curiosity, how many candidates are there?

 

[icanhelp1]

No, it does not. OJ was acquitted, then found liable in the civil suit against him, just for one particularly famous example. Likewise, the issue at hand in Colorado was a civil one, not a criminal one. Civil suits have a lower standard of proof than criminal ones.

You also believed Trump would beat Biden in 2020.

I certainly don't deny that I have great contempt for the Coathanger Five.

Oh, but it was a great deal more than that.

...is what you always say when you have no substantial response to offer.

Your side has had three years to prove that, and you literally haven't found a single example of voter fraud in Biden's favor - but there have been several in Trump's favor.

A civil suit is a balancing act based on the preponderance of the evidence to establish damage, totally different from criminal law. Most civil suits are adjudicated by a judge who hears both plaintiff and defendant then rules for either damages or dismissal. OJ ‘s civil suit was not to retry murder.

Insurrection is a criminal statute.

You always try to muddy the waters.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Throwing a bone to my friend Deluxe who is having a bad week on this forum, I certainly don’t want Biden off the ballot.

Please explain why I'm having a bad week and why you think I'm your friend.

Also, repubs are currently working to remove President Biden from ballots. You probably didn't know this because you're an uninformed partisan moron who is having a terrible week.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

 

[YDB95]

You always try to muddy the waters.

It just looks that way to you because you always think things are a heck of a lot simpler than they really are.

 

[dkovic77]

Please explain why I'm having a bad week and why you think I'm your friend.

Also, repubs are currently working to remove President Biden from ballots. You probably didn't know this because you're an uninformed partisan moron who is having a terrible week.

Yeah but just like the 2020 election fraud cases, they got nothin’

But funny to watch them scramble like elem kids at recess with a “new idea”.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It just looks that way to you because you always think things are a heck of a lot simpler than they really are.

So very true.

 

[Rightguide]

A civil suit is a balancing act based on the preponderance of the evidence to establish damage, totally different from criminal law. Most civil suits are adjudicated by a judge who hears both plaintiff and defendant then rules for either damages or dismissal. OJ ‘s civil suit was not to retry murder.

Insurrection is a criminal statute.

You always try to muddy the waters.

He gets rained on so much that he can't help but stamp his feet through the puddles and muddy the water.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

He gets rained on so much that he can't help but stamp his feet through the puddles and muddy the water.

I guess that you thought that was witty or something. Rory is right, you RWCJ's have no sense of humour.

 

[stxjimmy]

I guess that you thought that was witty or something. Rory is right, you RWCJ's have no sense of humour.

Or perspective.

 

[Rick345]

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."

One can argue whatever they wish but section 3 was invoked only once: it was used to block Socialist Party of America member Victor L. Berger of Wisconsin—convicted of violating the Espionage Act for opposing US entry into World War I—from assuming his seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920. Given Berger was only 5 when the Civil War ended it seems the SCOTUS found Section 3 relevant even in the 20th century.

 

[Rick345]

What insurrection? Are you trying to argue a hypothetical. The constitution is clear, insurrection is a federal statute and requires due process and a trial for conviction as stated in section I of the 14th amendment . Secondly, state activist judges are interfering with elections. I understand the argument for states rights and perhaps that works for state elections but I doubt it since state legislators determine the path for state election. I see a lot of similarities with Pennsylvania where judges ruled outside their authority. This being a primary for a federal election this ruling affects across the federal spectrum and all 50 states and without a conviction for insurrection which would automatically eliminate a candidate this is judicial activism on steroids.

Not hypothetical Trump inspired and indeed orcasted what happened on January 6th.. Did Trump constantly say, "We must stop the steal?"

Did dozens of those who stormed the capitol due so at Trump's urging? And many who stormed the capitol on January 6th said they were there at the bequest of Trump and that they were there to overthrow the government. Saying you are storming the capitol to overthrow the government sounds like insurrection to me.

 

[Rick345]

Do the words "living document" ring any bells for you? Or "outdated"? Or even "shall not be infringed"?

Yes "living document" means something to me, that means the court can interpret the Constitution and the meaning of a phase in that document may means something different today than what it meant years ago but that is the function of the supreme court.

The problem here is that the libs are scared that Trump is going to get elected...

Absolutely! Trump has said he'll be a dictator. He has said he will revoke the broadcast licenses of TV and radio stations that say anything negative about him. He has said he'd close down newspapers that printed remarks against him. He refused to replenish the election. He has threatened state and federal judges, he inspires his followers to threaten judges. He says he wants a secret police force answerable to him alone.. And the list goes on and on and these are frighten things to Americans..

 

[Rightguide]

My my, who was the justice who questioned why the President or Vice President wasn't mentioned in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Justice Jackson! I think we will see at least an 8-1 decision and possibly a 9-0 against Colorado and its dumb Secretary of State.

 

[ll74]

My my, who was the justice who questioned why the President or Vice President wasn't mentioned in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Justice Jackson! I think we will see at least an 8-1 decision and possibly a 9-0 against Colorado and its dumb Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State wasn't involved in that case. (Outside of being the defendant)

You seem to suggest the SoS is the reason Trump is off the ballot, which is incorrect.

 

[Rightguide]

The Secretary of State wasn't involved in that case. (Outside of being the defendant)

You seem to suggest the SoS is the reason Trump is off the ballot, which is incorrect.

She was the prime initiator of this insult to the Constitution, she and the clueless Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were all appointed by Democrat Governors but split on the issue. The case is political nonsense and will end up as I predicted.

 

[ll74]

She was the prime initiator of this insult to the Constitution, she and the clueless Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were all appointed by Democrat Governors but split on the issue. The case is political nonsense and will end up as I predicted.

No, she wasn't She was the defendant of the original case.

The courts of Colorado decided the case based on the evidence provided.

Also- a judges ruling is no more or less valid based on who they were appointed by.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes "living document" means something to me, that means the court can interpret the Constitution and the meaning of a phase in that document may means something different today than what it meant years ago but that is the function of the supreme court.

It only means that to a leftist. There is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution and it doesn't include the SCOTUS or the federal courts amending it from the bench.

 

[Rightguide]

No, she wasn't She was the defendant of the original case.

The courts of Colorado decided the case based on the evidence provided.

Also- a judges ruling is no more or less valid based on who they were appointed by.

"Colorado’s top election official told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they should keep Donald Trump off her state’s 2024 ballot because he is an “ineligible insurrectionist,” and she forcefully defended the process that led to his disqualification.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat and staunch Trump critic, offered perhaps her sharpest rebuke of Trump to date, arguing that he can’t run for president because the 14th Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from holding office.

Griswold, in a brief with the Supreme Court, said she has a duty to protect “maximum enfranchisement” of Coloradan’s voting rights by ensuring “votes are not wasted on ineligible candidates.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/trump-legal-questions-what-matters
“Just as Colorado cannot be forced to place on its presidential primary ballot a naturalized citizen, a minor, or someone twice elected to the presidency, it also should not be forced to include a candidate found by its courts to have violated his oath to support the Constitution by enaging in insurrection,” Griswold wrote."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/poli...eme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/index.html

She's the one who brought the case to the court based on her personal finding that Trump was an "ineligible insurrectionist."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

"Colorado’s top election official told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they should keep Donald Trump off her state’s 2024 ballot because he is an “ineligible insurrectionist,” and she forcefully defended the process that led to his disqualification.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat and staunch Trump critic, offered perhaps her sharpest rebuke of Trump to date, arguing that he can’t run for president because the 14th Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from holding office.

Griswold, in a brief with the Supreme Court, said she has a duty to protect “maximum enfranchisement” of Coloradan’s voting rights by ensuring “votes are not wasted on ineligible candidates.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/trump-legal-questions-what-matters
“Just as Colorado cannot be forced to place on its presidential primary ballot a naturalized citizen, a minor, or someone twice elected to the presidency, it also should not be forced to include a candidate found by its courts to have violated his oath to support the Constitution by enaging in insurrection,” Griswold wrote."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/poli...eme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/index.html

She's the one who brought the case to the court based on her personal finding that Trump was an "ineligible insurrectionist."

lol, fuck you're stupid. AS the SOS she has to defend the ruling, but that doesn't mean she brought the case.

Claudine Schneider
Krista Kafer
Noah Bookbinder
Norma Anderson

and two who withheld their names from being published, however neither of those two could be Jena Griswold.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...trump-from-ballot-in-co-under-14th-amendment/

 

[ll74]

"Colorado’s top election official told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they should keep Donald Trump off her state’s 2024 ballot because he is an “ineligible insurrectionist,” and she forcefully defended the process that led to his disqualification.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat and staunch Trump critic, offered perhaps her sharpest rebuke of Trump to date, arguing that he can’t run for president because the 14th Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from holding office.

Griswold, in a brief with the Supreme Court, said she has a duty to protect “maximum enfranchisement” of Coloradan’s voting rights by ensuring “votes are not wasted on ineligible candidates.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/trump-legal-questions-what-matters
“Just as Colorado cannot be forced to place on its presidential primary ballot a naturalized citizen, a minor, or someone twice elected to the presidency, it also should not be forced to include a candidate found by its courts to have violated his oath to support the Constitution by enaging in insurrection,” Griswold wrote."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/poli...eme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/index.html

She's the one who brought the case to the court based on her personal finding that Trump was an "ineligible insurrectionist."

Griswold did not bring the case to court, dipshit.

The case was filed by several Republicans and Griswold was the defendant because of her role as Secretary of State.

Her brief was in defense of the State's right to decide their elections - as head of elections in the state. As the state had already ruled.