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

[Rightguide]

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/

 

[ll74]

So the state voters cannot challenge him being on the ballot?

 

[Sean Renaud]

We'll see how this goes but there is no doubt Trump caused an insurrection attempt.

 

[Rightguide]

So the state voters cannot challenge him being on the ballot?

Not by an application of what the 14th Amendment says. If they do it will be reversed by the SCOTUS, if not by an appellate court.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not by an application of what the 14th Amendment says. If they do it will be reversed by the SCOTUS, if not by an appellate court.

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

 

[ll74]

Not by an application of what the 14th Amendment says. If they do it will be reversed by the SCOTUS, if not by an appellate court.

That doesn't dictate whether they can challenge it. It may suggest that they will lose, but that's not for you to decide.

 

[Rightguide]

We'll see how this goes but there is no doubt Trump caused an insurrection attempt.

That is a lie.

 

[RoryN]

That is a lie.

You declaring something a "lie" is as useless as tits on a boar, grandpa.

 

[Rightguide]

That doesn't dictate whether they can challenge it. It may suggest that they will lose, but that's not for you to decide.

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

 

[Rightguide]

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

Show me.

 

[ll74]

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

So they can challeng it in court or they can't?

Has the court thrown the case out?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

---

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

---

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.

Seems to be pretty cut and clear in Section 1 that all citizens whether natural born or naturalized (i.e. legal citizen) have the same rights. Now as I always say the Constitution is only in play when you're losing an argument but I look at the words and state if this is true, then this is true.

 

[Rightguide]

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

---

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

---

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.

Seems to be pretty cut and clear in Section 1 that all citizens whether natural born or naturalized (i.e. legal citizen) have the same rights. Now as I always say the Constitution is only in play when you're losing an argument but I look at the words and state if this is true, then this is true.

That clause in the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President of the United States, according to the SCOTUS opinion I quoted above.

 

[LLCox]

That clause in the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President of the United States, according to the SCOTUS opinion I quoted above.

trump is not the President

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your quote doesn't say shit about being President. We'll see since someone is going to test it.

 

[Treeview]

Your quote doesn't say shit about being President. We'll see since someone is going to test it.

There are at least three other states with dogs in the race. Four more cases to run through the process. Each must have been written to take the issue through the system in different ways. Three more ways to test. That's not counting appeals etc.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Like I said I make no predictions on this one other than it will be fun to watch.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

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

Spoiler alert. Trump went against the Constitution he swore to uphold.

 

[SmokingFap]

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/

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

Winning!

 

[YDB95]

Spoiler alert. Trump went against the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Capping off a lifetime of ignoring any law he didn't like. Lest we forget, that (plus making it OK to be openly racist again) is what his fans like about him.

 

[Bray123]

Just because Breitbart publishes an opinion to comfort their poorly educated readership it doesn't mean it's correct. All it means is that they are selling adverts to rednecks.

Judge Clarence may well back up the people who put him in that position though, that is how bribery works.

 

[Bray123]

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?

Because he's already saying that the 2024 election will be rigged against him, in the same way that he said prior to 2020 that the only way he could lose would be by fraud. That's his MO, and why there were idiots smashing their way into the Capitol looking to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.

The same people (minus those incarcerated for believing his lies) will try again.

 

[SmokingFap]

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?

Actually, I do trust voters to make the call, just like they did resoundingly in 2020. And I honestly don't think that Ol' Babydoll Hands should be kept off any ballots unless (and until) he's actually convicted of fomenting or aiding an insurrection. And I'm sure you also trust the voters to decide the membership in Congress, after all the racially-gerrymandered states are forced to redraw their unconstitutional and illegal maps. I'm aware that doesn't affect presidential elections, but it does affect two-thirds of the federal government (including judiciary confirmations).

 

[SmokingFap]

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.

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

 

[Bray123]

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.

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

The only reason why people think the election was rigged is because Trump keeps on telling you so.